House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for HB2509 - Committee on Local Government
Short Title
Election commissioners; role of the secretary of state and boards of county commissioners.
Minutes Content for Tue, Feb 6, 2018
Chairperson Williams opened the hearing on HB2509.
Mike Heim presented an overview of the bill.
Ed Eilert testified as a proponent of the bill stating that it would require the election commissioner to follow the same county policies and procedures as other county departments. (Attachment 1)
Melissa Wangemann testified as a proponent of the bill stating that allowing the election commissioner the ability to appropriate whatever funds needed for the department without oversight by any other body can upset the budget balance for the rest of the county. The county must meet the election office budget and then apportion the remaining funds to other county departments.(Attachment 2)
Mike Taylor testified as a proponent of the bill stating that while the Secretary of State appoints the Election Commissioner in the four largest counties, those officials are county employees and their operations need to follow the same budget and personnel policies as other county departments. (Attachment 3)
James M. Crowl testified as a proponent of the bill stating that the courts established a procedure to handle the situation if County Commissioners have not adequately funded a department. The official can file a mandamus action to compel the Commissioners to fund all necessary expenses. The Election Commissioner needs to be under the oversight of the County Commissioners to eliminate runaway spending. (Attachment 4)
David Dennis testified as a proponent of the bill stating that the Election Commissioner submits a budget that must be funded without oversight or approval. In addition, compensation and other human resources policies do not have to be followed by the Elections Commissioner. This is the only scenario in Kansas where an official enjoys no limitation on how much can be spent or what policies must be followed. (Attachment 5)
Keith Esau testified in opposition to the bill, stating that it looks reasonable on the surface, but his concern is having the county commission have authority over basic election policies and procedures via control of the election office budget. (Attachment 6)
Andrew Howell testified, with Mark Sloan assisting, in opposition to the bill, stating that the bill would unbalance the checks and balances set up by Legislature by putting the budget of the election office under the county commissioners who see budget constraints, not service issues; and who do not understand the legal requirements placed on the election process.(Attachment 7).
Ronnie Metsker testified in opposition to the bill. , stating that his department works well with the County Commissioners and does not have a problem, therefore the bill is not relevant to them and not needed. (Attachment 8)
Tabitha Lehman testified in opposition to the bill. reporting her struggles with a County Commission that consistently under funds her department and how it impacts voters and elections. She states that election commissioners need to be free to do their jobs without the interference of local partisan elected officials who are not election experts. (Attachment 9)
Bryan Caskey testified in opposition to the bill. stating that election commissioners are appointed so they are not subject to the political winds that may blow through county courthouses. There is a natural tension in the current structure that works to develop a good budget. He would like to see professional administrators allowed to create budgets and to run their offices to server the voters of the state free from political influence. (Attachment 10)
Bruce Newby presented written testimony in opposition to the bill stating his office works closely with the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas to create a budget but he is concerned that consistent under-budgeting will impeded the voting process in his jurisdiction. Current law is his only leverage to push for the funding he needs to do his job. Changing the law will invite further reduction of necessary resources. (Attachment 11)
Discussion:
It was confirmed that the Election Commissioner's office was established independent of County Commission oversight to prevent political maneuvering from affecting the election process, however budget constraints imposed by the County can still affect how an election is performed. On the other hand, an out-of-control Election Commissioner can put undue drain on County resources, particularly in times when there is a lid on county taxing authority. It was noted that the budget for Election Offices is less than 1% of any county's total budget, therefore this may not be a valid concern.
Alternative approaches were discussed, from returning the Election Commissioner position to the County Clerk's office and thereby putting it fully under county supervision, to creating a separate tax to support the election process and totally removing the Election Commissioner position from county supervision. When a conferee was asked, "Is there a way to find balance?" the response was, "I don't have a solution. I don't have a better answer."
With no more discussion, Chairperson Williams closed the hearing on HB2509 and adjourned the meeting at 2:57 PM.
