EARL WATT
• Leader & Times
EDITOR’S NOTE — This is Part 2 of a series of stories on the lawsuit filed by Seward County treasurer Mary Rose against the Seward County Board of County Commissioners. The first part addressed Rose’s discovery of unexplained tax collections concerning the DCP refund and how that discovery led to hostility toward the treasurer’s office.
When Seward County Treasurer Mary Rose believed she was coming under attack from administration and members of the Seward County Board of County Commissioners, she sought legal representation for her official capacity as treasurer. Since that time, the commission voted not to pay those fees and instead wanted Rose to use the counsel that represents the commission.
According to the court filing, “In June 2026, Commissioner Helm sought information from the Treasurer regarding the taxpayers that specifically protested the illegal mill levy. Specifically, Chairman Helm sought all the records for any individual who protested the illegal mill levy to the board of tax appeals. Targeting only those individuals. Based on the questionable nature of the request, targeting taxpayers based solely on their challenging the illegal mill levy, (Rose) consulted independent counsel because the requested information included personal information, such as names and addresses.”
Since Rose, as an independently elected public official, was being pressured for documents by a county commissioner, her claim said she needed independent counsel.
“(Rose) sought outside counsel for a number of other reasons as well; including to ensure that the request was legal and to ensure that the Treasurer followed applicable law and associated process,” according to the court filing. “The Board of County Commissioners had demanded that the Treasurer only speak to county counsel, who was simultaneously representing the BOCC, including Commissioner Helm — the very person who was seeking the information — a clear conflict of interest. (Rose’s) independent counsel subsequently advised County personnel that Commissioner Helm appeared to have submitted that request in his personal capacity, that counsel had reviewed the legality of the request, and that the responsive information could be released after the appropriate processing costs were determined and paid. (Rose) did not categorically refuse Commissioner Helm access to public records. Rather, Plaintiff required requests directed to her office to be handled through the lawful records process, when necessary, particularly when the requested information implicated taxpayer information, names, addresses, personally identifying information, redaction requirements, or production costs. Not only did Chairman Helm become angry at the Treasurer for not simply handing over the information, but he also refused to pay the fee unless a specific set of demands, that were not applicable to the statutory process or guidelines, were met.”
Rose said she was inundated with requests from Helm for information about the Treasurer’s office.
“Commissioner Helm’s repeated KORA requests directed to the Treasurer’s Office, including the Nov. 7, 2025 request following the Oct. 25 telephone exchange and the subsequent 2026 requests, form part of the chronology of increasing disputes between (Rose), individual members of the BOCC, and County Administration concerning access to Treasurer records and Plaintiff’s exercise of her statutory responsibilities.
That is what led Rose to seek independent representation, and a statement by county counsel demonstrated a bias toward Rose, according to the lawsuit filing.
“These events further demonstrate (Rose’s) continuing efforts to independently examine financial and administrative issues when she believed such review was necessary to protect public funds and ensure compliance,” according to the filing. “On or about May 15, 2026, the professional relationship between Plaintiff and County Counsel materially deteriorated. The deterioration followed an email concerning taxpayers who had made payments “under protest.” (Rose) alleges that County Counsel stated or represented in the email that taxpayers had made payments under protest ‘at your suggestion,’ referring to (Rose). (Rose) vigorously disputed that characterization. (She) concluded that she could no longer rely exclusively upon County Counsel for independent legal advice concerning disputes involving her office, County Administration, the BOCC, and her statutory responsibilities. This is because of the clear conflict of interest and associated actions by county counsel illustrated that County Counsel was not acting in the best interests of the County, its constituents, of the Treasurers office.”
To get legal counsel she felt represented the best interests of the people of Seward County and the Treasurer’s office, Rose approached Chris McGowne form hays who had experience dealing with taxing entities.
“(Rose) thereafter ceased relying upon County Counsel for those disputed matters and began seeking independent legal advice in order to ensure (she) was following the law and receiving independent legal advice without any conflicts of interest,” according to the complaint. “(Rose) alleges that obtaining independent counsel became necessary because the same County governmental structure whose actions she was questioning could not, in her view, provide independent advice to her concerning those disputes.”
Rose continued to examine the legality of providing taxpayer data and personal information by consulting the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals.
“On June 1, 2026, (Rose) contacted the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals concerning taxpayer documents that had previously been submitted and whether those materials could lawfully be shared. (Rose) also submitted a KORA request concerning documents including joint dismissals, orders, preliminary orders, small-claims materials, and a sworn statement from the Treasurer. On or about June 4, 2026, Plaintiff received communications concerning requests for specific forms associated with taxpayers challenging or protesting a levy. (Rose) responded that she had retained counsel and would respond after consulting counsel concerning the proper legal handling of the requested records. (Rose) did not refuse to perform her duties or permanently refuse lawful access to records. Rather, (Rose) sought legal guidance concerning what information could lawfully be released, what information required redaction, and what procedures and fees applied under Kansas law. (Rose) alleges that the requested materials included information concerning individual taxpayers and potentially personally identifying information.”
Despite needing to use independent counsel because of the conflict of interest, the Seward County Commission voted against paying the legal fees.
“When (Rose) retained McGowne Law Offices, P.A. to advise and represent the elected Treasurer concerning disputes involving the authority of the Treasurer, statutory duties, taxpayer information, Treasurer expenditures, actions of County Administration, actions of the BOCC, and matters in which the Treasurer’s legal interests differed from those being asserted by County Administration or the BOCC, the BOCC refused to authorize payment. (Rose) further alleges that this refusal is inconsistent with the treatment afforded other outside legal counsel whose services were associated with the Treasurer’s Office and undermines the BOCC’s stated position that separate counsel should not be paid merely because County Counsel was available.”
Rose’s lawsuit also states that previous treasurers had used independent counsel, and her use was not unprecedented.
Rose is seeking to have the district court order the commission to pay the legal fees.
