Stop the insanity
Phil Dillon - Emporia
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
ON SEPT. 1, Dale Fjell and the Lyon County extension office held an informational meeting about the possibility of creating a combined Lyon-Chase county office, empowered as a standalone taxing entity, independent of the oversight of Lyon and Chase county governments.
On Sept. 23, Fjell and his team pitched the proposal to the Lyon County commission. The basis of the pitch — a consolidated district would create efficiencies, lift an oversight burden from the county commissioners, and “enhance” programming.
Commissioner Rollie Martin favored the proposal, despite his clever attempt to claim he was “sitting on the fence.” Commissioner Teresa Walters said she was undecided and “agonizing” over her decision. Commissioner Scott Briggs sought public input.
My input at the meeting was that this is a bad idea. I still maintain that view. In fact, I don’t understand how such a bad idea got this much traction to begin with.
It’s a bad idea, first, because it’s actually inefficient.
Proponents have been touting the idea that the realignment would create economies of scale, synergies and whatever other trendy buzz phrase they could conjure up. Taking five extension agents and putting them under the supervision of eight independent commissioners is about as far from being an economy of scale as one could get. How could creating a new bureaucracy be considered increasing efficiency or reducing cost? It simply can’t.
In his stint as Soviet Minister of Agriculture, Nikita Khrushchev stayed alive by creating mini-bureaucracies to insulate himself from the wrath of Uncle Joe Stalin. Khruschev cleverly created the ministry of the winter wheat, the ministry of the beet, the ministry of the apple, orange, etc. He actually created inefficiencies and low productivity that caused enormous suffering. Needless bureaucracies tend to do things like that.
So, let me repeat for emphasis. This is a bad idea because it cannot produce any of the efficiencies its proponents claim.
It’s a bad idea, second, because the claimed burden of the Lyon County commissioners under the current scheme is non-existent. The extension office represents a few employees and one line item on an annual budget.
How could eliminating one line item and the oversight responsibility for one department eliminate a burden? The answer — it couldn’t, and it wouldn’t.
It’s a bad idea, third, because it will not save the people of Lyon County any money. Currently, the county commissioners get budget input from all county departments. It’s their responsibility to weigh the needs of the sheriff’s department, Lyon County’s senior citizens, the roads department and others against economic reality. This seems quite sensible to me.
I’m sure that each department would love to have budget increases. As a citizen, I think it would be absolutely wonderful if all people in Lyon County had their own personal deputy to look after their safety. I think it would be great if every wish of our senior citizens could be met with budget increases. I’d love to have every Lyon County pothole filled.
But, Lyon County government doesn’t operate on the principle of loaves and fishes. Our commissioners must weigh the requests of each department against the current economic reality, and that reality is tough. If the proposal’s proponents don’t believe that, all they need to do is stand on any street corner in Emporia and ask folks passing by. They’d get a great lesson in belt tightening.
It’s a bad proposal, fourth, because it’s been presented with smoke and mirrors. In the two meetings, proponents claimed the cost of implementation would amount to about 57 cents for each person in Lyon County. I don’t believe that, nor should the people of Lyon County.
In fact, I’d say beware of someone coming to us with talk like that. It sounds too much like the stuff we used to get from door to door encyclopedia salesmen.
“This will only cost you a dime a day.”
“Why it’s less than the cost of a cup of coffee.”
It was all nonsense, akin to a game of three-card Monte. The current proposal is nonsense. too.
A couple of years ago the extension office was moved to the old John Deere dealership building . By the time the cost over-runs were calculated, the people of Lyon County paid to the tune of more than $400,000 (The Emporia Gazette , Feb. 27, 2008). Is something like this possible again? You betcha.
It’s a bad proposal, fifth, because it creates another independent taxing authority for the people of Lyon County to deal with. That’s the last thing we need.
The Feds tax us.
The State of Kansas taxes us.
We’re taxed in the city.
We’re taxed in the county.
We’re taxed by the school district.
We’re taxed when we purchase something.
We’re taxed when we turn on our water faucets.
We’re taxed when we put our trash out.
And now the extension office wants us to grant them the independent power to tax, with no mill levy cap in place. I say, enough. Stop the insanity.
Finally, it’s a bad idea simply because it’s a bad idea. It sounds an awful lot like, “If it ain’t broke, then break it.”
Commissioner Martin admitted that it was a bad idea tax-wise and a bad idea control-wise. Yet, he supports the proposal for some unspecified “cultural” and “trust” reasons.
What on earth does that mean? It makes absolutely no sense.
Commissioner Walters claims to be undecided and agonizing. That makes no sense either.
Commissioner Briggs did have the good sense to solicit public input. I think it would be wonderful if those opposed to this insanity would give our commissioners the Howard Beale treatment: Open your windows. Get on your phones. Tell them “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more!”
Let us hope they’ll listen, and the insanity will end.
admireed (anonymous) says...
It takes courage for commissioners to represent taxpayers and vote no. We will see if they have it.
September 30, 2009 at 1:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dale011 (anonymous) says...
I agree, if you give them a chance to tax it will become a christmas party at our expense. Thank you Scott Briggs for not falling in line with the rest of the counsel. I believe the good folks in Lyon County have paid all they can afford to pay.
September 30, 2009 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Don' t forget to have positive thoughts ! ( sarcasm fully intended ) .
September 30, 2009 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporian (anonymous) says...
Email sent to all three commissioners.
September 30, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
People in Lyon and Chase counties want economy and guess what, they will pay any price to get it. An old "Flint Hills" cowboy said, "If you torture the numbers, they will confess to anything. Peter Peterson said, "When economics gets important enough, it becomes political." Lyon and Chase counties are places where politicans don't know which way is up and taxes and utility rates don't know which way is down! I hope they don't appoint a fact finding committee, when what they should do, is to appoint a fact-facing committee. We need a modern day Mat Dillion to arrest the increase in government. Government history is usually the unfolding of miscalculation.
September 30, 2009 at 11:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
logical (anonymous) says...
Why would the board go crazy spending tax dollars? After all, they are tax payers too!! They don't receive a dime for serving on the board and do it because they believe in the benefit of the services K-State Research and Extension has to offer. There is no incentive for them to go crazy with spending as you imply they will do. After all, it is an elected position and they represent those that elect them. A couple points to consider. You mention the John Deere Building. They did not ask to move from their location downtown. They are not the only agency utilizing the building and were not in charge of the remodeling. Did you include the amount the county received from the sale of the property at 618 Commercial in your total? You allege smoke and mirrors but have no facts to support that. You mentioned it being inefficient that they would be placing them under the supervision of 8 commissioners. Do you realize each office is already under the supervision of an executive board? This has proven to work efficiently and effectively and brings diversity to programming.
September 30, 2009 at 11:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
A great letter Phil!
A note to logical:
When the building at 618 Commercial was sold, there was plenty of space for the extension offices at the old courthouse annex for them to move to. Someone, I believe, from the extension office, said that space wouldn't work as it was in a "unsafe" part of town.
So the John Deere bldg was purchased for a 1/4 million and remodeled at another $300,000.00 or so.
To these costs add:
1.The old J.D. building is off of property tax rolls, (several thoushands of dollars a year).
2.Added Electric, gas, and water bills for a stand alone building.
3. Added custodial, maintenance.and repair bills to a stand alone building.
Now is NOT the time to allow taxing authority to the extension office.
IT IS time to rethink the CONTINUED FUNDING of a government operation, that has been rendered redundent in the electronic age.We can always reach K-State Extension on the internet.
October 1, 2009 at 7:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
The point is, when the county bought the building and moved the extension office instead of using available space the people involved in it PROVED they were not good stewards of public tax dollars.
October 1, 2009 at 7:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
A good story for the Gazette to run would to be to check the exsisting 9 districts and see if their mil-levies/ budgets have increased since they were formed.
October 1, 2009 at 7:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
If these people can sucker people out of tax dollars, I say go for it! This only proves them to be more superior than those of us who can't sucker people out of tax dollars.
R.
October 1, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
b3bill (anonymous) says...
Great editorial, Phil.
I don't believe any of the propaganda that it will only cost 57 cents per person in Lyon county, or any of the rest of the sales pitch. I'm betting it will amount to more like 57 cents per day, if not more, once this is all set up.
People have had it with more and more taxes. Every tax-receiving entity whines and bawls that they just have to have more money. To top it off, last year the citizens of Lyon County were fooled into voting for an additional 1% sales tax to offset increasing property taxes starting this year. Guess what, property taxes are going up, just gotta have more money for the county. "Oh but we didn't know we would be above the tax limit by adding the 1%....", so the tax starts later than planned, giving a perfect excuse for raising property taxes anyway. What a crock!!
If the reorganization of the extension office can not be proved right now to save significant money for the taxpayers of Lyon county, why spend any more time discussing it?
October 1, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Why should they try to save the tax payers money when they can take more from them?
It's to their advantage to take as much as they can get.
R.
October 1, 2009 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Weltha (anonymous) says...
What do they do at the extention office anyway? Why would I want to shell out 57cents to something when I don't even know what goes on there? Heck, they can't even mow their own lawn. They have to have a county department do it for them.
October 1, 2009 at 1:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Man, I am having more and more respect for this "extension office". They can sucker tax payers out of money for something they can easily find themselves online and they can sucker county workers into mowing their lawn. These folks survival skills are indeed advanced.
R.
October 1, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
There are now nine extension districts in Kansas, each with a history of fiscal responsibility and improved efficiencies. Each county of a district maintains an extension office and all current programs are in place.
Of the nine existing districts, all have experienced great success and community support
A QUESTION TO ROGER:
Have any of the 9 districts mil-levies gone up since they were formed?
October 2, 2009 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
FROM K-STATE EXTENSION WEBSITE
DATED MAY 19, 2009
WORD FROM THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR - EXTENSION AND APPLIED RESEARCH
To those who prefer to read my messages about leadership and about pursuing excellence, I apologize for spending so much time on budget issues over the past several months. And, here I go again.
Budget Update. After thorough analysis of the legislation, K-State Research and Extension has been given a budget reduction for Fiscal Year 2010 beginning July 1, 2009 of roughly $5,900,000 (10.67%). This reduction equals roughly $2,270,000 for Extension and $3,630,000 for the Agriculture Experiment Station. This loss of state funding rolls us back to a funding level we were at back on July 1, 2005.
At this time, we continue to review all plans to meet these reductions across the departments and units. For county and district Extension units, the plan includes loss of funding for purchase of publications ($188,839), and for postage allocation given to local units ($239,033 ). We recognize the loss of these operating funds will have significant consequence to many of our local Extension units. No changes in the salary and benefit allocations that were in place for Fiscal Year 2009 are planned for Extension agent positions with this reduction in Fiscal Year 2010 beginning July 1, 2009. We continue to provide over $5,400,000 of state and federal funds to local Extension units through salary and benefits, including full cost of retirement benefits.
I would caution that the state legislature left no room in its budget should revenues fall short of projections. Therefore, we must all be preparing for the potential of further rescissions in FY2010 and beyond.
WHAT DO YOU THINK THE LAST SENTENCE MEANS?
October 2, 2009 at 12:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
countrydog (anonymous) says...
EXTEMSION EMPLOYEES NEED TO GET A REAL JOB NOT A TAX PAYER JOB THEN THEY WOULD UNDERSTAND DOLLARS AND CENTS!!!
October 3, 2009 at 7:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
GARRISONJHALL (anonymous) says...
No way will I agree to adding a new taxing entity.
October 6, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )