photo by: Contributed

Patrick Kelly

The issue of when elected officials are expected to explain why they voted the way they did doesn’t come up often as a campaign issue.

But the question emerged this week on the campaign trail for the Douglas County Commission. Sitting County Commissioner Patrick Kelly — who is seeking re-election in District No. 1 — sparked the issue after declining to answer a series of questions about why he voted the way he did on a matter involving whether a commissioner on the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission should be reappointed to the commission.

Instead, Kelly, who is completing his second term on the County Commission, told the Journal-World that those questions about how he voted shouldn’t be directed to him but should be directed to the chair of the commission, which currently is Commissioner Shannon Reid.

“As has been our practice, once the Commission has discussed an item in public, taken a vote, and reached a decision, questions directed to individual commissioners are referred to the Chair to respond on behalf of the Commission,” Kelly said via email.

Kelly provided that answer to the Journal-World on late Sunday night. On Monday, Douglas County Commissioner Karen Willey — who also was asked a similar set of questions about the Planning Commission nomination issue — gave the Journal-World an email response that said, in part: “If you want specific answers, you will need to work through the chair.”

Those responses created questions about whether Douglas County commissioners are operating under an agreed-upon practice that commissioners won’t directly answer certain questions from the public or press pertaining to how they voted. In Kelly’s Sunday response to the Journal-World he cited “our practice” as a reason for why he was declining to answer. On Monday, the Journal-World asked Kelly via email — Kelly routinely declines to participate in real-time interviews — what he was referring to with the phrase “our practice.” Was he referring to the entire Douglas County Commission? Kelly has not answered that question, among other follow up questions sent to him on Monday.

Following the responses of Kelly and Willey, the Journal-World reached out to the two other county commissioners seeking re-election to ask whether such a practice was in place at the County Commission.

County Commissioner Gene Dorsey, who is seeking re-election in District No. 4, said he couldn’t recall whether he was advised of such a practice during his orientation session, which was about 18 months ago when he joined the commission.

“If that has been the practice in the past, that needs to be looked at again because my constituents rely on me for communication, and not the chair of the commission,” Dorsey said in an interview with the Journal-World.

Commissioner Erica Anderson, who is seeking re-election in District No. 5, said she had not been advised of any such practice, and would not comply with any such request to refer questions to the chair.

“By no means am I going to refer people to the chair, Commissioner Reid, on why I voted the way I did,” Anderson said in an interview with the Journal-World. “Sometimes, I’m the ‘no’ vote and I want people to understand why I voted the way that I did.”

The Journal-World this week also reached out to all the candidates who are seeking one of the three seats on the five-member Douglas County Commission. Of those six candidates — Willey and Reid’s seats are not up for re-election — candidates largely distanced themselves from using any such practice. Even Kelly offered a new statement that created questions about when he specifically intends to have the chair speak on his behalf.

Ethan Spurling, who is challenging Dorsey in the Aug. 4 primary for the District No. 4 seat, once served as an elected official on the city council of his hometown in Frontenac. He said, if elected, he would not be referring questions to the County Commission chair.

“Respectfully, that is kind of an awkward position for an elected official to take,” Spurling said when asked if he would be following the practice spelled out by Kelly.

Further, Spurling said during his time as an elected official in Frontenac, he had never taken that approach.

“I can’t think of an instance while on the city council back home for four years, if I was ever asked by a constituent or the press or anybody else about how I felt about an issue or how a I voted on a particular issue, anytime that I deferred them to another member of the council or a member of the city staff,” Spurling said in an interview with the Journal-World.

He said he viewed it as an “obligation” of elected officials to be able to speak on their own behalf and “defend the actions they have taken.”

Kirsten Kuhn — who is running as a Libertarian and is set to take on the presumed Democratic nominee, Anderson, for the District No. 5 seat in the November general election — said the issue was clearcut in her mind.

“Absolutely, if you are receiving taxpayer dollars for your salary and representing them you have an obligation to speak to them fully and clarify any points they may not be understanding,” Kuhn said in an interview with the Journal-World.

Kuhn said she would answer any question from any resident of the county, regardless of whether they are in the District 5 area that she is seeking to represent.

“Every member of the public has every right to know your entire thought process,” Kuhn said.

Milton Scott, who is battling Kelly in the upcoming Democratic primary for District No. 1, said on Monday that he disagreed with Kelly’s position on the matter, and cited Kelly’s approach as a sign that changes needed to happen at the County Commission.

“I think the public has a right to know what stance we have and why we have that stance, and to be open and transparent about it,” Scott said in an interview with the Journal-World.

Scott on the campaign trail has spoken about how he believes county staff is sometimes directing county commissioners too much, and this week he said that may be an issue with how county commissioners are communicating with the public.

“I think it is important for the County Commission to recognize that we work for the constituency, and staff is the individuals who work for the County Commission,” Scott said.

Dorsey told the Journal-World this week that county administration does “like to know” what commissioners are talking to the press about, and he said on Monday that he likely would relay a summary of his conversation with the Journal-World to a county administration official. Dorsey, though, said he didn’t think county staff tried to control his message to the public.

“If a constituent in my district asks why I voted for or against something, I’m going to tell them,” Dorsey said.

Anderson told the Journal-World she actively tries to get residents to talk to her about the way she has voted on issues.

“I talk about the way I vote all the time,” Anderson said. “I always ask constituents if they have a question of how I voted, I encourage anyone to ask me to clarify how I voted about something.”

As for Kelly, following his Sunday response to the Journal-World that cited “our practice” to send certain question to the chair of the commission, the Journal-World asked via email a series of follow up questions about what he meant by that statement.

Those questions included how such a process actually works. Does the chair reach out to individual commissioners to ascertain the views of that commissioner after the fact? If so, does that ever create a possible open meetings violation? The Journal-World asked those specific questions to both Kelly and Willey, but did not receive a response to the those questions.

Kelly, though, did provide a general statement to the Journal-World on Monday after receiving the J-W’s follow up questions.

“I regularly communicate with constituents about my work as a commissioner,” Kelly said via email. “I answer emails, return phone calls, and have conversations with people throughout the community about the reasons for my decisions. Those conversations are an important part of representative government.

“The point I was making is a different one. When the Commission considers an appointment, I believe the appropriate place for commissioners to explain their thinking is during the public meeting before the vote, where every member of the public has equal access to that discussion. That discussion is part of the public record and is available to everyone.”

On Tuesday, the Journal-World again followed up with Kelly via email to try to ascertain whether that statement modifies his Sunday statement regarding “our practice,” which was broader and made no reference to the practice only applying to matters regarding appointments made by the County Commission.

In an effort to gain clarity, the Journal-World midday Tuesday asked Kelly two questions via email about how he would handle communication issues in the future as a commissioner: When would he participate in interviews explaining his vote on a matter, and when would he not participate in interviews explaining his vote on a matter?

As of 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, Kelly had not responded.