News about the travel bill a former member of the Kansas State Board of Education has charged to taxpayers is a reminder that the current board should make sure to revisit its travel policy before such questionable travel occurs again.

Documents requested by the Journal-World show that former board member Connie Morris of St. Francis, charged taxpayers $2,339 for a three-day trip to Washington, D.C., in December, just three weeks before the end of her term. During those three days, Morris reported, she met with people she didn’t identify to discuss the following topics: illegal immigration, English as the official language, science standards and the evolution debate, judicial activism, media bias, agriculture, federal office closures, faith-based initiatives and economic development.

Although she characterized the meetings as “extremely productive and encouraging,” it seems the meetings were far more important to Morris’ personal future than to the people of Kansas, who chose not to re-elect her to her board seat. She implied as much in comments made before her trip when she noted that “I’m young and there are a lot of doors opening.”

The state’s pocketbook also seemed to be opening for Morris, who drove to Washington, D.C., and charged the state $1,300 in mileage expenses. She said that was fair because that’s about what it would have cost her to fly to Washington and pay for transportation costs during her stay. A quick check on Monday showed round-trip flights to Washington, D.C., from Kansas City for under $250 and from Hays, which would be closer for Morris, for under $350. How many taxi or limousine rides would someone have to take in three days to rack up an additional $950 or $1,050 in transportation costs?

In Morris’ defense, however, her travel was approved by fellow board members who said the current travel policy made them powerless to deny her request. And a new policy proposed in December failed on a 5-5 vote because some board members said it was unfair to restrict the future travel of other board members after approving Morris’ trip. Board members who took that questionable position, however, pledged to raise the issue again after new board members took their seats in January.

Morris maintained that objections to her late-term travel were politically motivated and a personal attack on her. For the state Board of Education not to pursue revision to its travel policy now would seem to lend credence to that claim.

Now, not when another problem arises, is the time to deal with this issue. The Board of Education – and perhaps other state bodies – should fully review the policies that allow their members to travel at state expense. There is value in members of state boards networking with and learning from their peers in other states as well as experts in various fields, but any travel charged to state taxpayers must be planned in the most responsible and economical manner possible.