Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, March 10, 2011

Speaker O’Neal pushes to abolish State Board of Education, Kansas Board of Regents

March 10, 2011, 10:20 a.m. Updated March 10, 2011, 2:29 p.m.

Advertisement

House Speaker Mike O'Neal, R-Hutchinson, talks with State Board of Education member Sue Storm about his proposed constitutional amendment to abolish the education board and Kansas Board of Regents March 10, 2011. Seated in the center is Christie Kriegshauser, communications director for O'Neal's office.

House Speaker Mike O'Neal, R-Hutchinson, talks with State Board of Education member Sue Storm about his proposed constitutional amendment to abolish the education board and Kansas Board of Regents March 10, 2011. Seated in the center is Christie Kriegshauser, communications director for O'Neal's office.

— House Speaker Mike O'Neal, R-Hutchinson, on Thursday urged approval of a constitutional amendment that would abolish the State Board of Education and Kansas Board of Regents.

It would authorize the governor to select a Cabinet-level secretary of education.

“I do not see a great deal of coordination between the Board of Regents and K through 12 right now,” O'Neal told the House Education Committee.

He described the 10-member State Board of Education as “dysfunctional” because it has 5-5 votes on some issues.

But Gary Sherrer, chairman of the Kansas Board of Regents, and Ken Willard, a member of the State Board of Education, opposed the proposed constitutional amendment. Sherrer said it was “a solution seeking a problem.”

Currently, the nine-member Board of Regents, which supervises higher education, is appointed to staggered terms by the governor. The board hires a regents president. The Education Board is elected from districts and appoints a state education commissioner.

Sherrer said the regents was created in 1925 in order to protect higher education from political abuses and direct control of the governor.

“We have in place today a governance and coordination structure that encourages collaboration, reduces duplication, enhances Kansas' quality of life, and boosts the state's economy,” he said.

Willard said the Education Board would become more politically motivated if it were susceptible “to the changing political environment of the governor's office.”

“While the proposed new governance of education could, no doubt be made to work, the question is, what is the evidence that it would, in fact, serve the interests of the people of Kansas better than the cooperative leadership model now in effect,” Willard said.

Missy Taylor, with Kansas Families for Education, said the proposal would produce too much uncertainty within the education system.

“Every time a new governor is elected we could see a change in leadership for our educational system, and this could prove detrimental for our schools and our students,” she said.

John Masterson, president of Allen County Community College and chairman of the Community College Council of Presidents, said O’Neal’s plan would be disruptive to higher education.

“The current structure makes our educational system less subject to political forces,” he said.

O'Neal said his proposal may be better suited for legislative action during the 2012 legislative session. But, he said, he wanted the debate to start.

Proposed constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate before they can be placed on the ballot for voters to decide.

On Wednesday, the Education Committee recommended a proposed constitutional amendment from O’Neal that is aimed at preventing lawsuits against the state alleging inadequate funding of public schools.

Comments

gccs14r 3 years, 6 months ago

How about a constitutional amendment requiring legislators and the Governor to have at least a Master's in Public Policy? That makes a lot more sense.

0

notanota 3 years, 6 months ago

That would be a good start. I'd also like to see a minimum grade requirement in math courses.

0

blueberries 3 years, 6 months ago

Kansas is spelled "Kanas" in the first paragraph...

0

sciencegeek 3 years, 6 months ago

How DARE anyone tell the Legislature what to do! How DARE the state Supreme Court tell the Legislature that they're not upholding their responsibility to Kansas students? How DARE anyone disagree with the almighty O'Neal! You will be abolished!

If anyone thinks this is any more than arrogance on the part of the Legislative Branch, I have some ocean-front property in Pratt, Kansas available for sale.

0

Bob_Keeshan 3 years, 6 months ago

Indeed, let's remove the elected board of education. Less power to the voters.

Do the Tea Partiers understand that these are the politicians they are fervently supporting? The ones who want to consolidate power and give less power to democracy?

0

Frank Smith 3 years, 6 months ago

If you look at the Tea Party platform, it's largely a replica of the platform of David H. and Charles de Ganahl Koch.

In Alaska, for instance (as well as many other TP states) the TP US Senate candidate had repeal of the 17th Amendment in his platform. Though he was a (very lame) attorney, I don't even think he knew what the 17th Amendment was. It would roll the clock back to the 19th Century when US Senators were not elected in general elections, but were largely appointed by state legislatures. (Actually, in Kansas, it put two Populists in the Senate, but that was long ago.)

Removing the State Board of Education would let Brownback do what the fundamentalist majority (2000-2006) wanted to do to Kansas schools. Ban sex education, ban the teaching of evolution. (During the presidential debates, all the candidates were once asked if they didn't believe in evolution. Brownback's hand went up, along with Huckabee and Tancredo.) The Kochs want Charter Schools and vouchers so the fundies can send their kids to schools where they're taught the world is less than 7,000 years old.

The nitwits that vote for these characters barely understand what they're voting for. 40% of unionized workers voted for Tea Party and other Koch-backed candidates in 2010. Now in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Maine, Nevada, Oklahoma, Louisiana and many other states the Koch tools are wrecking the economy by taking money from the middle and working class, and giving ever bigger tax deductions to the filthy rich.

0

Frank Smith 3 years, 6 months ago

I don't know if the Kochs want to ban gay marriage, abortions, Mexicans or whatever. It's clear though they've figured out that they don't want to pay any taxes (they're worth $23 billion each, that's twenty-three thousand million dollars) and the fundamentalist morons like Mike O'Neal will perform unnatural acts if asked by Charles or David.

Congerssman Todd Tiahrt was another Koch favorite, like Brownback and Pompeo. None would have been in office without Koch support.

Was Todd for "Local Control?"

Au contraire.

Back almost ten years ago, the City of Washington D.C. wanted to curb the epidemic of HIV, HCV, syphilis, HCB, etc., that was being spread by non-sterile hypodermic needles.

So they wanted to fund a needle exchange program, with their own money. Todd got a "push poll" from the Family Research Council, which shopped it out to some other fundy nitwit pollsters, and claimed it was legitimate, and claimed the citizenry were opposed to such programs. Then Toddy denied permission to DC to do the program by putting up a fuss in the House Appropriations Subcommittee on D.C. with the help of the bogus poll.

Needle exchange programs not only reduce the incidence of blood-borne diseases, but they put active users of IV drugs in direct contact with substance abuse workers, who teach them about safer use all the time they are coaxing them into addiction treatment.

The next year, DC asked Congress to approve DC's own expenditure and Todd once again manned the fundy barricades. He failed in subcommittee, but stopped it in the full committee or the house floor.

So what part of "local control" didn't he understand? (Actually, the guy was such an idiot, I'm not sure he knew enough to take off his pants when he took a dump.)

That's exactly what you get when the Kochs fund the Christian loonies: The Millenialists, the Dispensationalists, the Charismatics, etc., etc., the lunatics running the asylum.

What you get is the American Taliban, presided over by Mullahs such as Speaker O'Neal.

What you get are states such as Kansas, where O'Neal has passed a bill through the house that would effectively stop state employees from contributing to PACs, by building impediments to such participation.

Welcome to our theocracy.

0

sciencegeek 3 years, 6 months ago

That might not be a bad idea. Do you think for one minute that Jesus would put up with the lying, self-serving hypocrites in charge of this state?

Check out the New Testament for what He thought of the Pharisees, currently known as the GOP. Blighted sepulchres, all!

0

manfred 3 years, 6 months ago

As Fox News Commentator Bernie Goldberg said, "If Jesus were alive today, he'd be a liberal."

Wow - that may be the first time I've non-ironically quoted something from Fox.

0

appleaday 3 years, 6 months ago

So they'll pass this and then when the pendulum swings the other way some day and we have a Democratic governor, we'll listen to them scream about abuses of power.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 6 months ago

Republicans have no solutions to actual problems, so as a distraction, they keep proposing to fix what ain't broken.

What a circus. When do we get the bread?

0

Shardwurm 3 years, 6 months ago

The Kansas Board of Education doesn't do anything.

Did you know that there are no 'State Requirements' for graduation? They provide 'guidelines' - actual graduation requirements are determined by the District.

That is why some districts require more math than others. Some let you graduate early while other don't want you to.

The KBOE doesn't contribute a whole lot.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 6 months ago

Hey! They contributed "Intelligent Design"! (And made our state the butt of jokes heard 'round the world.)

0

pittstatebb 3 years, 6 months ago

I am sorry but you are wrong. The state sets MINIMUM graduation requirements and allows district to set more stringent requirements. The current requirement is 21 credits of which 4 must be english, 3 math, 3 science, 3 history, 1 PE, 1 fine art and 6 elective.

http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1787

0

Kim Murphree 3 years, 6 months ago

Can't wait to see the new curriculum from the legislature...Limbaugh 101; Basic Beck 101; Sarah Palin's English 101; Dinosaurs & God's Children-Science 101; Women as Chattel-Civics 101; Mandatory Christianity-Civics 102; English is the Only Language-Language Arts 101; Greed is God-Ethics 101; White is Right-Social Studies 101; Advanced Economics-the Koch Brothers; Keep Your Head Down & Don't Ask Questions-Philosophy 101. Yahoo.

0

Kim Murphree 3 years, 6 months ago

Or should I say Yeeehaaaawww...

0

earline james 3 years, 6 months ago

Exactly. And Home Economics for the little girls and a Shop class for the little boys, no sex ed for anybody; and for that complete retro vibe, segregrate the water fountains and restrooms.
(I get ill just thinking about it.)

0

NTBC 3 years, 6 months ago

I LOVE this post - so true, so true!

0

Kirk Larson 3 years, 6 months ago

Sarah Palin's Geography 101-Just go out and look at what you can see from your porch.

0

kugrad 3 years, 6 months ago

The State Board of Education are ELECTED officials. We do not need a power grab by the legislature. It will hurt our schools and our society.

Do you want the actual CURRICULUM (the subjects taught at school) decided by politicians? Seriously! It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you are on, that would be a disaster for our nation.

0

Amy Albright 3 years, 6 months ago

Actually, the curriculum has been decided by 10 conservative morons in Texas— http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/21/texas-cooks-the-textbooks.html

0

GUMnNUTS 3 years, 6 months ago

Just when you thought things could not get more ridiculous from the feathered hair crowd over in Topuka.

0

jhawkinsf 3 years, 6 months ago

You really really don't want that.

0

llama726 3 years, 6 months ago

I don't know why teachers go to work anymore. Make the parents feel the pain for their electoral choices.

0

PugnaciousJayhawk 3 years, 6 months ago

Eliminating the Board of Regents could make sense if it meant that each school would have its own Board of Trustees. Unfortunately, I don't think that is the intent here.

0

beatrice 3 years, 6 months ago

Just imagine the governor appointing someone to head up education who not only doesn't believe in evolution, but actually believes the world is only 6,000 years old. That isn't too hard to imagine. Does Brownback believe in evolution? Does Brownback believe humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time? The Creationist Museum's director, or someone who shares his beliefs, may become the next Kansas director of education.

The most important question is -- Would you leave your child's education in the hands of Gov. Brownback? Even if you like Brownback and believe he would never do anything wrong by way of a child's education, what about the next governor not of your prefered political party?

The power grab happening around the country right now is astounding.

0

verity 3 years, 6 months ago

Not only astounding, but I predict a huge backlash as people begin to see this power grab for what it is---the exact opposite of democracy (or to get technical, republicanism). Are these people so stupid as not to realize that there will be a backlash and the harder they push, the harder the backlash will be?

And eventually another group will come into power. Do you rightwingers want the Democrats to have this much power over your lives and education?

Push too hard and there will be violence. While some people seem to long for violence, I think that most people would prefer there not to be.

0

Shardwurm 3 years, 6 months ago

It is amusing to see people start screaming about changes any time the word 'Education' is involved.

See my post above about the KBOE. I think people would be surprised that it doesn't have any real power over the districts.

As far as the Board of Regents - well, they've presided for years over our universities and during that time tuition has risen 400 percent above inflation, the schools are $500 million behind in repairs, $400/credit hour tuition is on the horizon, and our children are leaving college with mortgage-level debt.

I'm willing to give another system a try.

0

yourworstnightmare 3 years, 6 months ago

Raise tuition at Kansas State University!

0

Bob_Keeshan 3 years, 6 months ago

Yes, I recall you advocating for this loudly from 2003 to 2010.

0

guesswho 3 years, 6 months ago

The board of regents does not control how much the state gives them to spend. The amount the state gives has decreased steadily over the years while the need for repairs increases. The increase in tuition has helped to fill that gap, but not enough to cover the maintenance requirements.

0

pittstatebb 3 years, 6 months ago

And you can read my post in reply to your above post and understand that if you want the State to accredit your high school diploma you MUST meet their minimum requirements. It took 30 seconds of searching the KSDE site to find the information.

PS: No accredited degree = no college

0

Grump 3 years, 6 months ago

If this were to pass, K.U. would become the "Lawrence Bible College."

0

cowboy 3 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

remember_username 3 years, 6 months ago

Before long we'll see other states refusing to accept diplomas issues by Kansas schools. Just toss out those college applications with "Kansas" on them, funding reviewers will roll their eyes at grant requests, and some comedian will get famous with a "You know you're from Kansas if..." routine. Smart people should leave the state now before the stigma of coming from Kansas keeps them from finding employment elsewhere.

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 6 months ago

Well unless the person with the diploma has a blue and red uniform and a basketball in his locker. Then they will be more than happy to accept him.

0

Raiden 3 years, 6 months ago

The way O'Neal and his ilk are going there won't be anyone educated enough to go to college so employers won't have to worry about it.

0

BigPrune 3 years, 6 months ago

What do these people get paid to do anyway?

0

Bob_Keeshan 3 years, 6 months ago

Nobody has figured out what Mike O'Neal gets paid to do. Excellent question.

0

notanota 3 years, 6 months ago

He gets paid to toss people out of "open" legislative sessions and come up with very silly ideas.

0

Boston_Corbett 3 years, 6 months ago

Why not pass a constitutional amendment requiring the legislature to do nothing else until it can actually enact a revised budget reflecting actual revenues for the current fiscal year which will be over in less than four months.

0

overthemoon 3 years, 6 months ago

Agree, Thy haven't done one thing to provide a sustainable and realistic road map for the next 4-5 years. No strategy, no verifiable projection of the effect of their slash and burn tactics. NOTHING. If rational people (from both and all parties) don't seize this moment to stop the nonsense, we are truly doomed.

0

gudpoynt 3 years, 6 months ago

good post Paul R Getto.

for those who don't read other's links. ... here are (presumably) some of the powers that the Executive branch would have over your local school districts. Read this list, and as you're going through it, ask yourself whether you think these powers should best be left to the highly partisan Executive branch, controlled primarily by one person, or to an elected board of 10 (or more) people.

==== SOURCE: http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1787#91-31-40 =====

One or more of the following sanctions may be applied by the state board to a school that is conditionally accredited or not accredited:

(a) An order that district personnel or resources be reassigned or reallocated within the district by the local board of education;

(b) an order that the local board of education hire one or more designated persons to assist the school in making the changes necessary to improve student performance;

(c) a recommendation to the legislature that it approve a reduction in state funding to the local school district by an amount that will be added to the local property tax imposed by the local board of education;

(d) a recommendation that the legislature abolish or restructure the local district;

(e) a letter of notification and a press release announcing the accreditation status of the school; or

(f) other action, as deemed appropriate by the state board.

==== END SOURCE ====

0

native_daughter 3 years, 6 months ago

So, a tie when making a decision means that body is considered "dysfunctional"? I'm sure the Legislature is an exception! Good point Paul R. Getto.

Check out the meeting minutes of the State Board and see the votes for yourself: http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=3876

Here's just an overview January 2010: The motion carried 7‐3, with Bacon, Willard and Chappell voting in opposition. The motion carried 10‐0. The motion failed on a vote of 4‐6. Those voting in opposition were Dennis, Willard, Bacon, Shaver, Waugh and Martin. The motion carried 6‐4, with Cauble, Storm, Wims‐Campbell and Chappell voting in opposition. The motion carried 9‐1, with Chappell voting “no”.

Here's some of the same information from their December 2010 meeting: The motion which carried 8-0, with Storm and Bacon out of the room. The motion failed on a vote of 1-8-1, with Waugh, Shaver, Bacon and Chappell voting in opposition Willard abstaining. The motion carried 8 -0-1, with Shaver out of the room Chappell abstaining.

0

overthemoon 3 years, 6 months ago

Basic math...he says 5-5 decisions...on a board with 9 members. A second grader could point out the error in simple arithmetic there.

0

jafs 3 years, 6 months ago

All of the above decisions clearly show a board of 10 members:

7+3=10 10+0=10 4+6=10 6+4=10 9+1=10 1+8+1=10 8+1+1 abstention=10

Where do you get 9 members?

0

verity 3 years, 6 months ago

Have 11 board members. No tie. There, fixed it.

0

kugrad 3 years, 6 months ago

When faced with a radical proposal like this one, it is essential to ask the critical question: Why?

We already know these things about Mr. O'Neal: 1) He is ethically challenged - numerous complaints have been lodged against his ethical conduct, and not entirely by members of the opposition party 2) He is against public education in general.

This is political, and it has nothing to do with whatever public justification Mr. O'Neal will put forward. It is not an attempt to save money. It is not an attempt to improve our schools. There is no legitimate need to align KG-12 with courses offered by Universities (no state does that).

As I try to process this truly radical suggestion that seems more at place in the theatre of the absurd than in the legislature, two questions really bother me.

First, why is the House Speaker such an enemy of public education? It is not hyperbole to suggest that he actually wants to destroy public education. Seriously. That is not an exaggeration based on his past actions and statements. This is a man who plots against public education. How odd is that? Why would he oppose our public schools so much? Perhaps he wants to see privatized schools, but they would not be profitable if there were a free alternative. Perhaps he wants control over what is taught, so that children can be indoctrinated rather than educated, but must weaken the system first? I am reaching here, because I am dumbfounded trying to find a legitimate reason to try to damage a school system which succeeds in bringing 87% of it's fourth graders to grade level in reading and about the same in math (including every child with a disability being tested).

The second thing that bothers me is that this action has no justification that improves life for Kansans, and in particular offers nothing to improve education of Kansas children. In other words, the Speaker of the House is suggesting a radical change in our State's educational policy that has NOTHING TO DO WITH EDUCATING CHILDREN. There is no benefit to the children of the State of Kansas that would result from this change.

The government should serve the people. Any changes to our school policy should be for the good of the children of Kansas. This radical proposal fails on both levels.
0

kugrad 3 years, 6 months ago

Continuation due to length

We already have a governor whose own religious views have influenced his public policy. Our governor has almost zero cultural literacy and holds fundamentalist religious views that take an antiquated view towards the arts. As a result of his religious views, he attempted to end funding for the arts he finds objectionable in Kansas. There is no question that the governor's personal religious views influenced his unpopular decision to eliminate the Kansas Arts Commission. What would he do if he could control the decisions about curriculum currently made by the State Board of Education? Similarly, the Governor serves a master besides the voters (as does Speaker O'Neal). He appointed an employee of Americans for Prosperity as his budget director. Now, there is nothing wrong with this per se, but this particular employee was thoroughly lambasted BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY just last year as being "ignorant" about the budget of Kansas after he presented a ridiculous model budget in Topeka last year to the legislature. Now, the former object of bipartisan ridicule is in charge. Why? Either Brownback wants to hire and incompetent or because Americans for Prosperity spent so much helping him be elected. Take your pick, it is one or the other. What would prevent the governor from serving Koch Industries or AFP when making choices about our schools?

0

yourworstnightmare 3 years, 6 months ago

Election of a state board of education by district is an unusual way to do it. In other states, this is part of the governor's administration.

I see no reason why Kansas needs to have a KBOR elected by districts. Leave it to the governor, like other aspects of the executive branch.

What tends to happen in KBOR elections is that turn-out and voter attention is very low, allowing candidates to be elected without a thorough vetting of their credentials and by a vocal and motivated minority.

0

kugrad 3 years, 6 months ago

I fail to see how that would change with a governor appointing the Board. Instead, ALL the candidates could come from a vocal well-funded minority. Take for example the appointment of Steve Anderson, an accountant who worked for Americans for Prosperity, to the office of Budget Director. Mr. Anderson presented a model budget to legislators in Topeka last year. His budget received intense bi-partisan criticism. Topeka was actually in agreement on something; Anderson did not understand the Kansas State budget and his proposal was quite poor. Fast forward a year and he is the director. The only organization to give a "thorough vetting" of his credentials was apparently Koch Enterprises. I'm sorry, but turning the future of Kansas schools over to political appointees that may serve a business interest, rather than the wishes of parents of Kansas children, is a poor idea that could be disastrous. It is totally dishonest to frame this debate in terms of potential benefits to the state rather than discuss it honestly in it's true context, part of a broader, partisan power-grab. I would argue that winner-takes-all politics is a bad precedent to set and that it weakens our State and our nation.

0

Bob_Keeshan 3 years, 6 months ago

First, there are no KBOR elections. There are KBOE elections.

Second, those elections occur during the November general election cycle. As many people voted for the Board of Edudcation member representing Hutchinson as voted for Mike O'Neal.

Good golly, it is shocking how loose with basic facts so-called "conservatives" tend to be in order to defend a position. Can you defend this idea without making stuff up?

0

yourworstnightmare 3 years, 6 months ago

Yep, my mistake. I meant KBOE. KBOR is appointed.

0

kugrad 3 years, 6 months ago

That is misleading Nightmare because other states have much different structures with elected officials at different positions that don't even exist in Kansas.

There is no educational or education-related reason to make this radical change in the way Kansas educational policy is developed. It is an entirely political act on the speaker's part and to pretend otherwise would be wholly disingenuous.

0

Slowponder 3 years, 6 months ago

Why don't we have a constitutional amendment to abolish the Speaker of the House? Propose that one, Mr. Neal.

0

Raiden 3 years, 6 months ago

Didn't Brownback teacher her how to tie those knots?

0

newmath 3 years, 6 months ago

Sounds like a great idea. Lets take 10 elected positions and replace it with one political hack!

0

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 6 months ago

The last Republican President's remarks on education... "Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" --Florence, South Carolina, Jan. 11, 2000

Glenn Beck: "O-L-I-G-A-R-H-Y." –misspelling "oligarchy" on his chalk board while claiming he had deciphered a secret code that he said was proof President Obama was trying to create an "Oligarhy," Aug. 27, 2009, Glenn Beck show on FOX News Channel

Sarah Palin: "But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." --Sarah Palin, after being asked how she would handle the current hostilities between the two Koreas, interview on Glenn Beck's radio show, Nov. 24, 2010

I am looking forward to hearing Speaker O'Neil's views on education and how the Republican Party will "fix" it.

0

question4u 3 years, 6 months ago

Is there lead in the Hutchinson Water supply? That would explain some things.

0

slowplay 3 years, 6 months ago

I'll bet Hutchinson is real proud of their favorite son. It doesn't say a whole lot about the intelligence of the Repubs to elect him speaker. The craziest inmate is running the asylum.

0

yourworstnightmare 3 years, 6 months ago

The extent of representative democracy continues to be in flux. The USA is not a democracy, it is a representative democracy.

The 20th century saw a move toward more direct democracy (elected rather appointed senators, ballot issues in MO and CA, election of judges, etc.).

This move toward more direct democracy was accompanied by public education for all, leading to a more informed citizenry able to read and to comprehend proposals put forth on ballots and by politicians.

The attempts to undermine public education by those on the right over the last 30+ years will have effects on the country. Possibly, we will continue the march toward true democracy with an uninformed and ignorant populace, which will spell doom for the USA (we are already seeing it, IMHO).

Alternatively, we will begin to move toward more representative democracy where the political culture of the USA is represented by an educated and literate representative class.

The sad thing is that many on the populist right wing (tea partiers) work to undermine the very democracy they so cherish when they attack public education.

0

coderob 3 years, 6 months ago

This headline is a little misleading. He still wants a secretary of education. Surely, there has to be a precedent for this system somewhere. I'm just as against the senseless Brownback cuts as the next guy, but the headline for this article is definitely baiting.

0

rhd99 3 years, 6 months ago

So, the battle of evolution vs creationism is FINALLY over? The world is coming to an end. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

0

bluedawg79 3 years, 6 months ago

This all reminds me of when Voldemort came back and his hooligans took over the Ministry of Magic. Where's Harry Potter when you need him!? Save us, Harry!

0

Randall Uhrich 3 years, 6 months ago

When are they going to do something about all the elephants roaming the Interstate? That's a more pressing problem. Oh yeah, what about the jobs?

0

friendlyjhawk 3 years, 6 months ago

"Sherrer said the regents was created in 1925 in order to protect higher education from political abuses and direct control of the governor" Laughed at that. Sure hasn't happened lately. Protection is just another Kansas town.

0

ivalueamerica 3 years, 6 months ago

The GOP is doing now exactly what they did before during the gingrich sweep back in the day.

They mistook public disatisfaction with government as some sort of ultra conservative mandate and grab as much as they can.

And just like then, they will suffer for it.

0

Raiden 3 years, 6 months ago

Clearly the wannabe Emperor O'Neal has no clothes now!

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 6 months ago

More BIG Government by well UNIFORMED politicians.

0

coderob 3 years, 6 months ago

Did you mean uniformed or uninformed? Either way, it would be fun to see Brownback on an episode of Queer Eye.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.