L&T Publisher Earl Watt

Listening to some of the responses from the recent Seward County Commissioners forum, you would think it impossible to ever have an advisory vote in Kansas. Perhaps the best statement of the night was made by Dist. 2 candidate Kay Burtzloff when she started by saying she was told that such elections were not legal.

And then she said something that must send shivers down the spine of the bureaucracy.

“I’m going to have to check on that,” she said.

Uh-oh.

That’s a far cry from previous commissioners who told us if we wanted to know something we should just ask the very person that has been the source of questionable data.

Burtzloff may have put herself in a tough position with the deep state by believing you can “check” on statements being made.

Burtzloff and I don’t see eye to eye on many things politically. We are about as far apart as the east is from the west. But she at least was willing to maintain some skepticism about such an asinine statement that Seward County could not hold an advisory vote on wind.

Anyone who accepted that statement as anywhere near accurate has no business serving in any position of public trust.

It’s not just wrong, it’s misleading and being used to silence the public.

Not only does Seward County have a history with advisory votes, including the corporate hog farm vote in 1997, but right now there is an advisory vote being sought in Pottawatomie County.

It is hard to try to intentionally mislead the public about advisory votes when one is literally taking place a few counties away.

Lizette Avalos-Morales, Jose Lara and Fred Bloom all said they supported a public vote. Bloom went so far as to say that it should have taken place a long time ago.

So far, Seward County has spent more than $330,000 on legal fees working on a deal with the wind company seeking special permission to put wind turbines in Seward County. That investment shouldn’t be seen as a reason to vote in favor of the project. As Bloom said, had a vote been taken “a long time ago,” perhaps that money wouldn’t have needed to be spent.

And even though it has been spent, believing a vote in support of wind farms will lead to reimbursement of those funds from the wind company is not justification, either. That’s like an addicted gambler trying to get his money back by putting the title of his house on the line after emptying his bank account. Again, not the type of judgement those in position of public trust should be using.

Burtzloff’s skepticism was a welcome sight. There has been little of it recently. It seems that the select few with input with the current commission majority are not to be questioned or challenged, and if you haven’t been asked what you believe is the best path forward, don’t feel bad. Very few have been, if any.

It seems this decision is completely internal. The only non-government advice being received appears to be coming from the company representatives themselves, lobbyists, if you will. I wonder what unbiased information they are providing.

At the hearing during Planning and Zoning, public comments were limited to a couple minutes, but the wind presentation was unlimited.

If Burtzloff is willing to at least not accept everything she is being told at face value, that is a step in the right direction. No one should wield such power over a commission as to be the single source of information, or claim they have done the research alone on behalf of us all.

We have five commissioners for a reason, and it’s not so they can all “join the team” and be led like lambs to the slaughter. We have five different commissioners to be independent of one another, to think for themselves and to seek alternative views to those they receive from administration and lobbyists.

It’s work to be a commissioner, and we should expect them from time to time to actually ask questions of administration, exhibit to the public the willingness to actually put the public interest above all else, and to hold staff accountable when it has proven to have given false or misleading advice in order to obtain an outcome they prefer.

Good administrators can provide opposing alternatives without putting their finger on the scale.

But public trust has been shattered after recent proposals, errors and incorrect information. Yet, the commission’s majority has not been willing to publicly hold anyone to account, including the botched RNR hearing that took place a day ofter the legal deadline.

Burtzloff was willing to question incorrect information, and I have to applaud her for being willing to publicly state she would have to check incorrect data. I encourage all commissioners and candidates to do likewise.