L&T Publisher Earl Watt
Thomas Jefferson once said, “The government you elect is the government you deserve.”
I would very much like to ask Jefferson about electing representatives who make promises to do one thing and then do another, but his point is well taken. Only by knowing the intentions of those we elect can we ever be able to predict if they will safeguard the will of the people.
Recently we discovered that the answer is not always.
But for better or worse, our system provided enough of an opportunity to demand change, and thanks to the cooperation of the former commissioners abdicating their positions, the way was cleared for new leadership who decided not to defend the massive 17 mill tax increase.
About a week ago there was a meeting with the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals that helped pave the way to not only support the new Seward County Commission in its efforts to return to Revenue Neutral, but also to work with the citizens who disagreed with the use of the process to determine the correct rate.
David Box and I filed complaints with BOTA shortly after the trespasses of the process took place, but about 173 others also filed under protest that the levy was illegal.
Soon, those people will be receiving correspondence that Seward County has voluntarily agreed to remove the massive tax hike and return to last year’s revenue.
By doing so, this should alleviate all the complaints at once.
In the end, the mill levy of about 58 mills that was passed 3-2 by the previous iteration of the commission will be reduced to 41.21 mills which not only removes the massive increase but reduces the mill levy from last year by about two mills because of the increase in valuation.
This will result in several thousand refunds of the difference being issued to those who have already paid their taxes either in part or in full and will reduce the second half due as well for those who chose to pay half in December.
While this is a victory for the people, there are still two very important considerations that remain.
The first is why we got here in the first place.
While administration can be helpful in providing commissioners with useful information, it cannot be the only information used.
I know.
One of my earliest jobs at the paper was computer coordinator. We were making the transition to full color, and at the time we did not have one computer that had a color monitor. Publisher Jim Elsberry tasked me in researching and finding what we needed. I found the machine I wanted and presented its benefits. Mr. Elsberry then asked me if it was a car, what would it be.
“A Cadillac,” I proudly stated.
“Find me a Chevy,” he replied.
And so I did.
But I learned from that process to make sure that any future machine I wanted was presented as the middle-of-the-road option, always finding something higher and something barely functional below.
Advice can be biased when coming from any one source, even if that source is me.
The new commission must not fall into the trap that led to the resignations and public discourse of the immediate past.
Anyone presenting data can skew it to their fancy. That is why it is critical that the source of the data must be trusted.
It comes as no surprise that the public has little trust in what is being presented as evidenced by the research and revelations provided by citizens who have dug into the data.
The public would have been unaware of signed documents with no correlating public vote. The public would have been unaware of the large number of bonuses being handed out.
The public would have been unaware of the Paid Time Off buy-back policy that allows some employees to take home several thousand dollars more than they signed up to receive. Most PTO policies are to protect an employee from losing income should they find themselves in a position where time off is needed. There is nothing wrong with such a benefit.
But to provide a buy-back is costly in two ways. For one, instead of the employee taking a day off and benefiting from it, the employee worked the day, and was paid, and then sold back half the hours of that worked day to the county for additional compensation.
Which brings us to the second consideration — how to reduce the cost of the county and preserve the reserve funds at the same time.
Last year when the county remained revenue neutral, they did not cut spending to match the revenue. Instead they decided to simply spend what was saved by previous commissions. In a matter of two years those same commissioners reduced the $7 million surplus to an estimated $2 million.
The current commission will have the challenge of cutting the $4.7 million sought through increased taxes and even more to stop spending the county into oblivion.
Already at a recent work session administration was obstructing the suggestions and recommendations of the elected commission.
Perhaps the tail used to wag the dog, but that can no longer be the case.
The elected commission must take the reins back from administration, and while they may be challenged at every turn with the current make-up, that can not be used as an excuse for failure.
Only the elected officials have the authority to vote on spending. Fingers can no longer be pointed at administration, software, etc. If obstruction to reductions exist, it is because the majority of the commission wills it, as the previous commission did.
It is up to the commission to overcome obstacles.
It would have been nice to have provided a transition period. Unfortunately, the challenges cannot wait. Cuts, not imaginary budget cuts but true expenditure cuts, must be made.
The commission must lead swiftly and openly. And as long as they put the people first, they can succeed.
