NOlathe's Blog

We start with the Johnson County Board of County Commissioners’ Resolution 003-11 which authorized the formation of the current 2011 Johnson County Home Rule Charter Commission. http://chartercommission.jocogov.org/documents/Resolution%20No.%20003-11.pdf in accordance with the Home Rule Charter requirements http://chartercommission.jocogov.org/documents/Home%20Rule%20Charter.pdf

“4. PURPOSE AND RESPONSIBILITIES. The 2011 Charter Commission is empowered to conduct comprehensive studies of any or all phases of County government operations, including a review of the existing Johnson County Home Rule Charter and major resolutions of the Commission as they affect the operation of Johnson County government. On or before January 13, 2012, a report of the 2011 Charter Commission’s findings shall be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Such report shall include recommendations of the 2011 Charter Commission and such other information deemed important. Recommendations of the 2011 Charter Commission may include suggested changes in the administration of the County government, programs, and activities. It may also include proposed amendments to the Charter. All recommendations of the 2011 Charter Commission shall be adopted by a majority vote of its membership. The 2011 Charter Commission, as established by the resolution, shall terminate on the date that follows by 30 days the submission of its report.”

On September 4, 2011 we posted http://nolathe.net/2011/09/04/johnson-countys-pig-in-a-poke-httpen-wikipedia-orgwikipig_in_a_poke/  “Today September 4, 2011 this is a Public Notice in absence of one published by the Johnson County Home Rule Charter Commission: (Of course I have no authority to do that, I just wanted to show that on August 15, 2011 The Commission has scheduled another Public Hearing for September 27, 2011 absent of any publically approved minutes to identify an agenda, topics to discuss or even Committees formed for future discussion.)”

There was no meeting scheduled between August 15 and September 27.  Yet in the absence of approved minutes for August 15 and the absence of an agenda for September 27, another Public Hearing was scheduled.

During the time since our discovery, another meeting was held on September 12 and a more formal notification has been provided.  We found the Charter Commissioners were asked at the September 12 meeting to complete this questionaire (the hand written numbers to the left are so we can keep track of later tabulations).

Twenty questions were asked.  Why did the Board of County Commissioners’ Clerk only release tabulations for 17 of the 20 questions and who made that decision?  What were the 3 subjects omitted from the Public Hearing Agenda and why?  What questions asked are outside the Constitutional authority of the Home Rule Charter Commission?  Here is the posted Public Hearing agenda.  http://chartercommission.jocogov.org/agendas/Public%20Hearing%20Agenda%20092711.pdf

These topics were omitted from the Public Hearing agenda

#2 BOCC Meetings: A charter provision to review of county commission minimum meeting (frequency) requirements and their practicality.

#3 Audit Financial Impacts: A charter provision to audit stated financial impact of audit reports following departmental implementation and presenting formal results annually to County Commissioners. 

#19 Removal of Independent Board Members by the Board of County Commissioners: Support an amendment to the home rule statute to allow the Board of County Commissioners to remove any appointed member of boards, commissioners and other public bodies, appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, subject to the provision of an administrative hearing if requested.

NOlathe note: During several of the discussions this year, the Charter Commission ran in to obstacles involving existing State Statutes.  However honorable the desires to change Kansas laws may be, this lies outside the scope of the 2011 Charter Commission.  This Commission will not be active again for ten years and their energies must be directed towards improving the Home Rule Charter with the laws that are in affect today.

NOlathe note: During several of the discussions this year, County Commissioners and county staff down played suggestions made from the public during the first Public Hearing.

This item received the most favorable votes.  But can someone please explain how this applies to the 2011 Charter Commission?

“Whistleblowers” and Open Records Requests: Consider supporting an amendment to the state statute to provide for protection of “whistleblowers” in connection with audits. KSA 45-221i governs the information that must be made available to the public and may be the appropriate statute use to correct this problem. An amendment to paragraph (5) something like the following might do the job: “Information which would reveal the identity of any undercover agent, any informant reporting a specific violation of law or any individual who provides information to a county, municipal or state auditor in connection with or related to the duties of such auditor.” This part of the statute already provides for the protection of the identity of undercover agents and informants reporting violations of law.

Read Full Post »