logo
Kansas efficiency panel wades through public input, creates plan to tackle transparency, access

Kansas efficiency panel wades through public input, creates plan to tackle transparency, access

Yahoo13-05-2025

Sen. Cindy Holscher, left, and Sen. Doug Shane considered submissions from the public as part of Tuesday's Senate Committee on Government Efficiency meeting. (Morgan Chilson/Kansas Reflector)
TOPEKA — The Kansas Senate Committee on Government Efficiency dug through hundreds of online submissions Tuesday and set an agenda for the coming months tackling issues from transparency to auditing.
The meeting agenda, released Monday, said committee members would discuss suggestions received through the COGE portal, where Kansans were encouraged to share ideas to make the government more efficient.
Erickson said 3,254 submissions were made to date, with topics ranging from specific ideas about government efficiency to people who were venting frustrations. There also were a few recipes, she said.
She has read all the submissions and with the help of committee staff had winnowed the number for consideration to 349 'COGE-like submissions,' Erickson said.
The committee agreed that submissions that might not fit the COGE mission could be passed along to state agencies or others who could address the issues.
'How are we going to carve this bird today? That's the $64,000 question. There are submissions that deal with local and federal,' Erickson said. 'Our focus is not to deal with those one-offs that I would call more constituent services, someone who has a specific issue. But are there patterns?'
Setting aside those that didn't fall into the COGE focus left the committee with 349 submissions to consider. Erickson stressed that all committee members have access to the 3,000-plus submissions received and could add topics at any time.
'Identify tangible ideas,' she said. 'We want to look for things that are possibilities to take up during our next legislative session. You can start to see some themes, some natural groupings.'
To get an idea of the time involved and how to best work through the emails, the committee took about 30 minutes to look through 40 pages of submissions and then began discussions of what issues might be appropriate for COGE to consider. Eventually, they considered all 349 submissions.
The result? The committee will discuss the following broad topics in order of importance:
Transparency and ease of access
Agency workflow and interagency cooperation
Impact of third-party vendors, professional organizations and other non-government entities
Auditing process/auditing environment
State budgeting and expenditure practices
Cost and access of medical care
Procurement
As the committee reached agreement on overall categories to explore, members also looked at what would put teeth into what they're doing.
'We've got to identify it, and we've got to rectify it,' Erickson said. She also said she'd like to consider how to incentivize state agencies to become more efficient.
Sen. Larry Alley, R-Winfield, said the committee needs to consider how to enforce its work.
'If we don't put some type of penalty in there — and usually the agencies or the other groups don't respond unless It's taking care of their money — if you penalize them in some way for not doing their job, then they will correct it,' he said. 'But if you don't, they're not going to correct it.You need some teeth, and that teeth usually goes with what we only have up here and that's the only thing we have, is a budget process of money.'
Erickson agreed that accountability will be a factor in the committee's work.
'What would that look like as we identify efficiencies or waste? What was the term someone used, identify and rectify? I like that,' she said. 'What does that rectify part look like to me? That's the accountability, the teeth that we're talking about.'
Sen. Doug Shane, a Louisburg Republican, said accountability could look like training.
'We tie in whatever the legislative expectations are, as far as monitoring for waste and bloat or what have you, and come up with some very clear legislative guidelines, statutory guidelines that if they aren't followed, that maybe the quote, unquote punishment is we're going to be trained on efficient and ethical spending of taxpayer funds,' he said.
The committee agreed it would start in June by digging into the top two priorities with three agencies: the Kansas Department for Children and Families; the Kansas judicial branch, including include local sheriffs and other law enforcement agencies; and the Kansas Department of Labor.
Sen. Mike Thompson, a Johnson County Republican, said he wants the agencies to bring ideas on creating efficiencies.
'I don't want the agency to come and tell us why they can't do something,' he said. 'I want them to come with ideas, and I think that needs to be our big focus.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

This Kansas town doesn't hate immigrants enough. So the Trump administration plots vengeance.
This Kansas town doesn't hate immigrants enough. So the Trump administration plots vengeance.

Yahoo

time6 hours ago

  • Yahoo

This Kansas town doesn't hate immigrants enough. So the Trump administration plots vengeance.

Lawrence and Douglas County appeared on a Department of Homeland Security list of 'sanctuary jurisdictions.' (Clay Wirestone/Kansas Reflector) The Trump administration has put my town — the place my family and I call home — on its hit list for a thought crime. What horrible thing have the people of Lawrence and wider Douglas County done to deserve this fate? Apparently, we don't sufficiently detest immigrants. Put questions of legal status aside. As we all know, it doesn't matter to the hate-bloated buffoons in Washington, D.C., what papers a person has or doesn't have. They will ship you off to a foreign gulag if you're the wrong color or in the wrong place. Because Lawrence had the unmitigated audacity to care about people who look different, it has been threatened with the full wrath of the federal government. It might be shocking, if so little was shocking these days. The Department of Homeland Security posted a list of 500-plus 'sanctuary jurisdictions' on its website May 29, highlighting cities and counties that supposedly run afoul of its anti-immigrant agenda. Three days later, officials took down the page after an outcry from local law enforcement. Thanks to the Internet Archive, you can still browse the list and read the government's inflammatory rhetoric: 'DHS demands that these jurisdictions immediately review and revise their policies to align with Federal immigration laws and renew their obligation to protect American citizens, not dangerous illegal aliens.' There's a lot to unpack there — immigrants commit fewer crimes than those born in the United States, for one thing — but let's press on. The point is that my town and county landed on the list. Let's try to figure out why. Back in 2020, the city passed an ordinance protecting undocumented folks. Two years later, the Kansas Legislature pushed through a bill banning sanctuary cities, and Lawrence subsequently revised its ordinance. You can read the current city code here. What's important to note is that the current language gives wide berth to state and federal law, making clear that the city won't obstruct or hinder federal immigration enforcement. By the same token, that doesn't mean the city has to pursue a brazenly anti-immigration path. Lawrence can and should represent the will of voters, while following applicable law. And those voters, through their elected representatives, chose to make their city a welcoming one. So how did Lawrence end up on the list? Apparently because it didn't spew enough hatred for the White House's liking. A senior DHS official told NPR that 'designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a sanctuary jurisdiction, noncompliance with federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens.' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pontificated on Fox News: 'Some of the cities have pushed back. They think because they don't have one law or another on the books that they don't qualify, but they do qualify. They are giving sanctuary to criminals.' Note those phrases from the official and Noem: 'Self-identification as a sanctuary jurisdiction.' 'One law or another.' In other words, it doesn't matter what ordinances a city or county has on the books. It doesn't matter what the actual laws may be. It apparently depends on what a city calls itself and how the Trump administration feels about it. No city or county sets out to break the law. They have attorneys on staff or retainer to make sure they don't break myriad legal restrictions. Lawrence followed the law in enacting its original ordinance, and when the law changed, officials followed along. But few want to step out and say such things publicly, given that federal officials have tremendous resources behind them. They could crush any city or county if they wished, through legal bills alone. Thankfully, as mentioned above, sheriffs across the nation pushed back. 'This list was created without any input, criteria of compliance, or a mechanism for how to object to the designation,' said National Sheriffs' Association president Sheriff Kieran Donahue. 'Sheriffs nationwide have no way to know what they must do or not do to avoid this arbitrary label. This decision by DHS could create a vacuum of trust that may take years to overcome.' Douglas County Sheriff Jay Armbrister was similarly outspoken in comments to the Lawrence Journal-World: 'We feel like the goalposts have been moved on us, and this is now merely a subjective process where one person gets to decide our status on this list based on their opinion.' Thanks to the U.S. Constitution and its First Amendment, we are not required to love, like or even respect our government. We are not required to voice support of its goals. We are not required to say anything that we don't want to say about immigration, immigrants or ICE. Republicans understood that full well when Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama were in office. Both faced torrents of criticism on this very subject. Those presidents took the abuse. It was, and is, part of the job. Now President Donald Trump and his anti-immigration minions have to deal with the fact that a different segment of the public vehemently disagrees with their immigration policies. That's OK. That's protected expression. Within the bounds of law, we are also free to define our towns, cities and counties however we want. Accusing local governments of thought crimes desecrates and defames our Constitution. Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.

Latinas for Trump co-founder blasts ‘inhumane' immigrant arrests
Latinas for Trump co-founder blasts ‘inhumane' immigrant arrests

The Hill

time17 hours ago

  • The Hill

Latinas for Trump co-founder blasts ‘inhumane' immigrant arrests

Florida state senator Ileana Garcia (R), co-founder of Latinas for Trump, issued a sharp rebuke of President Trump on Sunday as his administration seeks to ramp up deportations and other actions against undocumented immigrants. Garcia took particular issue with reported tactics in southern Florida, where immigration officials have allegedly been making arrests in immigration courts and taking other steps to target individuals otherwise in compliance with legal orders. 'This is not what we voted for,' Garcia wrote in a post on X. 'I have always supported Trump, @realDonaldTrump, through thick and thin. However, this is unacceptable and inhumane.' 'I understand the importance of deporting criminal aliens, but what we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings—in many cases, with credible fear of persecution claims—all driven by a Miller-like desire to satisfy a self-fabricated deportation goal,' she continued in her post, referring to White House homeland security adviser and deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller. 'This undermines the sense of fairness and justice that the American people value,' Garcia added. The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment. Garcia's comments followed criticism from Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.), who issued a statement saying she's 'fully aware' of and 'heartbroken… because of the recent immigration actions of the administration.' She said the administration's actions have 'left thousands exposed to deportation' and jeopardized 'our duty to due process that every democracy must guarantee.' Salazar said anyone with a pending asylum claim 'deserves to go through the legal process,' noting that, 'It is an indisputable fact' that most of these claims come from people who fled Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, which Salazar noted are 'the three most brutal regimes in our hemisphere and sworn enemies of the United States.' 'I wholeheartedly agree that the administration must kick out every criminal here illegally, just as President Trump promised. Many still remain, and we should keep our focus on them,' Salazar added, noting that she plans to meet with administration officials this coming week. Garcia issued her statement in response to Salazar's remarks, saying, 'I stand with Congresswoman Salazar.' 'As the state senator who represents her district and the daughter of Cuban refugees, who are now just as American, if not more so than Stephen Miller, I am deeply disappointed by these actions. And I will not stand down,' Garcia wrote.

Men in DC are getting their jawlines done
Men in DC are getting their jawlines done

Politico

time2 days ago

  • Politico

Men in DC are getting their jawlines done

Washington is looking a little different lately — and not just politically. Even the faces of powerful men are beginning to change, as surgeons and dermatologists get more and more male clients looking to enhance their jawlines. 'The surgeons and dermatologists who treat the D.C. power class will never share their patients' secrets,' writes Joanna Weiss in this week's Friday Read. 'Some doctors strategically time surgeries during congressional recess, and many go out of their way to make sure their clients aren't even seen entering the office, using a spy-movie-like web of hidden entries and secret back doors. But they will also tell you that, among the political power set, jaws are currently hot.' In a government led by a TV-obsessed commander-in-chief, appearances are more important in politics than ever. And lately, it's the pursuit of a Chad-like chin that's driving men under the knife. After all, looking weak could be a vulnerability. 'Across the internet and the gossip-journalism universe, it's not hard to find speculation about the mandibles of everyone from the Trump sons to Elon Musk,' Weiss writes. 'And if you're watching TV and wondering if some D.C. figure has a jawline that's newly strong and square … well, you might be right.' Read the story. 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.' Can you guess who said this about the president? Scroll to the bottom for the answer.** Trump vs. Pride … Dupont Circle is the traditional heart of Washington's local gay community, but you won't see rainbow flags waving through the park for Pride this weekend, as the Trump administration has fenced it off. 'The Park Service claims this is to prevent damage by revelers,' writes Capital City columnist Michael Schaffer. 'But plenty of outraged locals see a more sinister motivation.' Wait, why is everyone talking about a breakup? If you somehow missed the spectacular scrap between Elon Musk and Donald Trump, study up on these talking points so your friends won't think you're living under a rock. (From Associate Editor Dylon Jones) — Make yourself sound like an expert analyst with a word of warning for Trump: 'Seventy-six percent of Republicans view Musk favorably — more than House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Majority Leader John Thune and just about everyone else. He could become a real chaos agent who rocks Trump's midterm plans.' — As a political expert, you can speak to the bigger-picture divisions behind this feud: 'This is just the personification of the tech right vs. MAGA populist divide. This was inevitable ever since the H-1B visa debate picked up within the GOP coalition.' — Make sure to bring up Musk's main MAGA antagonist, Steve Bannon. 'Did you see that Bannon quote Rachel Bade got in POLITICO Magazine? 'MAGA's done with him.' He's even suggesting Trump consider deporting him.' — Bring in a dispatch from the podcast circuit for your liberal friends who never tune in: 'JD Vance told Theo Von that he hopes Musk comes back over to their side, but 'maybe that's not possible now because he's gone so nuclear.'' Is MAGA Losing the Tech Right? … Elon Musk's dramatic breakup with President Donald Trump isn't just a sign of two strong personalities that had become allies inevitably clashing. It's also a sign of two strong ideologies that had become allies inevitably clashing. There's the tech right Musk embodies, which supports H-1B visas that promote highly skilled immigration, and there's the MAGA populist right, led by Steve Bannon, that staunchly opposes immigration writ large. They had seemed to have struck an uneasy truce. 'But the renewal of hostilities between Trump and Musk this week shows that the underlying ideological disagreement between the two factions was never really resolved,' writes Ian Ward. Butterworth's Doesn't Care About the Bromance Blow-Up … The Musk vs. Trump earthquake was a tectonic event on the internet, but it hardly registered on the Richter scale over at Butterworth's, the fashionable MAGA bistro on Capitol Hill. 'As the denizens of Butterworth's saw things, the kerfuffle was simply the temper tantrum of a disgruntled administration official who'd run afoul of a popular president,' writes Ben Jacobs. 'And Trump's counter attacks dismissing the world's richest man as 'going CRAZY'? Now that was gospel.' Andrew Yang Has a Pitch for Elon Musk … Andrew Yang has been pushing his independent Forward Party for years. But the recent falling out between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump has given him a new opportunity to bring the world's richest man into the fold — or, at least, to try. 'Elon has built world-class companies from nothing more than an idea multiple times, and in this instance, you have the vast majority of Americans who are hungry for a new approach,' Yang tells Assistant Editor Catherine Kim. 'I'm happy to spell it out for Elon or anyone else who wants to head down this road: A third party can succeed very quickly.' From the drafting table of editorial cartoonist Matt Wuerker. Who Dissed? answer: That would be his erstwhile ally, Elon Musk, who dropped the allegation in a since-deleted post on X. politicoweekend@

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store