A prominent local couple’s change of address has raised some eyebrows as well as some valid issues about how officials screen appointees to local boards and confirm information about candidates and voters.

First, let it be said that Roger and Sue Pine are respected members of the community with strong personal and business ties to Douglas County. The fact that their move across the county line to Leavenworth County has caused even a minor furor may have taken them by surprise, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue worthy of examination.

The first issue was raised when Roger Pine, who is a Kansas state senator representing the 3rd District, arrived at his regular Douglas County polling place to cast a ballot in the August primary. Someone on the election board knew Pine had moved and questioned whether he could legally vote in Douglas County even though he and his family continue to own property and operate a business there.

Although Pine was listed on the ballot as a Lawrence resident, that no longer was the case. He cast a provisional ballot that later was partially disallowed. He now has registered to vote in Leavenworth County, much of which also is part of his Kansas Senate district.

Roger Pine’s voting issue, however, also raised the question of where Sue Pine actually was living from May 2000 to January 2004, when she served on the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission. Although members of that commission are required by law to be Douglas County residents, Sue Pine concedes that she and her husband were living only part time in the county when she was appointed and gradually spent more time in their new Leavenworth County home.

She said that she didn’t believe she was doing anything wrong by serving on the Planning Commission, but the fact that she consulted the family’s personal attorney about the issue seems to indicate there was some question in her mind. However, she didn’t share any concerns about her residency with city and county officials.

There are no plans to review any Planning Commission issues on which Pine voted, so this whole matter apparently is water under the proverbial bridge, but it does point out the need to raise awareness of the residency law and tighten up the system for making sure it’s enforced.

The Pines still have a substantial business interest in Douglas County, but they are not the only people who own property or businesses in a county in which they would like – but are not allowed by law – to vote because they live elsewhere. Perhaps their failure to change their legal residence and voter registration was a simple oversight, but this incident is a reminder that such details are important, especially for people serving in appointed and elected public positions.