If Kansas state employees weren’t feeling unappreciated before, Gov. Sam Brownback has given them several more reasons to be concerned about the security of their jobs and their retirement.

First came the governor’s decision to use $58 million that was supposed to go into the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System to pay other state expenses for the current fiscal year. That set back the schedule for making the KPERS fund solvent again, so the governor decided to pursue the risky strategy of selling $1.5 billion in pension bonds so the state could invest that money and hope it earns more revenue than the state pays out in interest on the bonds. State employees will be the winners or losers.

Then, on Tuesday, Brownback decided to rescind a 2007 executive order that protected state employees from harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender equality. Lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgendered individuals shouldn’t have that special protection, he said, unless the Kansas Legislature specifically gives it back to them.

While other states are extending rights to this population, Kansas is cutting them back. What is the problem Brownback is trying to solve? Why now? Is he trying to impress a certain political audience or is he just promoting his own narrow ideology? Either way, his move sends an unsettling message to current, as well as prospective, LGBT employees. Some observers say Brownback’s action may have a negative impact not only among state employees but among private businesses seeking locations that welcome a diverse group of workers.

The next day, in timing they claimed was only coincidental, Kansas Department of Administration officials announced a whole package of changes to the state’s personnel policies. Among other changes, the new policies endanger longevity bonuses for classified employees, place new restrictions on the state’s shared leave policy, and reduce employees’ options to appeal job evaluations they think are unfair.

The policy also gives state agencies broad authority to hire employees into unclassified positions rather than maintain those positions as part of the classified civil service system. Unclassified employees have fewer job protections and can be fired at will. The shift of employees from classified to unclassified positions already has occurred in several Kansas departments, which eliminated classified positions and forced the employees who held those jobs to shift to unclassified status.

Eliminating unclassified jobs may make it easier to get rid of some substandard employees but it also makes it easier for politically appointed bosses to get rid of good, long-term employees who don’t sufficiently toe their ideological line. The bosses then can fill those positions with employees — perhaps friends or political supporters — who are outside the civil service system and may or may not be well qualified for the jobs.

State employees have received low or no salary increases for a number of years. Now the state is adding less job security and an uncertain retirement system to the deal. How can the state hope to hire top talent with such an unattractive package?