MAIN*BLOG

<< First < Prev 1 2 Next > Last >>

Kansas 1861-2013

31 Mar 2013 8:00 AM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)

Kansas 1861-2013

Originally published in the Hutch News on March 30, 2013

By Jason Probst

TOPEKA - The Great State of Kansas passed away on March 31, 2013, after a long and difficult battle with extremism that became markedly more aggressive in 2010. The struggle left the state so weakened it could no longer fight against the relentless attacks by the fatal disease.

Kansas was born on Jan. 29, 1861.

The state is preceded in death by fair taxation, good highways, strong education, family farms, a good public parks and wildlife system, open government, neighborliness and belief in helping each other out, freely elected public servants, and political moderation.

Kansas is survived by widespread poverty, low-wage jobs, high property taxes, pollution, poorly educated children, outmigration and rural depopulation, foreign land and farm ownership, lobbyist-funded legislators, chronic mistreatment of the disabled, a maniacal hatred of government and children who dream of living anywhere else.

During its early years, Kansas played a pivotal role in the Civil War by staking out a strong progressive stand against slavery. Despite repeated raids from border ruffians, Kansas held firm to the belief of free men and free soil.

Throughout its life, Kansas often aligned with leading progressive causes. William Allen White, one of the state's most notable residents, once wrote that "if it's going to happen, it happens first in Kansas." That once was true. Kansas was the first state to ban the Ku Klux Klan, and the first to elect women to public office - one as mayor and another as sheriff.

It was the birthplace of the populist movement, rising as farmers and ordinary people grew weary of the Gilded Age politics of the late 1800s and early 1900s that favored investment interests over those of landowners and laborers.

Kansas was a leader in public education, with one-room school houses dotting the plains. A full 12 years before it was a national concern, Kansas established child labor laws that restricted employment of children in potentially dangerous industries.

In the 1950s, Kansas laid the path to civil rights for African-Americans with the historic Brown vs. Board of Education case - the first in the country to rule against a policy of segregation in public schools.

Despite its compassionate nature, Kansas proved to be a state teeming with inventiveness, ingenuity, determination and a savvy sense of business.

Cessna, Beech and Stearman helped establish Kansas as a center of the aviation industry. Coleman launched an international company from Wichita that became a household name. Pizza Hut and White Castle - two iconic eateries - both got their start in Kansas, and the man who helped establish the American automobile industry called Kansas home.

Kansas' history is filled with vibrant, dynamic people. Settlers who claimed land once described as a desert and turned it into the world's garden; immigrants who came by the train-load and brought with them the hard winter wheat that germinated the state's prosperity. Throughout the years, Kansans endured drought, grasshopper plagues, depression and fierce weather, yet its people worked to hold tight to their land and the belief that there was goodness in Kansas. In spite of those hardships, the state produced world-renowned artists, writers, inventors, business leaders, astronauts, even a president.

Kansas was a strong-willed state whose hands were calloused enough to turn up the hardest sod and tender enough to calm a crying child.

Despite its strength and vitality, Kansas couldn't survive the influences of outside political machines that sought to use this fertile ground and its people as a test plot for an ambitious political experiment.

The elections of 2010 and 2012 brought the poisoned pill that would bring about Kansas' untimely end. The first election seated a governor who tossed aside Kansas' storied history and replaced it with a vision of his own design. In 2012, record setting campaign contributions from out-of-state donors financed the defeat of those moderate Republicans who had spent the last of their political careers keeping Kansas alive.

One by one, the things Kansas had spent a lifetime building were dismantled, until the state was rendered as empty and uninviting as it had been in those early days when the first settlers eyed its endless expanse.

Along the way, the state's defenders - the farmer, the laborer, the property owner and the shop keeper - stood mute and passive, hoping for a day when the state would spark back to life, as it had always done before.

They remained silent too long.

In lieu of flowers, memorials may be sent to the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, the Kansas Policy Institute, or Americans for Prosperity all in care of Gov. Sam Brownback, Office of the Governor, Capital 300 SW 10th Ave. Ste 241S, Topeka, KS 66612-1590.

Jason Probst is news editor at The Hutchinson News. Email: jprobst@hutchnews.com.

Read more
Political Mailer Sent by Third Party Under MainStream's Name

29 Mar 2013 3:00 PM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 29, 2013
Contact: Brandi Fisher, Executive Director
913-649-3326
brandi@mainstreamcoalition.org

Mission, Kansas - Earlier today, the Mainstream Coalition learned that a political mailer was sent under the Mainstream name to Wyandotte County households attacking mayoral candidate Mark Holland. Make no mistake: the Mainstream Coalition DID NOT send this mailer, nor did its political action committee, MainPAC. As soon as Mainstream learned about the mailer, it lodged an official complaint with the Kansas Ethics Commission.

Even more troubling, the mailer misrepresents Mainstream’s position in this race: MainPAC endorsed Holland. As part of its endorsement process, MainPAC invited both Wyandotte County/KCK mayoral candidates to submit questionnaires. Holland completed one; his opponent, Ann Murguia, did not. After carefully reviewing Holland’s answers and his record as a Unified Government Commissioner, MainPAC determined that Holland would best represent what Mainstream values most: moderate politics, a separation of church and state, and a high-quality public education system.

Since the MainPAC endorsement, we have learned that Murguia has received support from extreme right-wing interests in Kansas, confirming that this element of Kansas politics is now trying to gain a foothold in one of the state’s last remaining moderate communities. One mailer attacking Holland was paid for by Americans for Prosperity, an organization that is funded by the Koch brothers, strong supporters of Gov. Sam Brownback’s agenda to starve Kansas of the resources it needs to protect the state’s quality of life.

Years ago our name was co-opted by a group of right-wing activists bent on confusing voters. They used our name to advance conservative causes that go against Mainstream values. That group long ago disappeared from the political landscape, and we continued to do business as “Mainstream Coalition.” Obviously, this group has re-emerged with the same purpose in mind: to confuse and manipulate voters. This is a malicious attempt to co-opt the name of an organization known for its moderate political stances and use it to advance the political fortunes of a candidate who is backed by extreme right wing organizations like Americans for Prosperity. We deplore such tactics. They are counterproductive to the healthy dialogue our communities need to address pressing challenges and underscores the lengths to which the extreme right will go to bully its way into every corner of this state, including Wyandotte County.

Founded in 1993, the MainStream Coalition is a nonpartisan organization whose mission is to promote the separation of church and state, with an emphasis on public education and religious freedom.

###

Read more
Testimony in Opposition to HB 2027: This is not in the best interest of the children of KS

06 Mar 2013 8:00 AM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)

To: Kansas House Standing Committee on Commerce, Labor, and Economic Development

From: Harry McDonald representing MainStream Coalition

Subject: HB 2027

Date: March 6, 2013

Mainstream Coalition holds that HB 2027 is not in the best interests of the children of Kansas.

Children need quality teachers. Numerous studies have shown that 30-50% of new teachers leave within their first five years of teaching. Research also has shown that teachers make their greatest gains in teaching effectiveness in these same first five years. Consider also studies on why so many teachers leave so early in their careers. Reasons found often in the top five included poor working conditions and lack of support.

So here we have HB 2027, written without teacher input, which strips teachers of what little say they currently have to improve working conditions. Little remains of the currently negotiable items either mandatorily negotiable or permissibly so.

HB 2027 thus creates the likelihood of increased teacher dissatisfaction with working conditions and is likely to accelerate the exodus of early career teachers with the result of decreased learning by our students. Students paired endlessly with early-career teachers will make predictably lower progress than if teachers stay five years or more. Districts are fighting now to stop the drain on our schools from the already high turnover rate of professional staff. With all the stresses that are found in public education today, we don’t need to create additional ones for our teachers. Research says our students will suffer.

Student success has also been shown to excel in districts with good employment relations. Conversely, student outcomes suffer when employment relations are poor. Providing teachers with input into their working conditions is an important part of good employment relations. This legislation creates an atmosphere where teacher input into many aspects of their working conditions is prohibited. Teacher attitudinal and actual labor unrest are more likely to occur under this scenario with predictably lower student performance.

Since teachers were not consulted in the development of this legislation while board and administrator organizations were, it appears that the intention of the legislation is anti-teacher. Surely this is not in the best interests of our students. Student productivity should trump administrative convenience always. It is unclear in this legislation that student productivity will benefit from these changes.

If this is not actually the case, let these changes develop in the open. If there is a perceived need for reform in our professional negotiations statute, let us do this systematically, in the open, with all parties present. Let these changes develop in the light and not in the darkness of haste.

Let us not rush through legislation with only a few stake-holders providing input. Keep in mind that although KASB and USA provided input, all of their constituents do not agree. Consider that the Lawrence and Emporia school boards have passed resolutions opposing these changes. Administrators from Topeka, Geary County, Kansas City, Buhler, and Shawnee Heights have written and spoken in opposition.

If the general tenor of this legislation isn’t bad enough, there is one provision which I doubt seriously is legal. HB 2027 declares void and unenforceable all aspects of existing contracts except those newly defined as mandatorily negotiable. Though I am not a lawyer, I found no justification for breaking a contract described as legislative prerogative.

Since this committee has already passed this bill and is only now hearing testimony, I urge the committee to move reconsideration of HB 2027. To do otherwise is to make a shame of the hearing process. I don’t believe any of those testifying today journeyed here without the expectation that their testimony would be heard and considered.

Read more
SCR 1608 - Senate Judiciary Committee - testimony in opposition to eliminating the "suitable funding" clause from the State Constitution

14 Feb 2013 8:00 AM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)

To: Kansas Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

From: Harry McDonald representing MainStream Coalition

Subject: SCR 1608

Date: February 12, 2013

Mainstream Coalition holds that Senate Concurrent Resolution 1608 is not in the best interests of the children of Kansas, nor of the economic health and pro-business climate of our state. We recognize that we are addressing a new Legislature and hope that this current one does not feel obligated to defend the mistakes of the past. We hope that you will learn from past unconstitutional actions and not defend those actions by seeking to remove the constitutional oversight of the Courts.

This proposed amendment to our Constitution is but an attempt by the Legislature to exempt itself from complying with its constitutional obligation. The amendment attempts to rid the legislature of the requirement to “...make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state...” not by deleting the requirement but by removing its actions from judicial review.

To understand this issue, let us remind ourselves that in both the Montoy and Gannon decisions, the Courts declared that the Legislature had acted unconstitutionally. To my knowledge, the Legislature has never contested these findings. There was never a defense of its funding decisions as providing suitable funding. Instead the past Legislatures simply asserted that the Courts had acted unconstitutionally by way of usurping the legislative prerogative of appropriation of funds and that suitable was whatever the legislature provided no matter what the evidence to the contrary.

They tried to fog the issue. Let’s not talk about the unconstitutional behavior of the Legislature, but instead focus on the alleged overreach of the Courts. The Court responded in Gannon, “Policy and politics stop where a constitution intercedes. A constitution is inviolate to negotiation, preference, or choice. A constitution commands deference and the utmost respect, most of all it commands fidelity. In Kansas ... a legislature's enactment, is but a first, not a final, opinion of the State's constitutional requirements. Under our system of separation of powers, only the highest court can render a binding and final opinion of a constitution's meaning and operative effect. Any other view announces the flaws inherent in third world constitutions and democracies.”

In reality, this proposed amendment is an attempt by the legislature to place itself in the role of dictator with no judicial review. This is exactly the kind of action we see in evolving democracies of the middle east where the oversight of an independent judiciary is not understood nor yet enabled resulting in ongoing public unrest as other branches of government act oppressively.

In Gannon, the court expressed, more than once, the “presumption that public officials will follow the law as declared.” In other words, the Courts expect the Legislature to take appropriate action once past actions are deemed unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, the Legislature never accepted its Constitutional requirement and ultimately forced the courts to set a minimum standard of suitability. In Gannon the court defended its specification of a minimally constitutional level of funding because “... a judgment and order is required to be entered, as merely an order to, simply, "do justice" is not an enforceable one.” Far from trying to usurp the Legislative prerogative of appropriation, the Courts, by referencing a specific dollar amount, were merely analyzing the evidence available to the Legislature. In the absence of any facts countering that evidence, $4492 was the minimal funding which could be defended as suitable.

If one reads the Gannon decision carefully, it becomes clear that the minimum dollar amount specified was never the issue. The issue was the Legislature’s failure to consider “the actual costs of providing a ...suitable education in making its appropriations ...2008 ...through ...2012.”

The courts acknowledge that the Legislature may choose not to “blindly accept cost studies or other authoritative recommendations” but it can do so only if there is a basis in fact for doing so. The State never demonstrated that there was any basis in fact for the Legislature to ignore the considerable evidence presented to it from numerous sources.

Gannon asserts “Nowhere in our free market society, absent duress, would any rational individual act on an economic matter without reference to a need versus its cost. To act in the absence of facts or act in deliberate disregard of reliable facts available is, ... not one of legislative, executive, or judicial privilege.” Yet that is what the Legislature did.

“Slashing costs without first determining the best methods to (provide for our children’s education) represents not a solution, but rather an act principally grounded on, ... frustration and, certainly, gamble, either of which is unhelpful as policy and immensely and irretrievably destructive of our children's future.”

What the Courts are saying is that the Legislature can avoid future judicial review of education funding by simply using facts to make its decisions. Ignoring the facts at hand will result in ongoing judicial review. Any attempt to circumvent its responsibility to the children of Kansas and to the very economic future of Kansas by removing the Legislature’s funding decisions from judicial review should be opposed by all responsible legislators.

“Matters intended for permanence are placed in constitutions for a reason - to protect them from the vagaries of politics or majority.”

MainStream Coalition encourages all members of the current legislature not to follow in the unconstitutional footsteps of previous legislatures, but to accept the Judiciary’s rulings on past funding missteps and stop defending past actions harmful to Kansas. We urge you to reject this resolution.

Read more
Testimony in Opposition to HB2210: Restricting Voters Ability to Change Party Affiliation

14 Feb 2013 8:00 AM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)

By Mark Dugan, MainPAC Board Chair

My name is Mark Dugan. I chair the PAC associated with Mainstream Coalition, and I practice law in Overland Park. I speak in opposition to HB2210, which restricts the ability of voters to change party affiliation.

Under this bill, the deadline to change party affiliation, currently 14 days before the primary election, would be moved up to coincide with the deadline for candidate filing. We oppose this restriction, or any other restriction, on the ability of voters to affiliate with the political party of their choice.

MAIN*PAC endorses and supports moderate candidates, Republicans and Democrats. We make our endorsement decisions based on our core principles: separation of religion and government and support for public education. We think these issues are important to most Kansans.

While the actual number of party switchers is small, this issue is important to Mainstream Coalition members. Because Mainstream is a nonpartisan organization, we have many Republican members and many Democratic members. In recent years, a significant number of our members have changed party affiliation, some Democrat to Republican, some Republican to Democrat. Our members do this thoughtfully, based on deeply held convictions.

Many Mainstream members, like many legislators, feel strong party loyalty, whether as Republicans or Democrats. But many are less tied to any party, and see themselves as independents who simply want to vote for the best candidate. For these conscientious voters, any restriction on the ability to choose party affiliation is a restriction on the ability to choose their leaders. This is particularly true in Kansas, where the Republican party has made such strides that often the election is effectively over after the primary, with either no Democratic opposition, or no meaningful Democratic opposition, in the general election.

Finally, while Mainstream is nonpartisan and many of our members are unaffiliated with any political party, we do support robust debate between, or among, the various political parties. The restriction of HB2210, however, creates an incentive for Mainstream members and thousands of other independent voters to leave the Democratic and Republican parties to retain voting flexibility, or not to join those parties in the first place. This will not be a welcome development for any political party.

For these reasons, we ask that the restriction on primary voting in HB2210 not be permitted to become law, and that the principle of limited government be applied to the exercise of democracy in Kansas. Thank you.

Read more
MainStreaming KS Politics: Legislative Update #3

30 Jan 2013 8:00 AM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)

MainStreaming Kansas Politics
February 6, 2013

_________________________________________________________________________

JUDICIAL SELECTION
The Senate passed passed its resolution that would allow the governor to select Supreme Court justices and Appeals Court judges, (subject to Senate confirmation).
The 28-12 vote gives the governor the 2/3 majority he needs, at least from the Senate. It is yet to be seen whether they can pull together the 2/3 vote in the House.

Action: Contact the eight Democrats and four Republican Senators who voted against the change and thank them for their vote. If you have not already called your House Representative, contact him/her and tell them that you DO NOT support changing the current merit selection process.

Watch and then share the January 24th MainStream Forum on Judicial Selection here.
_________________________________________________________________________

ELECTIONS
One change you may not have heard about, in the midst of battles over our judicial and educational systems, is one making it much more difficult to change primaries during an election cycle.

Current law on party affiliation change is 14 days before a primary election, and it is estimated that more than 1,000 Kansas voters changed party affiliation last election cycle. As MainStream members, we often switch parties in order to vote for moderate candidates. In fact, in many Kansas races, the primary is the deciding race as we saw last year in several JOCO House races where the Republican was unopposed in the general election.

In testimony, Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s office insists that these changes are necessary to solve county-level administrative headaches, the truth is: there’s no evidence that counties mind processing party switches. Not only is there no evidence that restrictions on voter choice are necessary, when pressed, a representative from Kobach’s office again offered up that favorite state of the Brownback administration, Texas, stating that voters in the lone star state must choose one party per year.

Earlier this week, House, Rep. Keith Esau, R-Olathe, put forth an even more restrictive bill which prohibits voters with a party affiliation from changing that party affiliation after the deadline for candidate filings and until the result of the primary election is certified by the Secretary of State.

MainStream voters are moderate, value-driven, and oppose unnecessary restrictions on our ability to choose our elected leaders. We will continue to track this issue. In the meantime, contact Senator Kay Wolf and Senator Faust-Goudea and thank them for speaking out against unnecessary changes to our elections process.
_________________________________________________________________________

PUBLIC EDUCATION
State Attorney General Schmidt has filed an appeal to the State Supreme Court so that the state can avoid paying what it committed to Kansas school kids, and a constitutional amendment preventing the courts from mandating school funding is in the works. For those who are counting, that makes two major constitutional amendments that could be on a primary ballot near you.

This week the Senate Commerce Committee has taken up House Bill 2023. Here's an overview from the KNEA: House Bill 2023 prohibits payroll deduction for contributions to a political action committee (PAC) by teachers and other public employees and public employee unions from using any money collected via payroll deduction for “political activities.” Furthermore, House Bill 2023 defines “political activities” so broadly that nearly all advocacy activities are prohibited and prohibits payroll deduction for dues if the association engages in “political activities.”

The new language is vague, undefined, and untested. It is our opinion that this language may cover most of our other advocacy work. So – school funding is a “cause of a partisan political or ideological nature.” If we advocate a position on school funding in the legislature, is this a “political activity” under this definition? This will likely be tested through litigation if we were to actually lobby and pay our lobbyists with dues money collected via payroll deduction.

As educators are often our strongest public school advocates, we are concerned about this attempt to silence them politically. Read the full statement from the KNEA here.

Mark your calendar for MainStream’s upcoming legislative forum on Public Education on February 28th at 7 p.m. at Colonial Church.

Our panel will highlight both sides of this debate with the president of the KS Policy Institute, Dave Trabert and the Superintendent of Blue Valley Public Schools, Dr. Trigg. Register here.
_________________________________________________________________________

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM/SEPARATION OF RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT
Finally, MainStream is closely monitoring House Bill 2037 which the House Fed and State Committee passed favorably out of committee yesterday. This legislation could allow for any display of religious materials on public property as long as those materials promote a Kansas cultural or historical achievement. These fuzzy guidelines and endless possibilities for “historical” depictions of the 10 Commandments outside city halls across the state are a cause for concern.

Mark your calendar for MainStream's March 21 legislative forum: Legislating Religious Freedom: Challenges to the Relationship between "Church" and "State."

_________________________________________________________________________

WANT MORE MAINSTREAM?
Join a working committee on separation of church and state, public education, or judicial selection or help us expand MainStream's reach by joining our membership or special events committee. Email us and let us know how you'd like to be involved.

Read more
MainStreaming KS Politics: Legislative Update #2

30 Jan 2013 8:00 AM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)

MainStreaming Kansas Politics

January 30, 2013

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Judicial Selection

We were so pleased with the fantastic turnout (over 140 people) we had at our legislative forum last week on Judicial Selection! Many thanks to those who attended and to those MainStream members who’ve been in touch with their legislators regarding unnecessary changes to our state judicial selection system. It’s critical that we stand for independent judges as these changes, pushed by groups opposed to public education and reproductive rights, politicize our judiciary.

The Senate will be voting on this bill TODAY. It is likely that this bill will pass the Senate with the 2/3 vote needed to push forward a change to our state constitution. It may be less likely to pass the House with a 2/3 vote. A simple majority means that only the selection of the Appellate Court will be changed, not the Supreme Court which requires a constitutional amendment. The House has not confirmed when they will be voting - likely sometime in the next week or two. If you haven’t had a chance to call, it’s not too late! Visit this link and give your legislator a call or send an email.

One bit of hopeful news: The US Supreme Court has denied hearing an appeal of the 10th Circuit’s ruling that our Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission process IS constitutional! The 10th circuit ruling was appealed on behalf of the Judicial Education Project (Kinzer, Wagle, Brownback and others).
___________________________________________________________________________

Women’s Health/Reproductive Rights
We now have a clear read on what the Kinzer/Kansans for Life agenda will be this Session thanks to public statements at the rally (featuring our governor,) in opposition to Roe v. Wade last week.

Expect to see the return of Kinzer’s “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion” Omnibus bill, which will risk KU School of Medicine accreditation, alter grand jury rules to prevent pro-choice prosecutors from thwarting citizen-driven criminal inquires against abortion providers, ban abortions based on sex preferences, (sex-based abortions are not a common practice in Kansas, but these bans are a seemingly benign way to further restrict choice,) and extend wrongful death provisions in civil law beyond viability of a fetus to full gestation. This last piece could have far-reaching legal implications when women don’t know they’re pregnant or don’t share their pregnancy with their doctor; stay tuned for further legal analysis from our allies.

The 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade also featured presentations in the Senate Public Health and Welfare committee, chaired by the strongly anti-abortion Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook, of four “pregnancy maintenance resource centers” across the state. PMRCs, or “Crisis Pregnancy Centers,” as they’re more commonly known, are institutions that exist for the sole purpose of persuading pregnant women to not receive abortions. They often use deceptive advertising, stating that they provide a “full range of options” or “reproductive healthcare,” when they generally only offer pregnancy tests and sonograms. They are almost entirely religiously oriented, and provide medically inaccurate information about the effects of abortion. There are 46 CPCs in Kansas at last count; most are privately funded, but some state funding does flow to them. This hearing may have just been a celebration of anti-abortion victories, or it may have been an indicator that the state funding stream will be widened.
___________________________________________________________________________

Elections
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Kris Kobach presented last week to the House Committee on Elections about the sweeping changes he recommends for Kansas’ electoral processes. Among other proposals, he’s advocating for moving all spring elections to the fall, which he says should prompt Kansas to redraw school board districts, making them at-large and making all elections partisan.

Kobach is continuing to advocate for moving prosecutorial authority for election infractions to his office, a measure that passed in the House but failed in the Senate last year. He touted the success of his voter ID laws that passed in 2012, stating that turnout remained high and under 1,000 people voted with provisional ballots.

Good questions were raised by Representative Alcala about the lack of availability of data regarding how different racial groups were affected by the changes. In total, the Elections committee introduced over 7 different pieces of legislation changing ethics and elections laws, so stay tuned to see how those develop over the course of the Session.

Finally in election news, a developing story indicates that the Governor’s statewide Political Action Committee, Road Map Solutions, may be attempting to extend its influence at the local level. We will continue to watch as this story unfolds.
___________________________________________________________________________

Public Education
According to public education advocates, new findings by the Governor’s school efficiency task force indicate more funding cuts to education and threaten the involvement of teachers in decision-making about Kansas’ classrooms. A particularly controversial part of the Governor’s task force findings call for diminishing teachers’ ability to organize and bargain with districts. This finding parallels the heated debate in House Commerce, Labor and Economic Development Committee last Wednesday afternoon over a bill that would slash collective bargaining power for all public sector employees. As debates over the right to organize and advocate in public education rage on, school districts are hunkering down and preparing for yet more funding cuts. What shape those cuts take remains to be seen.

Mark your calendar for MainStream’s upcoming legislative forum on Public Education on February 28th at 7 p.m. at Colonial Church.

Our panel will highlight both sides of this debate with the president of the KS Policy Institute, Dave Trabert and the Superintendent of Blue Valley Public Schools, Dr. Trigg.
___________________________________________________________________________

This Week’s ACTION Alert
If you haven't already done so, contact your state senator TODAY [Look up your legislator and their contact info here] and let him/her know that you support the current, non-partisan, merit-based selection of judges. House representatives will also be voting on this issue, so after you call your senator, go ahead and call your house member.
___________________________________________________________________________

Want More MainStream?
Join us on Facebook for timely updates!
___________________________________________________________________________

Read more
MainStreaming KS Politics: Legislative Update #1

22 Jan 2013 8:00 AM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)

MainStreaming Kansas Politics

January 22, 2013

__________________________________________________________________________

Thanks to the generous support of our members, we will be sending out regular legislative updates, where we will mainstream the happenings in Kansas politics and within the Kansas Legislature. We hope you will join us in following these issues, speaking out, and informing others as the tumultuous battles over church-state separation, public education funding, women's health and judicial selection take center stage.

Separation of Religion and Government
The first week was a busy one for issues near and dear to MainStream. We kicked off the week with a speech from MainStream board member, Micheline Burger at the People’s State of the State rally. Micheline was quoted in this Capital-Journal piece speaking out against the intertwining of religiosity and governance. Her speech was appropriately timed, as the first day of session also featured an all-day prayer service held in the old Kansas Supreme Court room. Though the service was billed as being for people of all faiths; coordinators offered bibles to passers-by and it was sponsored by conservative Christian organizations (including tabling by Concerned Women for America.)

In response to the Governor’s December prayer rally and rumors of a possible prayer in school bill, MainStream Coalition and the ACLU have co-convened a committee to act as first responders on issues related to religious freedom and separation of church and state. If you are interested in participating, let us know.

Set the DVR: KCPT, Monday, January 28, 9 p.m.  
"The Revisionaries," the award winning film by director Scott Thurman, tells the story of the Texas Board of Education and how its decisions on textbook content affect the American culture war. Michael Moore stated "I hope every American sees this film," and called The Revisionaries "a must-see film for anyone concerned about enforced ignorance and intolerance, and for those who still believe in science and in Thomas Jefferson.
___________________________________________________________________________

Public Education
Governor Brownback’s State of the State speech included a proposed amendment to eliminate the State’s current constitutional requirement to make “suitable” provision for the funding of public education. This follows last week’s court ruling that found the State in violation of the Kansas Constitution’s mandate to suitably fund public schools.

Not surprisingly, many of the Governor’s statements closely mirrored materials created by the Kansas Policy Institute to discredit proponents of spending increases. Their (questionable) research suggests there’s a weak or nonexistent connection between increased spending and student success. Furthermore, they denigrate recent increases in statewide test results as “manipulated” by educators and the school board. They recommend fighting the Supreme Court ruling, moving against the NEA and privatizing benefits, (phrased as “Change or establish laws that work to empower local school boards to act in the best interests of students, not the adults in the system,”) and “empower[ing] parents to decide which educational opportunities are best for their children,” which is likely code for vouchers. The Governor’s recommendation regarding 3rd graders being held back for inadequate reading comprehension came straight from KPI materials. Despite the court ruling, it came as no surprise that the Governor’s proposed budget recommendations included zero increase in aid for 2014 and a paltry $14 base state aid increase for 2015.

Do mark your calendar for MainStream’s upcoming legislative forum on Public Education on February 28th at 7 p.m. at Colonial Church. We’ll have the head of the KS Policy Institute and the Superintendent of Blue Valley Schools speaking.
___________________________________________________________________________

Judicial Selection
Last week, we followed the introduction of legislation that would dramatically change Kansas’ Supreme Court and Appellate Court judicial selection processes. MainPAC Board Member, Harry McDonald represented MainStream well in his testimony in opposition, stating that these changes are a solution in search of a problem, are a politically motivated reaction to rulings against the conservative majority, (as seen in the recent education decision,) and would negatively impact the deliverance of justice in the state.

Basically, it’s a race to the Governor’s desk. We’re hearing that there may be a combination of constitutional amendment ballot measures this April, including exempting Kansas from the Affordable Care Act, (oh wait! Not possible; see the Constitution,) changing judicial selection, and removing suitable funding for education.

Join us Thursday night as we kick-off our 2013 Legislative Series:
Who’s the Boss? Independent Judges vs. Politics Run Amok
Thursday, January 24, - 7 p.m.
Colonial Church, 7039 Mission, Prairie Village, KS

Panel Discussion
Lynn Johnson, Former Chair of the KS Supreme Court Nominating Commission
Former Senator Tim Owens, former Chair of Senate Judiciary Committee
Rep. John Rubin, Member, House Judiciary Committee
Lee Smithyman, President, KS Bar Association
___________________________________________________________________________

This Week’s ACTION Alert
Contact your elected officials [Look up your legislator and their contact info here] and let them know that you support the current, non-partisan, merit-based selection of judges.
___________________________________________________________________________

Want More MainStream?
Check out last week’s webcast of Sunflower Brew where MainStream’s Executive Director, Brandi Fisher, and Board Member, Colonial Church minister, Rev. Aaron Roberts, talk with host, Zach Luea about separation of religion and government, public education, and, per the name of the show, beer.
___________________________________________________________________________

Read more
SEPARATION OF RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT….WHY IT MATTERS

28 Jun 2012 12:45 AM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)

SEPARATION OF RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT….WHY IT MATTERS

By Micheline Burger

You don’t have to be a scholar to be reminded of the brutal history of religious persecution when religion has been tied to government. Throughout history, human beings have been murdered, tortured, dispossessed, displaced, brutalized, abused and banished simply because their religious beliefs did not match the religious beliefs of government. Human beings have been burned alive, torn limb from limb, been dismembered, had their children taken away from them, been robbed of all their possessions, fired from their jobs, refused any means of earning a living, etc., simply because they did not hold the same beliefs as the governing power. Catholics murdered Protestants, Protestants murdered Catholics, Christians murdered Jews, Muslims murdered Hindi, and vice verse depending on the direction the religious and government winds were blowing at the time.

Likewise, throughout history, people have fled to escape religious persecution by official governing religions. The Huguenots, Jews, Unitarians, Puritans, pagans, to name just a few, all fled religious regimes that refused to allow the free expression of different religious beliefs. The Pilgrims and Puritans came to America practice their own religious beliefs without the persecution of the government in England. However, it did not take long for them to ensconce their own religious beliefs in the cloak of government and for them to persecute those who had different religious beliefs. Quakers had to flee. Jews were not welcome. Non-believers were burned at the stake.

When the Founders of the United States got together to form the basis for a new government of the 13 colonies in the 18^th century, they were keenly aware of the ugly history of governments entwined with religion. The founders, a group of Christians and non-Christians, knew that when religion becomes shrouded in government and when government is cloaked in religion, bad…even horrible…things happen. Therefore, they deliberately set out to ensure that the new government of the United States of America kept religion and government forever separate. This was set out in the Constitution as one of the foundational principles of the new government, and it remains there today.

Often it is said that the government of the United States is a Christian government. This notion is pure fiction and propaganda, intended to pressure Americans into allowing religion …and a very specific brand of religion….to become institutionalized into our government.

Some would say that times have changed and no one is being harmed anymore because of different religious beliefs. Human beings are still being murdered, tortured and forced out of jobs every day for being gay because of some religious beliefs. Women are forced to bear children and have their lives and health placed in jeopardy because of others’ religious beliefs. Whatever religion is currently out of favor is always subjected to persecution, whether it is physical attacks, loss of employment, ridicule in schools, or otherwise. We can all recall officially sanctioned acts of persecution in the last few years against Muslims in the US.

In the US, we have many different layers of government, ranging from local school boards, city councils, and state governments to the federal government. We have seen the steady encroachment of religious doctrine into governing policy at every level over a number of years, and this grows more so every year. School boards ban books because they offend certain member’s religious beliefs. School curricula is shaped not based on good science, but based on religious beliefs. City councils prohibit the use of certain buildings for some religious services because they are “not Christian.” States require religious counseling for some to receive certain government benefits and give tax money received from all to benefit select religions. States ban human beings from enjoying the basic rights of family because of religious beliefs. States prohibit women’s access to health care and to control their own bodies because of religious beliefs. The federal government engages in much of the same.

The encroachment of religion into our government should make every one of us very nervous. Persecution, oppression, and totalitarianism do not happen overnight. It takes time for an open society to be transformed into a closed society controlled by religion. Horrible outcomes as a result of religious persecution are the gradual results of religious creep into government and the passive permission of the citizenry to allow this to happen. When we see religious beliefs dictating government policy and say, “Well, that’s not such a big deal”, we are participating in a dangerous slide toward religious oppression.

Perhaps you may think I am overstating the issue. History tells me that I am correct. If we do not question every action taken by government to determine if the genesis and motivation of the action is to further someone’s religious beliefs, we are failing in our responsibility to preserve our constitutional democracy. The test for government policy in our democracy is not whether it is “Bible based” or “What would Jesus do”. It is whether it serves the diverse general public it governs. The separation of religion and government in the US, where the majority of people identify themselves as Christian, is not just to protect minority religions and non-believers, although this is very important. It is also to protect Christians themselves from each other. There are scores of Christian denominations all with differing religious beliefs. Mormons do not want their religious beliefs to be dictated by Catholics. Pentecostals do not want to be told what to believe by Methodists. Presbyterians do not want their religious doctrine to be shaped by Nazarenes. Catholics do not want the Lutherans telling them what to believe.

The only way to ensure religious freedom in a constitutional democracy such as ours it to make sure religion and government are separated. In short, if you do not think that this separation of religion and government is critically important, you simply have not been paying attention. Like the frog sitting in a pot of cold water over a fire, you will not realize you are in big trouble until it is too late. If we do not want to repeat the history of religious persecution that motivated our Founders to enshrine the separation of government and religion into our Constitution, we must understand how important this is. We must realize that in the most profound and fundamental ways, it matters a lot.

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article 6

Article Six of the United States Constitution provides that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".

The First Amendment

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.

Read more
Advocacy, Reactions, Decision Making and Guiding Principles by Dolores Furtado, Ph.D.

30 Apr 2012 1:21 PM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)

Woman Power Workshop April 28, 2012

Advocacy Panel Presentation: Dolores Furtado, Ph.D.

Advocacy, Reactions, Decision Making and Guiding Principles

Some of you know I came to Kansas to join the Faculty at the KU Medical School. My success as a County Commissioner and as a State Representative is linked to my Academic Career. Teaching, research and service within the academic community are required to advance in rank and to gain tenure.

My initial elected faculty office was on the Animal Care Committee in the 1970s at a time when activists opposed the use of animals in research.

The experience was invaluable because I quickly learned that a key component in advocacy was and remains PREPARATION. To defend the value of faculty research and to respect the concerns of the public required LISTENING IN ORDER TO BE HEARD. in order to advance understanding from opposite points of view.

One could argue that progress or change depended on research; another argument based on principle of Academic Freedom to protect the right of experts. However, the best outcome required negotiating our way to an informed compromise.

Advocacy in the public arena involves informed experts including lobbyists, an educated public and policy makers in government who are well prepared to make decisions.

As an academic, I interacted with Legislators on two very important issues: Qualified admissions to the Kansas public Universities AND tenure in higher education. Again, being well prepared to present information that educated Legislators was the first step; listening to reactions and answering questions, providing accurate answers and offering to follow-up. Becoming a reliable resource, someone who provides information that becomes a part of the solution makes a difference in what becomes law. My academic experiences prepared me well to be a County Commissioner and later a member of the Kansas House.

DECISION MAKING

Legislators as Decision makers design solutions to new issues or redesign that which already exists. That is why it takes 90 days.

The focus of each session is the budget because therein lies the priorities of the decision makers.

All of this in the name of the public good.

How do we measure the public good?

In Kansas, we are learning that the Executive Branch of government has a plan to achieve sweeping changes in many areas of government services.

While many may be affected by the process of policy making, the Executive Branch focus is on the reactions by the Legislators, individuals and groups.

Changes in the way we do things, when introduced in a massive way, have a dispersing effect, that is, overwhelming even to individual experts. Reactions are so encompassing.

Alerting grassroots constituents to changes to awaken them to become active broadens the advocacy process. The blurring of lines leads to collaboration or coalition building.

Are these sweeping changes a reflection of the economic times OR are they opportunistic strategies for personal gain? Success spreads.

How much of the decision making is based on careful analysis and debate? LESS THAN YOU WOULD LIKE

How much of today’s decision making is all about politics? TOO MUCH

Does it matter? YOU BET To whom? ALL OF US !

This leads us to the REACTION stage. We react to discussions. We mobilize. We educate. We rely upon experts, accurate information and sound interpretations. In reacting we are forced to revert to advocacy. Intervening to prevent the worse possible outcome causes some decision makers to dig in their heels and others to avoid contact. We rely on the informed constituents to educate the decision makers.

As women we have been in the REACTING mode for some time. WE monitor that which is being discussed, proposed or made into law. In Kansas we have had many issues on the table: women’s health; education; taxes, cutting spending; health insurance, jobs---- a long list.

At this time in our history, reacting often leads to frustration and anger; we are left with a sense of helplessness. We meet, vent until we mobilize responses such as letters to the editors, protest rallies, testifying and committing to advocacy. We talk much about transparency and accountability.

Women do extremely well as advocates, individually, as paid lobbyists and as organizers. We do well in coalition building and mobilizing the grassroots. Where we are less present is in decision making. We must see ourselves as lawmakers, support women to take their leadership or executive experiences to the level of governor and president. And for those who practice law, seeking to become part of the judiciary. At all three levels of government, the make-up should reflect the composition of the communities they serve, thus, for example, more women and minority are needed as judges to interpret the laws and their impact on society.

In conclusion,

As women we need to define new principles that will become alternatives to the way we are being governed. Here’s my start:

Advocate for the design of laws based on good information. Consider the good that results when laws promote fairness, insist on outcomes that benefit many not a few.

Collaborative solutions represent a shared vision.

Our involvement is not a legal exercise but the embodiment of an emerging value system with societal ownership of governance.

Fighting the political system that exists is less important than saving our democracy. We start with “We the people”. We the people must generate conditions that will make all of us flourish. We the people must define the parameters of what is possible. Women must lead; women must become the decision makers and continue to mentor young women urging them to become informed advocates, to help us, the decision makers.

Thank you.

Read more

<< First < Prev 1 2 Next > Last >>

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Home Where We Stand Speak Out Join NOW! Donate About Us Contact Us

MainStream Coalition and Education Foundation | 5960 Dearborn, Suite 213 | Mission, KS 66202 | Office 913-649-3326

The MainStream Coalition is the Moderate Alliance of Informed Neighbors.
Founded in 1993, we are a nonpartisan, membership organization whose mission is
to promote the separation of Church and State, with a emphasis placed on public education and religious freedom.

MAIN*BLOG

31 Mar 2013 8:00 AM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)

29 Mar 2013 3:00 PM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)

06 Mar 2013 8:00 AM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)

14 Feb 2013 8:00 AM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)

14 Feb 2013 8:00 AM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)

30 Jan 2013 8:00 AM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)

30 Jan 2013 8:00 AM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)

22 Jan 2013 8:00 AM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)

28 Jun 2012 12:45 AM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)

30 Apr 2012 1:21 PM | Brandi Fisher (Administrator)