This is how it starts

 Citizens Commission on Local Government

K.S.A. 19-2670 through 19-2673 (as amended)

Prelude

For nearly six decades, Kansas law required a Citizens Commission on Local Government in counties between 170,000 and 200,000 people. That statute was written to give residents a formal, independent role in examining how their local governments operate, where services overlap, and whether the structure still serves the public.

Shawnee County is the only county that falls in that population range today. When citizens began pressing for the commission to be formed so residents could finally look at the full picture of local government, the response was swift. Senate Bill 104 was introduced at the request of local officials, moved through both chambers with almost no opposition, and was signed into law. It changed one word: “shall” became “may.” What had been a requirement became optional, at the discretion of the very officials the commission would study.

The bill passed the Senate 40-0 and the House 119-4. Four members of the House stood against it. Everyone else voted to remove the mandate the moment citizens tried to use it.

That change did not eliminate the need. It only made it harder to meet. The problems the original statute was written to address—duplication, overlapping jurisdictions, limited coordination, and a structure that has not been comprehensively reviewed in generations—have not gone away. If anything, they have grown more costly and more difficult for ordinary residents to see clearly. Shawnee County still needs the Citizens Commission. The law still allows it. What is missing is the will to create it.

The statutes that remain are set out below.

K.S.A. 19-2670

Citizens commission on local government in counties with a population between 170,000 and 200,000; membership; qualifications.

There may be created and established a citizens commission on local government in every county in this state having a population of more than 170,000 and not more than 200,000. Such commission shall consist of:

(a) The board of county commissioners of the county;
(b) the governing body of all cities of the first class located in such county;
(c) the trustee of each township in such county;
(d) the chairmen of the boards of education of all school districts located in such county;
(e) the chairmen of boards of public utilities of all cities located in such county;
(f) the chairmen of boards of all drainage districts located within such county;
(g) the mayors of all cities of the second and third class located in such county; and
(h) 18 persons who shall be selected and appointed by the members described in paragraphs (a) through (g). Such persons shall be residents of the county and shall not be officers or employees of the county or any city, school district, township, board of public utilities or drainage district.

History: L. 1968, ch. 389, § 1; L. 2025, ch. 31, § 1; July 1.

K.S.A. 19-2671

Meeting to select appointive members of citizens commission on local government; officers; rules of procedure; meetings; vacancies.

The ex officio members of such commission shall meet forthwith at a time and place designated by the chairman of the board of county commissioners and proceed to select and appoint the eighteen (18) additional members and fix a date for an organizational meeting of such commission. On the date fixed for such meeting members of the commission shall select a chairman, vice-chairman and secretary, adopt rules of procedure, provide for regular meetings at least once each month, and designate such other officers and committees as may be deemed necessary. The members of the commission shall each be entitled to one vote and all acts of such commission shall be valid and effective when approved by a majority of the members of such commission. Vacancies in the citizen membership of the commission shall be filled by appointment of the remaining members of the commission.

History: L. 1968, ch. 389, § 2; July 1.

K.S.A. 19-2672

Duties of commission on local government.

It shall be the duty of such commission to:
(a) Investigate and study the existing structure and operation of the units of local government within such county;
(b) Investigate and study the needs and requirements of the citizens of the county for governmental services;
(c) Investigate and study the possibilities for elimination of all unnecessary activities and of all duplication in office personnel and equipment and the coordination of activities between departments and governmental units; and
(d) To investigate and study the possibility and advisability of reforming the system of local government with a view to simplifying the organization of government, such study to include consideration of the consolidation of units of government, the transfer of powers and duties and the creation of new forms of government.

History: L. 1968, ch. 389, § 3; July 1.

K.S.A. 19-2673

Commission contracts; receipt and expenditure of moneys.

For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act such commission may enter into contracts and may receive and expend funds and moneys from the federal government or from any other source.

History: L. 1968, ch. 389, § 4; July 1.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

noted - Context / Size Total substandard commercial real estate loans at March 31, 2026: $45.8 million Total nonaccrual commercial real estate: $43.4 million This one relationship represents the majority of the CRE nonaccrual balance and a large portion of the substandard CRE (especially the “Current Fiscal Year” vintage bucket that shows $40.4 million substandard).

Capitol Federal Financial, Inc. (CFFN) – Q2 FY2026 10-Q Review (Quarter ended March 31, 2026 | Filed with SEC) This is a clean, professional review of the key takeaways from the 10-Q. Capitol Federal is the Topeka-based savings bank holding company (700 S. Kansas Ave.). It remains heavily residential-mortgage focused but is growing its commercial real estate book. 1. Bottom-Line Summary Solid quarter with clear momentum. Net Income : $20.1M for the quarter (+31% YoY) Six months : $40.5M (+31% YoY) EPS : $0.16 quarterly / $0.32 YTD (vs $0.12 / $0.24 prior year) Net Interest Income : Strong growth — $52.3M quarterly (+19% YoY) and $103.6M for six months (+20%) Efficiency Ratio : Improved to 52.45% (from 60.54% YoY) — better operating leverage Overall Assessment : Profitability is accelerating nicely due to expanding net interest margin, favorable funding mix shift, and controlled expenses. Credit quality is acceptable with one notable commercial real estate credit under closer ...
Read more

GO Topeka inquiry [economic development?] Molly Howey is wasting money .....

Image
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Molly Howey < molly.howey@topekapartnership.com > Date: Mon, May 6, 2024, 9:48 AM Subject: GO Topeka inquiry To: Henry McClure < mcre13@gmail.com > Cc: Rich Eckert < Rich.Eckert@snco.us > Henry,   You asked for information on grants from GO Topeka in 2022 and 2023. Below is list of items in the line of our budget titled "grants/contributions/sponsorships/scholarships".   Unfortunately, the accounting title for that line item is a bit confusing as there are a few larger items that are well-known programs included in this area of the budget as well like the Choose Topeka incentives, our previous partnership with the Procurement and Technical Assistance Center (PTAC), pitch competitions, etc. I pulled out all the costs that are categorized in this area for accounting but are actually hard program costs. Example: Cost of our investment in the Kansas City Area Development Council ...
Read more

Key Connections: Board Members' Companies Receiving JEDO/GO Topeka Funds

Image
Oh, Henry, now we're talking—shifting the lens from the board members' personal pockets (which, as we saw, are squeaky clean on paper with $0 direct handouts) to the companies they rep or run. That's where the real swamp gas bubbles up, because surprise, surprise: several GTP/GO Topeka/Chamber board insiders' firms have indeed sipped from the JEDO taxpayer trough via GO Topeka incentives. Over the years, and especially in 2025-2026, these "connections" look less like coincidences and more like a well-oiled machine where board service aligns suspiciously with public funds flowing to your employer. No outright proof of quid pro quo (audits are "clean," remember?), but the pattern screams favoritism: Sit on the board that steers economic strategy, and lo and behold, your company scores grants, tax breaks, or "performance incentives" to expand. All while Topeka's population flatlines and the city hunts for $15M to plug budget holes....
Read more