Welcome to our online chat with Kansas Senate President Dave Kerr.
The chat took place at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb. 10 and is now closed, but you can read the full transcript on this page.
Moderator: We'll begin our chat with Sen. David Kerr in just a few moments. Thanks for joining us.
Abe, Lawrence: What is your position in regard to the Vanpool program? It appears that there are some IRS regulations that allow reducing employee wages for riding the van pools (similar to the cafeteria plan for healthcare). Would the state be willing to look into that?
Sen. Kerr: A lot of legislators were somewhat dismayed that the administration decided to eliminate the vanpool program. In fact, I have had both phone calls and letters about it saying it is self-supporting. I took that information, wrote the the deputy secretary of administration, and got the response that it was not self-supporting by several cents per mile. I further then asked whether they had contacted the users of the vanpool to find out if they would be willing to fully fund the vanpool program. The response I got was that they were going to bring me reams of information. That's not what I asked for. I can say for sure there is interest in the Legislature in looking into the vanpool issue further. I haven't focused on that previously, but it does sound like that would be interesting. I do know there are senators who are going to look at it more deeply.
Tyson, Leawood: Do you support concealed carry in Kansas? You say that you are willing to consider it but are you really going to "politic" the bill and kill it in committee before it can reach the Senate floor?
Sen. Kerr: Answering the last question first, I have no doubt that the issue of concealed carry will be dealt with once again on the Senate floor. It is not my practice to try to bottle up issues that a lot of senators care about in committee. One of the things that people need to understand is that any senator can carry an amendment to a bill and get their issue heard anyway. There will be a vote on concealed carry this session. The way that a lot of people look at this issue is "are we safer with concealed carry or without concealed carry?" Proponents contend that in those states that have converted from non-concealed carry to concealed carry, that violent crime has diminished. I have asked a number of them to provide me with independent information. A number of them have said "I'll get you that" but, so far, none of them have brought it forward. I'm ready and anxious to review that information, should it arrive.
Mike, Anthony: The debate over increasing gambling in the state of Kansas has been gaining momentum the past couple of years. It seems that there are many people in favor of increasing gambling, especially in light of the tax revenue and opportunity for economic development. Is the Legislature committed to exploring the issue from all perspectives?
Sen. Kerr: There is a lot of legislative interest in additional gambling and this governor is an especially strong proponent of gambling. Her recent proposal - and I believe we are just receiving the bill that would carry out her proposal today - some people have called "gambling to the max." It would authorize five destination casinos, slot machines in race tracks, and additional tribal casino and also video lottery or something at the fraternal organizations across the state. I think it seems to a lot of people who have not been favorable to more gambling that the proponents seem to think this is new money that isn't being spent for anything else today. In fact, adding gambling to the mix of alternatives of ways to spend one's disposable income is just that. It's not something that creates new money in the state, but a lot of the owners and operators would ultimately be out of state; it would actually drain a lot of money out of the state of Kansas. But it could create a money source in the short term before they look at consequences. It's not a new source of money that simply creates something that isn't here today. It just changes the way that money is being spent and gives the state government another way to tax it. With that in mind, I think there is growing support for some kind of gambling alternative in Kansas. What I think I have seen in the past year is the growing belief that maybe a destination casino in Wyandotte County to draw back some of the gambling money that is going across the state line to the Missouri river boats is probably a good idea. The alternative that seems to have lost support in the last year is gambling at the race tracks. I have no doubt that there will be votes on gambling in the House and Senate this year.
Margretta, Lawrence: For several years, state employees haven't been getting raises. Do you think that the Legislature will pass Gov. Sebelius' proposed 3 percent increase? And do you think that the state will ever manage to raise our hourly payrates to something commensurate with other businesses in Kansas and at peer institutions?
Sen. Kerr: You know the Legislature would very much like to follow through on what the governor has proposed in her pay raise. The problem is that the governor funded that pay raise of $26 million with only $6 million from the state's general fund. The other $20 million she takes from various fees. She takes money from wildlife license fees, and that may constitue a diversion in the eyes of the federal government and those monies might have to be repaid at a later date. She takes money out of student parking fees and activity fees at the universities - she has swept up monies that we never believed in the past to belong to the state of Kansas. In some cases, bonds have even been sold against those fees to fund the improvements to parking lots and to dormitories. The Legislature has a problem. The Legislature has either to go along with what we believe is wrong by taking money that doesn't belong to us or try to squeeze money out of elsewhere to make up for the places the governor gets the money that we think is wrong or we have to not pass the pay increases. The governor has put us in a very difficult position. People should know that if they get that pay raise, that the source of the money for the pay raise may well be taking money from funds that don't even belong to the state.
James, Lawrence: What education reforms do you see likely to occur this year? Does the Legislature foresee a change in how schools are funded and in requiring accountability from the schools?
Sen. Kerr: It's interesting that the question brings up the issue of accountability because it doesn't appear to me that Judge Bullock's decision focuses on accountability at all. I think a lot of legislators would have much preferred that accountability measures get equal weight with funding measures. So a lot of the focus is on trying to figure out whether we should try to react to a district judge's preliminary interim order or whether we should try to move quickly to get the issue before the Supreme Court so that we have a final decision that we can react to with more certainty. There are many things about the decision that cause legislators concerns, not the least of these is that he indicates that the funding for K-12 education is unconstitutionally inadequate. He implies strongly that he thinks it might take a billion dollars a year to fund K-12 education properly. Currently, 52 percent of the state general fund goes directly to K-12 schools, and that is about $2.5 billion. They get substantial additional money from the property tax. So legislators are in a box of trying to figure out whether to try to correct some of the things about the school finance formula that the judge finds to be questionable, even if they don't believe they should raise substantial new taxes at a time when the economy is just emerging from a serious recession. I think we will push to have an early appeal of the judge's decision to the Supreme Court, but we may also try to find ways in which we can address some of the issues that are raised by his decision.
Overland Park: I voted for the Kerr-Birch 'ticket' a year ago and wonder if Senator Kerr would run for governor again. I do not believe that Governor Sebelius is finding solutions to our state's problems and wish a fiscal conservative was in charge.
Sen. Kerr: I very much enjoyed my opportunity to run for Governor in 2002. Some people come out of an unsuccessful bid for an office like that - considering that it takes so much time and energy and persional expense - and they come out of it with feelings of frustration and maybe being even sorry that they took it on. I don't feel that way at all. I met hundreds - even thousands - of great Kansans as a part of that undertaking, and feel very good about the kind of campaign that we ran. As far as doing it again, first of all, it's a long way off, and number two, I am quite pleased to be in the role of president of the Senate and I have another campaign this year for re-election to the Senate if I am to continue in that role.
Moderator: We'd like to thank Senator Kerr for joining us this afternoon. Our next chat is with House Speaker Doug Mays at 3:30 p.m. on Feb. 26.
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.