mcre Media
Saturday, March 7, 2026
Chas.
Beer
In a city like Topeka, where infrastructure spending is vital for growth, Dobler's arrangements undermine accountability.
More about Neil
- Civil and structural engineering
- Transportation (roads, highways, rail)
- Water supply, wastewater, and stormwater management
- Energy and renewable energy solutions (including biogas)
- Site development, landscape architecture
- Surveying, construction management, and GIS
- Strategic planning and asset management
B & W
Watch "#motivation #changeyour #youtubeshorts #dothingsyoudontwanttodo #habitsthatchangeyourlife #relations" on YouTube
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
Friday, March 6, 2026
Public records show others, like you (Henry McClure), have referenced his work in KORA requests for his past inquiries into GO Topeka board meetings.
- 2010: In a letter to the editor, Ledbetter questioned whether GO Topeka's records were subject to KORA, referencing a conversation with Shawnee County Commissioner Ted Ensley who confirmed they were. He criticized potential secrecy around economic development deals, arguing public funds demand openness.
- 2011: During a JEDO meeting discussing GO Topeka transparency, the board adjourned without hearing public comments from Ledbetter and others, prompting criticism of the process.
- 2014 (Major Push): At the May 14 JEDO board meeting, Ledbetter provided extensive public comment on the RFP and contract renewal for GO Topeka's economic development services. He argued the RFP stated expenditures would be subject to KORA, but the proposed contract omitted this, potentially leading to costly court fights. He cited AG opinions, including one on Finney County economic development funds (where significant public money to private orgs triggers KORA) and another on nonprofits. Ledbetter proposed specific contract language: "This grant/contract is subject to Kansas Open Records Act, and all records of expenditures of this money shall be deposited with the City of Topeka Clerk every 30 days." He criticized GO Topeka's lack of responsiveness to his requests and emphasized transparency for public money, land purchases, and incentives (e.g., questioning a deal with Yantra Services). Despite support from Councilman John Campos II for adding KORA language, the board approved the contract without it after debate clarifying JEDO's oversight but not full public access. Ledbetter vowed to continue advocating and provided the AG opinion for the record.
- 2015: Ledbetter spoke at a March 25 JEDO meeting under public comment, highlighting a "disconnect" between small businesses and GO Topeka, questioning millions invested in projects amid transparency issues. He also addressed JEDO on selecting a consultant in April.
- 2017: At a March 29 JEDO meeting, he supported extending GO Topeka's contract but requested to review it before the vote, continuing his push for scrutiny.
File a KORA Request: Submit to Go Topeka/Greater Topeka Partnership for minutes, agendas, financials. If denied, appeal to AG (ag.ks.gov/file-a-complaint/koma-kora-violations).
- Receive or expend public funds (e.g., tax dollars).
- Are subject to control by a governmental unit (e.g., through board appointments, oversight, or statutory creation).
- Act as a governmental agency by performing public functions (e.g., economic development traditionally handled by government) or have independent authority to make governmental decisions.
- Public Funds Alone Are Insufficient: Mere receipt of tax dollars (even substantial amounts) does not trigger KOMA/KORA if the entity is otherwise private. For example, vendors or service providers paid with public funds are exempt.
- Quasi-Governmental Status: A nonprofit becomes "quasi-governmental" when it effectively acts as an extension of government. This is fact-specific and often requires a court or AG opinion. Subordinate groups (e.g., committees created by public bodies) are explicitly covered if a majority discusses business.
- Application to Go Topeka: Based on available governance documents and AG precedents, Go Topeka likely does not fully meet the threshold for automatic KOMA/KORA coverage. It operates independently as a nonprofit, with a mix of private and ex officio public members (e.g., mayor, county commissioner). However, its role in administering public incentives and having government officials on the board could argue for coverage under the "control" and "governmental function" prongs. No specific court ruling or AG opinion directly addresses Go Topeka, but similar entities (e.g., chambers of commerce or economic development commissions) have been deemed not subject. If meetings are closed and minutes unpublished, this could violate KOMA if deemed applicable, but transparency can still be demanded via KORA requests for records (e.g., board agendas, financials).
- Memorial Hospital Ass'n v. Knutson, 239 Kan. 663 (1986): A nonprofit hospital leasing county facilities and receiving public mill levy funds (~$228,000/year) was not subject to KOMA. The court emphasized limited government control and no independent decision-making authority, despite public funding. This precedent suggests entities like Go Topeka—receiving funds but operating autonomously—may avoid coverage.
- State v. Great Plains of Kiowa County, Inc., 294 Kan. 220 (2012): A nonprofit hospital was an "instrumentality" under KORA due to its creation by voter initiative and role in fulfilling public healthcare needs. The court focused on the entity's purpose as an extension of government will, making records accessible. This could apply if Go Topeka is seen as fulfilling a core government function (economic development).
- Kansas One-Call Sys., Inc. v. State, 294 Kan. 220 (2012): Mere receipt of public funds was insufficient to subject a nonprofit utility locator to KOMA. The entity lacked government control.
- AG Opinions (Non-Binding but Influential):
- Opin. 87-143: A nonprofit economic development org (Three Rivers, Inc.) was subject to KOMA due to public funding, government creation, and service provision.
- Opin. 94-42: K-10 Corridor Development, Inc. (economic dev) was not subject, as it was privately formed with limited control.
- Opin. 99-64: Prairie Village Economic Development Commission not subject, despite public ties.
- Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission (K.S.A. 46-215 et seq.): Oversees conflicts for state/local officials. Officials must file Statements of Substantial Interests (SSI) annually, disclosing interests exceeding 5% or $5,000 in businesses/nonprofits.
- K.S.A. 46-233: Prohibits officials from having a substantial interest in contracts funded by laws they helped pass. Disclosure is required; voting may be barred if interest is direct.
- K.S.A. 75-4304 (Local Conflicts): Local officials must disclose interests in contracts/decisions. No outright ban on board service, but recusal if conflict arises (e.g., real estate agent voting on incentives benefiting their clients).
- Recent Developments: Senate Bill 66 (2025) proposes banning local officials from voting on development projects with "substantial interest" (e.g., financial gain), highlighting ongoing concerns.
- AG Opin. 2005-17: A county commissioner could serve on a nonprofit science center board, as long as interests are disclosed and no direct contract benefit.
- AG Opin. 2001-25: City council member on 501(c)(3) board could vote on city contracts with the org, absent substantial interest.
- Sedgwick County Case (2021): Commissioners failed to disclose nonprofit board ties, violating SSI laws, leading to fines/scrutiny.
- No specific Go Topeka conflicts found in public records, but the presence of a real estate agent (e.g., representing developers) could trigger recusal if board actions benefit their business.
- If KOMA Applies: Closed meetings/no minutes could lead to AG investigations, court orders for openness, fines up to $500 per violation, or action invalidation.
- If KORA Applies: Nonprofits receiving $350+ in public funds must disclose expenditures (K.S.A. 45-240), even if not fully "public."
- Broader Kansas Transparency Issues: No major Go Topeka controversies found, but state-wide critiques (e.g., ACLU calling Kansas "secretive") highlight similar setups.
- File a KORA Request: Submit to Go Topeka/Greater Topeka Partnership for minutes, agendas, financials. If denied, appeal to AG (ag.ks.gov/file-a-complaint/koma-kora-violations).
- Complain to AG or DA: For suspected KOMA violations or undisclosed conflicts.
- Ethics Complaint: To Governmental Ethics Commission (ethics.ks.gov) for SSI non-disclosure.
- Public Advocacy: Share findings with voters via media/op-eds; petition for audits or referendums on funding.
- Litigation: If evidence of violations, sue in district court to enforce KOMA/KORA (e.g., seeking records or open meetings).
Fw: NOTICE-Public Health & Safety Committee Meeting: March 11, 2026 @ 1:00pm
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2026 4:31 PM
To: mcre13@gmail.com <mcre13@gmail.com>
Subject: NOTICE-Public Health & Safety Committee Meeting: March 11, 2026 @ 1:00pm
|
Loud Light ### Party Lean: Overwhelmingly Democratic. No Republican endorsements found.
Loud Light is a Kansas-based nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing civic participation, particularly among youth and underrepresented communities. Below, I'll provide a comprehensive overview based on available public information, including their structure, history, political orientation, activities, funding, and involvement with candidates or elections. This draws from their official websites, financial disclosures, third-party analyses, news reports, and related searches. Note that Loud Light operates as two related entities: the main 501(c)(3) nonprofit (focused on education and nonpartisan engagement) and Loud Light Civic Action, a 501(c)(4) affiliate (focused on advocacy and lobbying). They claim to be nonpartisan, but their activities, partnerships, and endorsements align with progressive and Democratic-leaning causes.
History and Founding
- Founded: 2015 by Davis Hammet in Topeka, Kansas. It started as a one-person operation aimed at boosting youth voter turnout and participation. By 2025, it marked its 10th anniversary, having grown into a larger organization with staff, fellows, and statewide reach.
- Evolution: Initially focused on voter registration and education, it expanded to include coalition-building, informational campaigns, and legal challenges to voting barriers. The Civic Action arm was established to handle more direct advocacy, as 501(c)(3) rules limit political activities.
- Key People:
- Davis Hammet (Founder and President): Background in left-leaning activism, including work with RePower (a progressive training group), the U.S. Senate campaign of Charlie Crist (initially Independent, later Democrat), and Planting Peace (a global anti-poverty nonprofit). He remains the primary leader and is the only compensated key personnel in financial filings (salary around $93,000–$100,000 in recent years).
- Other Staff/Board: Includes Advocacy Director Melissa Stiehler (Civic Action arm), board members like Rev. Sarah Oglesby-Dunegan (Chair) and Farai Harreld (Treasurer), who receive no compensation. The organization employs fellows and volunteers for fieldwork.
- Location and Reach: Headquartered in Topeka, KS (P.O. Box 4045), with activities statewide. They emphasize Kansas-specific issues but are part of national networks like the Alliance for Youth Action.
Mission and Programs
- Core Mission: To engage, educate, and empower underrepresented populations (especially youth, people of color, and low-income communities) to build community power and influence decision-makers. They aim to "turnout the vote and turn up democracy" by overcoming voter apathy, providing accessible information, and demanding accountable government.
- Key Programs and Activities:
- Voter Registration and Education: Run drives targeting students and young voters (e.g., helped register 10,000 new voters ahead of the 2020 election). Provide guides on voting rules, such as allowing college students to register at either their home or school address.
- Informational Campaigns: Produce videos, explainers on legislation, and resources like community resource fairs (e.g., KC Metro event in March 2026). They track bills and testify in the Kansas Legislature (e.g., opposing HB 2438 in 2025, which would restrict online voter registration).
- Advocacy and Coalitions: Partner with groups like ACLU Kansas, Demos, League of Women Voters, and Kansas Governor Laura Kelly (D) on expanding voter access. Involved in issues like fair maps (#fairmapsks protests at the Kansas Supreme Court), abortion rights (opposed bans post-2022), trans rights (condemned SB 244 veto override in 2026, calling it "state-sanctioned harassment"), and civil rights.
- Youth Empowerment: Fellowships and training to build leadership among young Kansans. Member of the Alliance for Youth Action, a network of progressive youth voter groups.
- Legal Actions: Filed lawsuits against Kansas election officials (e.g., against Secretary of State Scott Schwab (R) for delaying public voter data in 2020 and 2021; won a 2019 case against Johnson County for provisional ballot lists). Temporarily halted voter registration drives in 2021 due to a new law broadly defining "impersonating an election official" as a felony, fearing prosecution.
- Impact: Claim to represent over 16,000 Kansans across all legislative districts. Focus on countering low turnout (e.g., citing 2018 stats: 53% overall, 32% youth). They've influenced policy by challenging restrictive laws and boosting participation in marginalized groups.
Political Orientation: Liberal/Progressive, Leans Democratic
- Self-Description: Nonpartisan, focused on "social good and justice." They emphasize collective action to hold officials accountable based on "needs and values" of young/underrepresented Kansans.
- In Practice: Described by third-party sources like InfluenceWatch as "left-of-center." Their activities oppose Republican-led voting restrictions (e.g., grace periods for mail ballots, early voting limits) and support progressive issues like expanded voter access, LGBTQ+ rights, and abortion access. They've criticized GOP figures like Rep. Pat Proctor (R) for pushing "conspiracy-minded" bills.
- Not Republican or conservative: No evidence of support for conservative policies or candidates. Their opposition to bills like those restricting voting aligns with Democratic priorities.
- Liberal/Progressive: Partnerships with left-leaning groups (ACLU, Demos, Movement Voter Project). Hammet's background is in Democratic/progressive campaigns. They advocate against "corporate influence" in politics and for inclusive representation.
- Controversies:
- Accused by conservatives of promoting "voter fraud" through access expansions, but no substantiated claims.
- In 2021–2022, paused registration due to GOP-backed laws, highlighting tensions with Republican-dominated legislature.
- Involved in high-profile advocacy, like condemning anti-trans legislation and supporting youth turnout that polls showed opposed abortion bans (75% of 18–34-year-olds per their cited data).
How They Pick/Engage with Candidates: Endorsements via Civic Action Arm
- General Approach: The 501(c)(3) arm (Loud Light) does not endorse candidates, as it's prohibited. Instead, they educate voters on issues and candidates without direct support.
- Endorsements: Handled by the 501(c)(4) Loud Light Civic Action, which can engage in limited political activity. They endorse based on alignment with voting rights, civil rights, youth empowerment, and progressive values (e.g., expanding access, opposing suppression). Criteria aren't explicitly detailed publicly, but endorsements favor candidates who support "free and fair elections" and community needs.
- Party Lean: Overwhelmingly Democratic. No Republican endorsements found.
- Examples from Recent Elections (via Blue Voter Guide and reports):
- Federal/Statewide: Endorsed Patrick Schmidt (D) for U.S. House (KS-02), emphasizing veterans' issues.
- State Legislature: Endorsed candidates like Jennifer Day (D) for Kansas House, Alexis Simmons (D) for Kansas House (opposed personal attacks in election reform hearings), and others in districts focused on affordable healthcare, union jobs, and voting rights.
- Other: Supported pro-choice and pro-LGBTQ+ Democrats in 2022–2024 cycles, aligning with groups like LPAC (LGBTQ PAC) and Kansas Democratic Party.
- Process: Likely involves reviewing candidate positions on key issues like voter access and civil liberties. They build "power to impact any election" through turnout, indirectly aiding aligned candidates.
- No Direct Candidate "Picking": They don't run primaries or select nominees; endorsements are selective support for those matching their mission. Focus is on voter mobilization rather than party-building.
Funding and Financials
All funding comes from donations and grants (no program revenue or investments). Revenue has grown significantly, reflecting expanded operations.
| Year | Revenue | Expenses | Assets | Key Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | $81,136 | $70,548 | $19,546 | Early years, modest growth. |
| 2018 | ~$190,000 (peak early) | N/A | N/A | Funded by Kansas Health Foundation grant ($50,000 for youth participation). |
| 2019 | N/A | N/A | N/A | All donations. |
| 2020 | $745,411 | N/A | N/A | Surge during election year. |
| 2021 | $375,839 | N/A | N/A | Post-election dip. |
| 2022 | $669,586 | N/A | N/A | Includes Movement Voter Project grants. |
| 2023 | $816,432 | $602,916 | $1,012,101 | Expenses mostly salaries (~57% or $344,000). |
| 2024 | $1,220,169 | $1,010,075 | $1,245,188 | Salaries ~53% ($539,000); Hammet's pay: $93,312 + benefits. |
Sources: Primarily progressive funders like Movement Voter Project (Youth and Student Fund), Kansas Health Foundation, Silicon Valley Community Foundation ($103,350 in 2024), NEA Advocacy ($150,000 indirect via allies), and Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation (abortion-related). Civic Action arm received $50,000 in 2024. Total 2024 funding across entities: ~$452,000 for Loud Light + $50,000 for Civic Action.- Transparency: No professional fundraising fees. All officers except Hammet unpaid.
Social Media and Recent Activity
- X (Twitter): @loud_light (active, 1,000+ followers). Posts focus on protests (e.g., fair maps rallies), legislative updates, and calls to action. Recent examples include lawsuits challenging mail ballot laws, veto session recaps (criticizing "back to Brownback days" and fetal personhood bills), and house elections testimony.
- Other: Active on Facebook (@LoudLightKS), Instagram (@loud_light with 14K followers), and YouTube (fellowships videos, civic engagement series). They host events like rallies at the Kansas Capitol and collaborate with universities (e.g., Washburn University's WU Votes).
In summary, Loud Light is a progressive, youth-focused nonprofit that leans Democratic in practice, despite nonpartisan claims. They empower voters rather than directly "pick" candidates, but their endorsements support liberals advancing voting and civil rights. No ties to Republicans or conservatives; their work counters what they see as suppressive policies from the GOP-led legislature.
