Kansas editorials

By The Associated Press

Here are excerpts from recent editorials in Kansas newspapers:

------

April 17.

The Kansas City Star, on promoting economic development:

As a small state with a declining population and a worsening financial picture, Kansas needs to be smart about promoting economic development.

The state has at least five major initiatives and a host of smaller ones aimed at recruiting employers and growing the jobs base. But the efforts don't always fit together neatly, the result being an incomplete puzzle with some pieces missing and others out of place.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius wants to rearrange the picture by eliminating one of the largest pieces.

She has vetoed the Legislature's recommendation that the Kansas Technology Enterprise Corp. receive $12.1 million in state funding next year, and proposed that some of its functions be transferred into the state Department of Commerce.

Supporters of the agency, known as KTEC, are fighting to keep it intact. They say the loss of KTEC's network and expertise will slow economic development in Kansas.

The agency is well-connected within and outside of Kansas, and has unquestionably helped to recruit businesses, encourage entrepreneurs and assist universities with technology-related programs. Some studies have given Kansas a high rating for its entrepreneurial climate, and credited KTEC's work.

But a recent review of the agency by an Indianapolis-based research firm, Thomas P. Miller and Associates, raised questions about whether KTEC is accomplishing its mission. The state continues to rank in the bottom quartile of many technology-based rankings, it noted. ...

States are smart to spend money to recruit high-tech companies that will create good-paying jobs and provide opportunities for talented workers.

But those efforts must be done strategically and with clear goals in mind. Success must be defined not by activities -- of which KTEC can list many -- but by measurable results. Evaluators over the years have had difficulty assessing KTEC's outcomes.

Kansas' budget struggles and the new opportunities emerging in the biotech and energy industries suggest that a revamp of economic development efforts is in order.

Sebelius's veto of KTEC's funding is intended to get that job started. Lawmakers should seize the opportunity.

----

April 17.

The Hutchinson News, on consolidation of local government:

With the uproar over taxes and government spending and the state in a budget crunch like few others, it is even more strange that Kansas legislators won't get out of the way so local governments can consolidate if they so wish.

With the Legislature in recess before its wrap-up session, House Speaker Mike O'Neal, R-Hutchinson, said the prospects were not good that a city-county consolidation bill would reach a final vote before his chamber yet this session.

That is unfortunate and, again, strange.

Such legislation would not mandate consolidation. It just would remove the requirement that such consolidations would have to come before the Legislature before proceeding. It would, in other words, remove some red tape.

This bill has been tough to pass for repeated legislative sessions now. This would seem to be a good time for legislators to shed whatever their hang-up is about it. ...

State. Sen. Chris Steineger, D-Kansas City, has proposed compressing Kansas' 105 counties into 13. He points to a study by a University of Kansas professor that estimates $700 million to $800 million could be saved through county consolidation. Professor Art Hall says 21 of Kansas' counties rank in the top 100 of U.S. counties for the number of employees per capita.

Steineger isn't gaining much traction in Topeka with his idea, but the point remains. If you want to see evidence of government growth, size and waste, it can be found just as much at the local level as the federal. And Kansas ranks in the top three states for number of units of government per capita.

Based on the compelling merits of fiscal government efficiency, O'Neal should try to fashion a way to get a vote on this bill.

After all, do we want less government or don't we?

----

April 16.

Lawrence Journal-World, on relationships at University of Kansas:

What is the protocol of higher education? Is it proper for departing administrators to put into place policies or practices that a new administration will have to follow and execute when he or she moves into the vacated office?

Should incoming presidents and chancellors be handcuffed by policies and actions that the new administrator may not favor?

In June, Robert Hemenway will retire as Kansas University's chancellor and Provost Richard Lariviere will leave KU to take the presidency of the University of Oregon.

Their replacements have not been selected and the question is: Should the new administrators be allowed the luxury of making their own decisions about important matters and challenges when they take office, or should Hemenway and Lariviere make commitments that hog-tie the incoming chancellor and provost?

For example ... it was announced Hemenway had agreed to give KU Athletics Director Lew Perkins an additional $750,000 bonus if the controversial AD stayed in office through June 30, 10 weeks from now. That amount was added to the $1.3 million "retention" bonus that was part of Perkins' original 2003 contract after the AD agreed in 2006 not to pursue a recruitment effort by the University of Iowa.

There is growing anger, frustration and disappointment among faculty members over the cozy relationship between Hemenway and Perkins. The news about Perkins' additional bonus strikes particularly hard at a time when cuts are being made in numerous areas of the university and the athletics department has just said it cannot afford to pick up the tab for discounted faculty tickets to KU athletic events. ...

What will the new chancellor think about Perkins and the widespread belief that the athletics director and the chancellor are almost attached at the hip? Will Perkins want to stay at KU if he cannot have the freedom he has enjoyed with Hemenway? Will he decide to move on, or is there some way Hemenway can extend Perkins' contract to make it difficult and/or costly for a new chancellor to terminate him?

Again, what are current and retired faculty members to think when they are told the athletics department cannot afford to provide discounted faculty and staff tickets to athletics events while, at the same time, Perkins, one of the nation's highest paid ADs, is in line for a $2.05 million bonus?

Something is out of whack at KU.

----

April 16.

The Hays Daily News, on learning autos at Eisenhower Library:

Anybody who has visited the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum in Abilene comes away with either new or expanded knowledge of America during World War II and afterward. Of the many items of historical interest on display is an automobile that belonged to Mamie Eisenhower's mother, Mrs. John Sheldon Doud.

Frequently driven by Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower himself, the car is an electric vehicle built by Rauch and Lang Carriage Co. in 1914. While fancy in its accouterment -- including rotating bucket seats, a removable oversized brass clock and a crystal vase to hold flowers -- what captures our attention is the range of 100 miles the car could motor with one charge. Of course, one could only drive 19 miles per hour but the automobile industry was on its way to perfecting battery-powered vehicles.

In fact, it was during the 1830s the first crude electric carriage was invented in Scotland. France and Great Britain were developing widespread usage of EVs in the late 1800s. The United States caught the charge during the 1890s. By 1897, a fleet of New York City taxis was placed on the streets by the Electric Carriage and Wagon Co. of Philadelphia.

The Chicago-based Royal Automobile Co. made the Royal, which had a range of 75 miles by the year 1905.

While the fancier Eisenhower vehicle cost more than $4,000, basic EVs could be had for under $1,000. Adjusting for inflation, a $1,000 car purchased in 1914 would cost $21,244 in 2008 dollars.

Fast-forward to today and we find GM getting ready to produce the Chevrolet Volt, which will cost up to $40,000 and have a range of 40 miles (although the hybrid car also will feature a gasoline engine to help it go farther). Toyota is developing the FT-EV that will go 50 miles. Nissan's EV will go 100 miles. Chrysler and Ford are working on vehicles that have no range or cost estimates as of yet.

Tesla Motors appears to have the longest range vehicle on the market at 244 miles. Of course, its Roadster fetches $109,000.

It doesn't appear we've made much progress during the past 100 years with electric vehicles.

Many factors led to industry's demise, such as the discovery of vast crude oil supplies in Texas, Henry Ford's mass production of internal combustion engine vehicles and improved roads connecting cities beyond the reach of those early EVs.

But is the engineering capability of automakers so base we can't exceed what was commercially available a century ago? We would hope not. Particularly given the extraordinary technological advances during the past 100 years and the billions and billions of dollars being poured into GM and Chrysler's bank accounts today.

If President Barack Obama is going to fulfill his campaign pledge to put 1 million plug-in hybrid cars on U.S. highways by 2015, the auto industry needs to create products reflecting today's consumer demands.

We need dependable, affordable vehicles capable of carrying us long distances.

Perhaps the engineers would be well-served by visiting the Abilene tourist attraction. The 95-year-old Rauch and Lang auto boasts features that surpass many of today's concept cars.

----

April 16.

Topeka Capital-Journal, on helmet law:

It happens every spring in Kansas, like the onset of thunderstorms.

The lightning is an outbreak of motorcycle accidents as riders hit the road again after another long winter.

The thunder is debate about whether there should be a mandatory helmet law in the state.

But wait a second. Let's not move from A to B so fast.

The key to making roads safer goes way beyond a helmet law, which could only do so much to keep motorcyclists from dying or getting hurt.

That's not a matter of opinion. It's a conclusion based on facts from the Kansas Department of Transportation. ...

That's not a knock on helmets. Many motorcyclists would no sooner ride without one than without pants. Then again, many of them also realize that a helmet won't guarantee they'll survive a high-speed crash.

So we can fight about a helmet law until our throats are raw and our knuckles are bloody, and we'll still have dead or broken bodies on the roads starting in springtime every year.

State officials have acknowledged as much, which is why they created a statewide motorcycle safety advisory committee after the number of fatalities skyrocketed to 64 in 2006 from 35 the previous year. ...

Far too many drivers of passenger cars don't watch out for motorcycles, while far too many motorcyclists don't take adequate precaution to avoid dangerous situations. Far too many members of both groups drive distracted or drunk, which is especially foolhardy for motorcyclists.

Look for motorcycle safety campaigns to start popping up in a couple of weeks, as May has been designated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as Motorcycle Awareness Month.

Meanwhile, the helmet debate is likely to start simmering again, as usual. That's fine, but we need to spend at least as much time and energy talking about safe driving and sharing the road as whether the helmet law needs to be changed.

----

April 15.

The Wichita Eagle, on coal-fired power plants:

Surprising no one, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed the latest legislative attempt to approve two large coal-fired power plants near Holcomb in Finney County.

The Legislature should take a good look at all the economic, political and regulatory changes affecting new coal plants, then take Sebelius' fourth "no" for an answer.

Instead, GOP legislative leaders can be expected to spend coming days twisting House members' arms, looking for 10 more votes to override the veto at last. Maybe they'll find them.

If so, would Sunflower Electric Power Corp. even be able to build the plants?

We've asked that question for many months, as we've watched proposed coal-fired plants in other states falter because of an inability to find financing in this recession and the likelihood that a Democratic-controlled Congress and new climate-conscious president will approve regulation and taxation of carbon emissions. ...

The long-standing arguments against the coal bill remain strong, too, including that the 1,400-megawatt plants would generate only 200 megawatts of power for Kansas annually and perhaps 140 more jobs after construction ends, while sticking the state with all 11 million tons of carbon dioxide.

The bill also steps on other branches of government, usurping the regulatory authority of Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby and pre-empting both the appeals process for his 2007 denial of an air permit for the plant and Sunflower's legal challenge of it. Plus, the bill disregards an attorney general's opinion shoring up Bremby's power to deny the permit.

Meanwhile, this continuing fight is denying the state the value of the renewable energy measures in the bill, including modest net-metering provisions.

Coal plants will continue to be a major generator of Kansas' power for the foreseeable future. But legislative leaders should stop trying to push through two new plants that would be far larger than necessary to meet Kansans' needs. This annual spring dance is getting old -- and getting Kansas nowhere in pursuit of a cleaner energy future.