Kansas City Star. April 26, 2021.
Editorial: Why pay severance if cop who shot teen left freely? Kansas probes officer resignation
Did the police officer who shot and killed an Overland Park teen really resign voluntarily? And if so, will all others who resign “voluntarily” get a sweet $70,000 severance package as he did?
That’s the prickly predicament Overland Park officials have put themselves and taxpayers in by swearing to the Kansas Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training, or CPOST, that officer Clayton Jenison resigned purely of his own accord.
That dubious claim - made to CPOST under penalty of perjury - certainly is bogus on its face.
For one thing, city officials admit they approached Jenison about him resigning - not the other way around - after he fatally shot 17-year-old John Albers while on a welfare check on the troubled youth in January 2018.
For another thing, there’s that tidy little severance, which became publicly known only last June. Who, except for the gold-parachuted CEO, gets to take a year’s pay when leaving a job by choice?
“They clearly did not want him as an officer, and they wanted him gone so badly they gave him a large sum of money,” Albers’ mother Sheila Albers says, arguing that Overland Park lied under oath to CPOST. “If you walk away for personal reasons, you don’t walk away with anything other than money for work already completed. It is grossly misleading that the city claims he left voluntarily ‘under ordinary circumstances’.”
That claim has now put Police Chief Frank Donchez in hot water of an undetermined temperature: Upon Albers’ written complaint, CPOST is now investigating Donchez for having signed that form indicating a voluntary resignation for Jenison.
State law provides that CPOST “may suspend, condition or revoke the certification,” or “reprimand or censure a police officer” who “has knowingly submitted false or misleading documents” to the agency.
Is it false or misleading? The city’s assertion that Jenison didn’t resign “to avoid potential disciplinary or adverse employment action” may be technically correct: An investigation of the shooting had indeed been completed without discipline or criminal charges for the officer. Still, it’s inarguably misleading to say he left voluntarily - when, again, it was the city’s idea and it came with a five-figure parting gift.
The question now is, what does CPOST think? It would appear the agency’s own integrity is on the line here, given that its decision will send a message to local law enforcement agencies about how honest and forthcoming they must be about whether resigning officers really are leaving in good standing.
That has something to say about public safety, as well, if trouble officers are allowed to just slip away and pick up a badge in the next town.
This case also goes to the very heart of CPOST’s mission, which includes “providing the citizens of Kansas with qualified, trained, ethical, competent, and professional peace officers,” and preserving “public trust and confidence.”
“If CPOST deems this appropriate behavior, then the whole system of transparency and accountability flies out the window,” Albers argues. “What Overland Park has done undermines the work that Kansas CPOST needs to do.”
As for Overland Park, even if the chief is cleared by CPOST, the city will have established a precedent in which an officer - allegedly of his own free will - gets a big paycheck for walking away.
Is that really what they’re saying? Get into enough trouble with the public and you get a fat severance?
That seems like a no-win situation for residents and taxpayers, as well as a potential safety hazard.
___
Lawrence Journal-World. April 24, 2021.
Editorial: Is a common-sense compromise possible on concealed carry?
Kansas has not gone to hell in a hand basket since 2015 - at least not for reasons related to guns.
It was in 2015 when the state passed a law that you no longer had to get a state permit to carry a concealed firearm. Instead, Kansas adopted the philosophy of “constitutional carry,” meaning that carrying a concealed firearm was an actual right that government couldn’t regulate.
It is a “right” that the U.S. Supreme Court has never affirmed. While the Supreme Court has said Americans have a right to possess weapons for self-defense, it has stopped short of saying that right extends to the idea of hiding a weapon on your body. In fact, there is still a legal question of whether the right allows a person to carry a weapon in public spaces at all, openly or concealed.
Just last month the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Hawaii law that largely bans private citizens from carrying firearms in public spaces. “There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment,” the majority wrote in the 7-4 decision by the court. In case you were wondering, the majority opinion was written by a Republican-appointed judge.
So, while Americans do have a right to own guns for self-defense, this idea that they can carry them without restriction is much more of an idea than a recognized right, at the moment.
That’s worth remembering as Second Amendment advocates try to expand that “right” in Kansas. Supporters are trying to expand that right currently with a bill that would enable people 18 to 20 years of age to carry concealed weapons in public. However, interestingly, those 18- to 20-year-olds would earn that right only after completing a firearm-safety course, a background check and paying a fee to the state. Kansans 21 and older don’t have to do any of those things to earn their right to carry concealed.
Earn your right? That sounds odd, doesn’t it? It makes it sound like it maybe isn’t a right at all, but rather a privilege similar to earning a driver’s license. It is a little surprising that Second Amendment advocates ever agreed to that language. After all, it is hard to find the mention of 18 years of age in the text of the Second Amendment.
Gov. Laura Kelly has vetoed the bill. That’s mostly good, but could be a little better. It is worth remembering what was said in the beginning - Kansas has not gone to hell since loosening the concealed carry law. It likely wouldn’t do so either if the age for concealed carry were lowered to 18.
But it also is worth remembering that common sense says firearm-safety training is good, if people indeed intend to carry a gun. Kelly should have explored a compromise that drives that point home. If you want to lower the age for concealed carry to 18, then let’s add back in the requirement that existed prior to 2015 that anyone in Kansas - regardless of age - be required to go through a firearm-safety class before being allowed to carry a concealed weapon.
The bill likely will be addressed in the veto session of the Kansas Legislature. The idea of reinstating firearm safety training for anyone who wants to carry a concealed weapon - it would be a good opportunity for us to practice our skills in compromise.
But more so, it would be a great opportunity to practice something else: common sense.
___
Topeka Capital-Journal. April 23, 2021.
Editorial: Kansas economy is poised for big things. Let’s not mess it up now.
Against all odds, Kansas appears to be in a positive economic position this year.
New figures from the Consensus Revenue Estimate suggest the state will be doing $361 million better this fiscal year and next than expected. Federal aid from the American Recovery Plan is on the way, boosting both cities and the state.
If lawmakers in Washington, D.C., get their act together, we may also see additional spending on infrastructure.
Atop all of that, widespread adoption of the COVID-19 vaccine could finally tame the pandemic that has challenged so many of us.
What does it all mean? It suggests that 2021 and 2022 could be banner years for the state economy.
But it also means that folks in Topeka have a duty to be responsible.
First off, senators and representatives must avoid the siren’s song of tax cuts for rich folks and big companies - most of whom sailed through the pandemic with nary a scratch.
It’s amazing to reflect that so few of our leaders seem to have learned the lesson of just a few years ago: Giant tax cuts have long-term negative consequences. A tailored plan might make less of an impact on the budget, but let’s focus on building up rather than tearing down.
For example, how do we scale up critical infrastructure projects, such as building broadband capacity, throughout the state? How do we make sure to hire the most qualified people to guide Kansas into the future? How do we administer all the federal relief dollars coming in?
We must focus on this challenge now, because we can’t wait for the money to arrive and then make it up as we go along. We definitely don’t want to be in a position to refuse sorely needed federal dollars or leave them languishing.
And finally, we plead with the Legislature and Gov. Laura Kelly to work together.
Lawmakers are apparently working on how to cut out the governor from having any say in how the federal dollars are distributed. This is nonsensical and petty. Regardless of her input up front, Kelly’s branch of government will have a critical role in administering the flow of dollars. It only makes sense that she be included.
Kansas has a real opportunity here. We not only are coming out of the pandemic and associated economic turmoil in good shape, but we also might be able to build a robust economy for the future.
Let’s not mess it up.
END
Please read our comment policy before commenting.