FORT SCOTT — Bourbon County Clerk Susan Walker has submitted the written resignation letter whose absence stalled the search for her successor, addressing it to Gov. Laura Kelly and giving as her reason “the current culture and leadership within this organization.”
The one-page letter is dated Aug. 15. A handwritten notation on the file copy reads “Copy to file / mailed 8/17/26” — meaning it went out on Monday, the day Walker helped conduct the county canvass certifying the Aug. 4 primary. Deputy Election Clerk Amber Page provided a scanned copy to FortScott.biz on Tuesday.
Her last day remains Aug. 31, the date she gave commissioners on Aug. 10 and the date the letter states.
“It is with deep respect, gratitude but also a heavy heart that I submit my resignation from my position as Bourbon County Clerk effective August 31, 2026.”
Walker dated the letter one day after County Attorney James Crux found that the recall petition seeking her removal from office had enough valid signatures to proceed.
Walker’s letter to the governor runs four short paragraphs and names no one.
“After much reflection, I have decided to step down due to the current culture and leadership within this organization. While this has been a difficult decision, I believe it is the right step for me personally and professionally.”
That is a narrower statement than the one she read to commissioners on Aug. 10, which addressed Commission Chairman Samuel Tran directly and accused him of open disrespect, sexist comments and “underhanded public statements designed to make people think I’m doing something criminal when I am not.” The letter to the governor drops the names and the specifics, and keeps only the phrase about culture and leadership.
Why a letter mattered
Walker announced her resignation on Aug. 10, but under Kansas law an announcement and a filing are separate things — and for a week only the announcement existed.
K.S.A. 19-2606 requires an elected county officer to file written notice of resignation “in the office of the officer or officers authorized by law to fill vacancies in such office,” send a copy to the county election officer, and state the effective date. For a county clerk, K.S.A. 19-303 routes the appointment through the same procedure used to fill a vacancy in the state House, which ends with the governor making the appointment. That is why the letter goes to Topeka rather than to the courthouse.
On Aug. 14, county Republican chair Kaety Bowers issued a statement saying Walker had told the Secretary of State’s office that her resignation was instead an “announcement” and that she had not notified the governor. The same statement retracted the party’s intent to begin the replacement process, on the election director’s instruction. Bowers wrote that the party “remains prepared to follow the law the moment formal notice is properly filed.”
Walker said in an interview on Aug. 15 — the date the letter carries — that the letter was coming and that election work had come first: “Am I sending my letter in? Absolutely, I am. I just haven’t had time.”
Asked why the party had been told to stop when K.S.A. 25-3902 starts the clock on notice that a vacancy “will occur,” the Secretary of State’s office pointed to the resignation statute.
“Bryan’s response was based on the information known at the time, as the situation has been fluid,” Whitney Tempel, the office’s director of communications and policy, wrote to FortScott.biz on Aug. 17, referring to State Elections Director Bryan Caskey. “The process cannot begin until a formal resignation has been submitted.” Her reply quoted K.S.A. 19-2606 in full.
Walker’s letter was mailed that same day.
What happens next
Under K.S.A. 25-3902, the county party chair has 21 days from receipt of notice that a vacancy “has occurred or will occur” to convene a convention of precinct committeemen and committeewomen, who elect someone for the governor to appoint. The governor then has seven days to make the appointment after receiving the convention’s certificate.
The petition to recall Bourbon County Clerk Susan Walker has enough valid signatures, the County Attorney has found. The complete signature sheets and an index of the names on them follow the story.
The recall committee got the signatures it needed.
In a letter dated August 14, Bourbon County Attorney James Crux told the three recall committee members and Walker that his office had finished reviewing the signatures on the petition to remove her from office, and that 2,312 of them are valid. “This is sufficient to meet the statutory requirements,” he wrote.
That finding sets a recall election in motion by operation of law, and it lands on a county where the office in question is about to be empty. Walker is leaving the clerk’s office effective August 31. The same statute that schedules the election also allows it to be called off once the seat is vacant.
The committee turned in 296 pages carrying 2,602 signatures on July 27. The review threw out 290 of them. Crux gives four reasons, without saying how many fell to each: “request for removal, illegible signatures, unregistered voters, and pages submitted without appropriate affidavits.”
That last reason is the only one that operates on a whole page rather than a single line. Every sheet carries a circulator’s notarized affidavit on its back, swearing that the signatures on that page were made in the circulator’s presence. A page submitted without a proper affidavit takes every signature on it down — up to ten at a time. The letter does not say how many pages were excluded that way.
What remained was 2,312 valid signatures against a requirement of 2,228 — a margin of 84.
The bar moved, and that is why the petition cleared it
For most of the year the number everyone thought was the threshold was 2,374.
That figure came from Crux himself. He gave it to the Bourbon County Monitor and to the Fort Scott Tribune in May, when he certified the grounds for recall and started the 90-day clock, and it was repeated in coverage all summer, including in the committee’s own announcement that it had beaten the requirement.
The August 14 letter revises it. Under K.S.A. 25-4325 a recall petition needs signatures equal to 40% of the votes cast for all candidates for the office at the last election. Crux now puts that vote total at 5,570, making the requirement 2,228, and explains the change in a parenthesis: “the original estimate double counted the write-in vote as the distinction between separate votes and mere explanation of the write-in vote was not clear.”
The arithmetic behind the old number implies a vote total of 5,935, about 365 votes higher, which would have meant a signature requirement 146 higher.
The difference decided the outcome. Against the corrected requirement of 2,228, the petition’s 2,312 valid signatures clear the bar by 84. Against the 2,374 that had been the published figure since May, the same 2,312 signatures would have fallen 62 short.
A recall election is scheduled. It may not be held.
K.S.A. 25-4328 requires a recall election between 60 and 90 days after the findings, and folds it into a regularly scheduled election if one falls in that window: “If a primary or general election is to be held not less than 60, nor more than 90, days after the date that notification is given that the petition was properly filed, the special election shall be held on the date of the primary or general election.”
The November 3 general election falls inside the window. “As such,” Crux writes, “the recall election shall be held at the same time as the general election.” Bourbon County voters would find a question on their November ballot asking whether Walker should be recalled from the office of county clerk.
Except that she will not be in it. The letter closes by turning to her resignation:
“However, it has come to my attention that Ms. Walker has tendered her resignation effective on August 31, 2026. On that date, her position will become open. Pursuant to K.S.A. 25-4328, the county election officer, when the position subject to recall becomes open, may cancel the special election to avoid unnecessary election expense. Once the position becomes open, that decision will be made.”
The statute reads: “If a vacancy occurs in the office held by the local officer sought to be recalled at any time after the date that notification is given that the petition therefor was properly filed, the county election officer, if such officer determines that unnecessary election expenses may be avoided thereby, may cancel such special election.” If that happens, the officer “shall immediately notify the recall committee.”
Crux does not say who will make the decision, or when beyond “once the position becomes open.” That matters here because the ordinary decision-maker is the county election officer, and in Bourbon County the county election officer is the county clerk — the office that becomes vacant on August 31. It isn’t immediately clear who will hold that authority on September 1.
Why the county attorney counted the signatures
Verifying a recall petition normally belongs to the county election officer. Under K.S.A. 25-4318, when the official facing recall is the county election officer, the county attorney takes on those duties instead. That is why this letter comes from Crux rather than from the clerk’s office: Walker could not review the signatures gathered to remove her.
The sheets are the record
The recall committee turned in 296 petition sheets on July 27. FortScott.biz requested them under the Kansas Open Records Act. The County Attorney’s office first replied that the sheets contained information falling outside the act under K.S.A. 45-221(a)(30), the personal-privacy exemption, and that redactions would be needed. All 296 sheets were then produced unredacted on August 3. What is published here is the record as the county released it.
The PDFs are the source of truth. The list further down is an index, not the document. Every name in it was read off handwriting by software, and software misreads handwriting — letters run together, strike-throughs change the shape of a word, and a scanned pen stroke is often genuinely ambiguous. Names our reading was least certain about are marked with an asterisk (*), but an unmarked name can be wrong too.
So the index exists to help you find a page, and the page is what counts. Every entry links to the sheet it came from. If a name matters to you, open the sheet and read it there.
Use your browser’s find function — Ctrl+F, or ⌘+F on a Mac — to search the index for a name.
What is on each sheet
The form is set by statute. K.S.A. 25-4320(b) gives each page ten numbered rows and four columns for the signer: printed name, street number or rural route “as registered,” city, and date of signing, next to the signature. Below the rows, the form warns that it is a class B misdemeanor to sign a name other than your own, to knowingly sign more than once for the recall of the same officer at the same election, or to sign knowing you are not a registered elector.
Each sheet also carries the grounds for the recall. The stated ground is a single one — failure to perform duties prescribed by law — but it rests on several separate assertions about the November 2025 general election, when USD 235 school board candidates were left off ballots cast during advance voting. The petition asserts that incorrect ballots were printed and distributed; that “despite the issue being brought to her attention by multiple individuals during the early voting period,” the clerk failed to correct it promptly; that she said the ballots had been printed from forms provided by the school district, a statement “later contradicted by testimony from the school superintendent”; and that corrective action came only the night before the election.
That the early-voting ballots were wrong is not in dispute; Walker has said so herself, and her office printed corrected ballots before election day. The assertion that she was told during the early voting period and did not act is disputed. Walker has said the first notification came the day before the election, and her lawsuit put the first call at 9:51 a.m. on November 3.
The back of every sheet is a sworn affidavit
Each sheet has a second side. Under K.S.A. 25-4325, the person who circulated it signs a notarized affidavit stating:
“I, [name], affiant hereto, am a circulator (sponsor) of this recall petition, the only person that has circulated this copy of the petition. The signatures found hereon were made in my actual presence and to the best of my knowledge the signatures are those of the persons whose names they purport to be. I have circulated this petition in the manner provided by K.S.A. 25-4301 et seq., and being duly sworn state the grounds for recall are true.“
The affidavit covers several distinct things. The circulator swears to how the signatures were gathered — that each was made in their presence and is the person it purports to be — and separately swears that the grounds for recall are true, which on this petition includes the disputed assertions above as well as the undisputed one. They also swear that the laws governing ciruclating the petition were followed (K.S.A. 25-4301 and following). It is sworn before a notary, who stamps a seal and signs beneath it.
The affidavit for any sheet is the page immediately after it in the same PDF, so opening a sheet and moving forward one page shows who collected those signatures, the date they swore to it, and which notary took the oath. Sixty-five people circulated these 296 sheets.
About the files
The sheets are published as the county produced them: 30 PDF files, each holding about ten sheets, front and back. Every page of the production is included, among them a few stray pages — two near-blank bleed-through scans, a page of handwritten phone notes, and three extra affidavits — that came with the record. About half the sheets were scanned sideways, so a rotation flag was added to make them display upright; no image data was altered.
What the index does not tell you
It does not indicate whether any individual signature was accepted. The County Attorney’s review produced the totals set out above, not a line-by-line result, and nothing on these sheets shows how any particular row was treated.
It does not indicate whether any signer is a registered voter. No registration status was published or determined, and nothing here should be read as suggesting anything about it.
It is also not a count of valid signatures. The index lists 2,553 names from rows that are not crossed out, together with 98 crossed-out entries and 6 rows whose printed name could not be read. Those figures count rows with writing in them; whether any particular signature was counted as valid is the county’s determination, set out above, and its numbers are the official ones.
Index of names
Alphabetical by last name, from all 296 sheets. Names marked * are ones the reading was least confident about. Click a sheet number to open the county’s scan at that page.
Names appear exactly as they were written on the sheet, including middle initials and formal first names. Someone who signed as “Michael J. Smith” is listed that way, not as “Mike Smith,” so a search for the name you go by may find nothing even though you are on the list. Searching your last name on its own is the surest way to find yourself. If you still cannot find your name, the sheets themselves are the record — the index below points to the page each one is on.
98 entries are struck through on the sheets. The record does not show who crossed them out or why. They are listed separately rather than mixed into the index above.
All 296 signature sheets are posted as the county produced them, in 30 files. Each link below opens the file holding that block of sheets; the sheet number is handwritten at the bottom right of every page. Every name in the index above also links straight to its own sheet.
County Clerk Susan Walker, Bourbon County’s election officer, spoke with FortScott.biz on Aug. 15 about the canvassing process.
The Bourbon County Commission meets at 4:30 p.m. Monday, an hour before its regular meeting, to decide which provisional ballots count.
That meeting is the county canvass. It is the step that turns the Aug. 4 primary from unofficial into official, and in the Republican primary for County Commission District 1, Walker says the ballots it rules on will likely decide who won.
The unofficial count has Mike Hueston at 163 votes and Lyle K. “Pete” Owenby at 160 — a three-vote margin out of 382 votes cast in that race. Lisa Dillon finished with 59.
Walker said in an interview Saturday that roughly nine provisional ballots are still in play.
“I think there’s nine provisionals that will determine that race,” Walker said.
She said she has been at the office night and day getting ready for it. “I know it’s going to be a tough one with the race being so close.”
Who actually does the canvassing
Under K.S.A. 25-3101, “the board of county commissioners of each county shall be the board of canvassers for elections occurring within the county.” The clerk presents the records; the commissioners make the calls.
That creates an obvious problem this year, because two of the five commissioners were themselves on the Aug. 4 ballot — Joe Allen in District 3 and Gregg Motley in District 4 — and a third, Mika Milburn-Kee, was on it as a candidate for Republican precinct committeewoman in Osage Township.
Kansas’s canvassing statutes do not bar a candidate from canvassing an election they ran in; they contain no disqualification provision at all. What they do contain is K.S.A. 25-3102, which covers a member who is dead, “absent, or from any casualty be prevented from serving,” and lets the remaining members “select an elector to serve on the county board of canvassers in such member’s place.” While it is written for absence, not conflicts of interest, Walker said using it this way is permitted.
Walker said she asked the commissioners who were on the ballot to use it anyway.
“I have recommended to the commission that if they were on the ballot that they shouldn’t be involved in the canvass,” she said. “They can be, but for appearances it would be better if you just find somebody to go in your place. And that’s legal.”
Allen and Motley have both named stand-ins, she said. Milburn-Kee told FortScott.biz that Sheriff Bill Martin will represent her at the canvass.
What the board can and cannot see
The canvass runs like a meeting — called to order, then a series of votes on groups of ballots. The preparatory work is already done by the time the commissioners sit down.
“My deputy clerk does all the work behind the scenes,” Walker said. “She goes and looks up registration. She makes sure that they voted in the correct precinct. There’s lots of little things that she does.” (FortScott.biz walked through how the county runs an election, step by step, in June.)
What the board rules on is the reason a group of ballots were set aside, not the ballot. Provisional ballots get pulled for things like a name change, an address change, or a question about whether the person was a registered voter.
The secrecy rule here is important. Under K.S.A. 25-2422, anyone charged with an election duty who intentionally discloses the contents of a ballot — or the name of the voter who cast it — commits a felony, and the only exception is a court order in an election contest. The Secretary of State’s Election Standards warn canvassers and the clerk to be careful not to disclose how any voter voted.
Under K.S.A. 25-409(b) the election judges write the reason for the challenge on the provisional envelope and attach the voter’s registration application to it. Walker said she will tell the board to read the first and leave the second alone.
“When I do the canvass on Monday night, I’m going to instruct the canvassing board that they do not turn the envelope over,” she said. “They look at what the reason was for, and they make their determination based on that.”
That is also why she thinks there is little for either campaign to contest. “It’s going to be really hard to challenge any of them, because they don’t know what’s inside the provisional,” she said. Ballots the board rejects are not opened; K.S.A. 25-3107(a) bars the canvassers from unsealing them, and the Election Standards say they stay sealed and are stored with the other ballots after the canvass.
The partial ballots
A few of the provisionals, Walker thought about three, are partial counts, cast by someone who voted in the wrong precinct.
Those do not get thrown out. State law requires them to be counted as far as they legally can be. Under K.S.A. 25-3002(b)(3), when a voter casts a provisional ballot in the wrong precinct but still inside the same county, every race that appears on both precincts’ ballots counts, and any race that does not appear on both is dropped.
Statewide races and the constitutional amendment question carry over, because they are on every ballot. What changes is the local part.
“It’s the precinct people, the township clerk, and the county level that will get changed,” she said. “If they voted for somebody on their ballot that isn’t on the correct ballot, then that vote does not count. That’s why it’s called a partial count.”
The correction happens Monday. Walker is seating an auditing board to do that work — transferring the valid votes onto a ballot from the voter’s correct precinct, spoiling the original, and checking for write-in votes that need to be caught.
She said an auditing board at a Bourbon County canvass “has never been done in the past.”
Write-ins and coin flips
A write-in campaign can carry a party office on a handful of votes. Under K.S.A. 25-213(d), a person can be elected precinct committeeman or committeewoman on write-ins alone with at least five, provided no one filed for the seat and the person is a qualified elector of that precinct in that party. For a township office the bar is lower still, but it buys something different: three or more write-in votes win the party’s nomination and a place on the November ballot, not the office itself.
Walker said one person has already qualified that way, and the canvass will take it up Monday. A write-in on the provisionals ballots could produce more.
And if two candidates finish level, the tie is broken in the room. K.S.A. 25-3108(a) says that where the county board makes the final canvass, the board “shall determine by lot which person is nominated or elected,” after giving the candidates reasonable notice of when that will happen — and if they do not show up, the board does it without them.
Walker described how she runs that for the party and township contests: a coin flip when two are tied, with the candidate listed first on the ballot calling it, and the coin has to land on the ground. Three or more, and names are drawn.
Asked whether the law specifies what type of coin, Walker said she believes she can use any coin she wants.
The deadlines
K.S.A. 25-3104 puts the canvass between 8 and 10 a.m. on the Monday after the election, but lets the county election officer move it to any business day “not later than 13 days following any election.” The primary was Tuesday, Aug. 4. Thirteen days later is Monday, Aug. 17. The statute also requires that notice of the time and place be published in a newspaper of general circulation and on the county election office’s website before the canvass happens.
Once the board certifies, the result is official. For a local race the county canvass is the final canvass — there is no state board above it. The Secretary of State’s Election Standards say those certified results cannot be changed except by court order in a general-election contest, or through an objection to a primary nomination.
The one mechanism that can still change a count is a recount, and the window is short. Under K.S.A. 25-3107(b), any candidate may request a recount of the ballots for the office they ran for, in all voting areas or only specified ones. The request has to be in writing, filed with the county election officer, no later than 5 p.m. on the day following the last meeting of the canvassers. If the board finishes Monday, means 5 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 18.
The candidate who asks also has to post a bond, with security approved by the county or district attorney, covering the county’s costs. If the recount flips the race to the candidate who requested it, the bond is not touched and the county pays.
The winner of the District 1 Republican primary advances to the November general election against Democrat Clinton L. Walker, who was unopposed in his primary with 88 votes.
The Bourbon County Republican Party has stopped its search for a new county clerk, days after announcing it would begin one.
In a statement issued Aug. 14, party chair Kaety Bowers said the party “officially retracts its statement of intent to begin the replacement process” for the office of County Clerk, and that it did so after the Secretary of State’s election director instructed it to cease.
County Clerk Susan Walker announced her resignation at the Aug. 10 county commission meeting, effective Aug. 31, ending 24 years with different entities in Bourbon County. The written statement she read to commissioners says she will be “stepping down from my position as County Clerk, effective 08/31/26.”
As of late Saturday morning, Aug. 15, no resignation letter had been filed with the governor. Walker said in an interview then that she had not yet sent one and that she intends to. Kansas law treats an announced resignation and a filed one as separate matters, and that distinction runs through everything that followed.
The party’s statement, in full
Bowers issued the following statement on Aug. 14. It is reproduced here in its entirety.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 14, 2026
Bourbon County Republican Chair Responds to Clerk’s Announcement
FORT SCOTT, Kan. —
On Monday, Clerk Walker publicly announced her resignation effective August 31, 2026, during the county commission meeting. Her written statement was later published online. She informed the Secretary of State’s office today that the resignation was instead an “announcement” and that she has not notified the Governor. It remains unclear when, or if, a formal resignation letter will be submitted.
Earlier this week, the Secretary of State’s election director cleared the Bourbon County Republican Party to begin the statutory replacement process for the office of County Clerk under K.S.A. 19-303 and 25-3902. After the subsequent discussion with County Clerk Susan Walker today, the same director instructed the Party to cease the process. The Party does not hold the election director at fault.
In light of these developments, the Bourbon County Republican Party officially retracts its statement of intent to begin the replacement process.
The people of Bourbon County deserve clarity, not shifting statements depending on the audience. If the resignation is genuine, the letter should be filed where the law requires. If it is not, the public announcements should stop as this uncertainty serves no one. The unfortunate timing of any vacancy places a new clerk directly into preparation for the November general election, making every day of transition time valuable.
The Party remains prepared to follow the law the moment formal notice is properly filed and will comply with the latest directive from the Secretary of State’s office until then.
Kaety Bowers
Chair, Bourbon County Republican Party
What Walker says happened
Walker described the call in an interview with FortScott.biz on Saturday. She said she phoned the Secretary of State’s office about the county canvass — the Aug. 4 primary left a three-vote margin in the District 1 commission race — and that her resignation letter came up incidentally. The state election director is the official county election officers work with on election administration, which is what Walker said she called about.
“I called the Secretary of State because I was working on my canvassing and I had some questions, and I said, by the way, I said, do I send my letter to you? And also the governor,” Walker said. “He goes, ‘What? You haven’t sent your letter in yet?'”
She said the director asked whether she had made an announcement, and she said she had.
“He goes, ‘Well, you need to call the party chair.’ I said, ‘She won’t take my phone calls.’ And he goes, ‘Well, fine, I’ll do it.'”
In Walker’s telling, the missing letter is the reason the process stopped, and the director acted on his own. She said the letter is coming: “Am I sending my letter in? Absolutely, I am. I just haven’t had time.” Election work had priority, she said. Reached shortly before noon on Saturday, she said she was only then leaving the office after working the weekend on the canvass: “I’ve been working tirelessly to make sure the canvass goes off. I’m just now leaving the office.”
What the party was told
The party’s understanding of that same call differs on one point.
Bowers explained to FortScott.biz that, while Walker’s announcement would ordinarily have counted as notice that a vacancy was going to occur — the event that starts a county party’s clock to find a replacement — the director told her Walker had called him to say her announcement should not be treated as that notice.
On that account, the lack of a letter to the governor was not what stopped the process.
The written statement stops short of saying that. It places the halt after the director’s discussion with Walker without saying the discussion caused it.
Two statutes, two different questions
Read together, the two accounts may be describing the same conversation from either side of a single legal question: whether Walker has officially resigned, or whether the party may begin looking for a successor before she has. Kansas law treats those as separate questions, and different statutes answer each. The party’s statement cites the two that govern filling the vacancy; a third governs how a county officer resigns in the first place.
K.S.A. 19-2606 governs how an elected county officer resigns. It requires a written notice filed in the office of whoever is authorized to fill the vacancy — for a county clerk, the governor — plus a copy to the county election officer, and it must state the effective date. Walker’s published statement does give an effective date. What has not happened is the filing.
K.S.A. 25-3902 governs when the party may act. It gives the county chair 21 days from “receipt of notice that the vacancy has occurred or will occur” to convene a convention of precinct committeemen and committeewomen, who elect someone for the governor to appoint. The tense is future. The statute sets no form for that notice, and nothing in it makes a completed 19-2606 filing a precondition.
So both things can be true at once: that Walker’s resignation is not yet complete, and that the party’s clock had already started. Neither statute ties one to the other, and an official weighing whether a resignation is final could reasonably land somewhere different from one weighing when a party’s 21 days begin.
What is not in dispute
Walker announced a resignation on Aug. 10, effective Aug. 31, and a written statement was published the following day. No letter had reached the governor as of late Saturday morning, Aug. 15. The Secretary of State’s election director first cleared the party to begin and later told it to stop. That reversal followed his conversation with Walker. The party’s statement says it does not hold the election director at fault.
What happens next
The party says it “remains prepared to follow the law the moment formal notice is properly filed.” Filing a letter would not by itself create a vacancy. Walker gave notice ahead of time and set her last day as Aug. 31, so she remains the clerk until that date either way — including Monday afternoon, when she helps conduct the county canvass that certifies the Aug. 4 primary.
Walker told commissioners on Aug. 10 that Deputy Clerk Michael Hoyt would fill the office until a clerk is appointed.
Note: After publication Kaety Bower provided the following statement.
Clerk Walker has preferred to communicate with the party by email for some time. Her claim that I failed to answer her calls—and that this forced the election director to contact me—is false. I missed one call from her at 6:18 p.m. on Friday, August 14, while traveling with my daughters. That call came days after our initial Facebook post about the replacement process, hours after the election director had already directed me to cease it, and after we had already announced that the process was stopped. This constant rewriting of events needs to stop. I wish her well in her new position and pray for peace and happiness for her and her family.
The Kansas Board of Tax Appeals has granted the ten-year property tax exemption for the vacant dialysis clinic at 2526 S. Main.
The board’s order, in Docket No. 2026-3773-IRBX, runs ten calendar years, from January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2035, or for as long as the bonds remain outstanding, whichever is shorter. Bourbon County Appraiser Matt Quick provided the order to FortScott.biz on Aug. 13. The copy he sent is stamped received Aug. 3.
The industrial revenue bonds, in an amount not to exceed $800,000, were issued December 30, 2025. The order records $450,000 of that for improvements and $350,000 for personal property, which is already exempt under a separate statute and was not at issue.
What the break covers
The exemption reaches only the portion of the property paid for with bond money. It does not touch USD 234’s capital outlay levy — 7.998 mills, about 4.3 percent of the 186.696 mills on this parcel. Everything else can be abated, including Bourbon County’s share.
It is not automatic, and the paperwork does not end here. A claim has to be filed with the county appraiser before March 1 every year for ten years, and the exemption ends if taxes on the non-exempt portion go unpaid. The order puts that annual filing on the applicant (the city). The city makes the filings, at Moka Rentals’ request.
The 2025 bill on the parcel was $65,343.80, paid in full on Dec. 18, 2025. The first tax statement the exemption can affect goes out this November.
The building, and who owns it
The order describes the property as “leased to Moka Rentals, L.L.C., who uses the subject as a dialysis treatment facility” — the language an exemption order uses for the qualifying use. The building was dark when FortScott.biz visited July 25: no signage, no activity, blinds drawn. It has been empty since Fresenius Medical Care closed it on Sept. 30, 2019.
The building at 2526 S. Main on July 25, 2026. FortScott.biz photo.
The deal runs on two leases, which is how the city ends up a party to a tax case over a building it does not own. Moka Rentals, which the county lists as the owner and taxpayer of record, leases an interest in the property to the city; the city then leases the project back to Moka. That is a standard industrial revenue bond arrangement when the company already owns the building. Wichita used the same structure, drafted by the same bond counsel, for a $134 million project at Wesley Medical Center. Under the Fort Scott project lease, the city’s promise to keep filing for the exemption across the full ten years holds only “[s]ubject to the Project being continually operated as a dialysis center.”
There is still no announced opening date. In late July, the practice manager at Joplin Nephrology Consultants said there were “no updates as of right now” on the project.
FORT SCOTT — Bourbon County’s chief district judge asked county commissioners Wednesday night to let the district court operate virtually from a county-owned building at 108 W. Second St. for roughly a month this fall, while the courthouse elevator is rebuilt.
Chief Judge Amy Harth presented the plan as a proposal, not a settled decision, and said she cannot commit the court on her own. Commissioners took no votes; it was a work session, and no motions were made.
The proposal scales back an earlier concept — building out a 40-by-40 courtroom at 108 W. Second — that commissioners and court staff had been weighing alongside a look at the former federal courtroom at the Fort Scott Post Office. Harth said she developed the new approach over the previous day or two with Chief Clerk Administrator Stephanie Gerken and Bourbon County District Court Clerk Melissa Trim, and had taken it to the district’s other judges.
“In terms of trying to minimize fiscal impact for you all, I am proposing that we use that space,” Harth said. “It will need some work. I want to be clear about that. We can’t use it the way it is right this minute. We’re proposing to use that space to move court virtual for those 30 days, for those four weeks.” (video, 39:53)
The courthouse elevator is working now. The four-week outage under discussion is the planned Otis modernization, not the breakdown that put the elevator out of service earlier this summer.
“When the elevator is under repair, we have to continue with court operations,” Harth said. “We’re operational, which is great. But when it goes down for repair, the days we were quoted was 30.” (video, 34:44)
What the plan would do
The county-owned building at 108 W. Second St., which the district court has proposed using as temporary quarters. Image: Google Street View.
Under the proposal, security would move to the front door at 108 W. Second. Two to three court clerks would be stationed there to handle public interface. The eight offices running around the outside of the building could serve as Zoom rooms and other flexible court space.
“They already have doors on them, so for confidential hearings, that helps out with that,” Harth said, naming child in need of care and adoption cases. The rooms would also let the court separate litigants in protection-from-abuse and protection-from-stalking cases, and give the county attorney a place to sit with a witness. (video, 49:02)
Three smart TVs would live-stream the Zoom proceedings so the public can watch. Hearings would still be recorded from the courtroom upstairs, and inmates would appear virtually from the jail.
Harth asked commissioners to vote to close public access to the courthouse’s second and third floors while the court is operating off site. Since this meeting was a work session no decisions were made. That vote could be made at the next scheduled meeting on Monday.
“The other thing about you all just saying no access is people will get confused about where they’re supposed to go for court,” she said. “Versus if you all post it and say there is no public access to the second and third floor, you can put a sign right at the front and say if you have court business, go to 108.” (video, 60:32)
The court’s shift to centralized case management is what makes the move practical, Harth said: “The great thing about us going to centralized case management is we can just, if we have Wi-Fi, we can pick up and move.” (video, 59:54)
Gerken, the district’s chief clerk administrator, said public access is not optional.
“We’re going to have to have the public access,” she said. “Because this going up there, we were running up and down the stairs trying to serve the public, and that’s just an accident waiting to happen.” (video, 65:35)
The timeline
Chairman Samuel Tran said he spoke with Otis the day of the meeting. The company needs a three-week lead time to get parts delivered, then two weeks for the modernization itself, one week to tie the new equipment into building power, and a fourth week of cushion.
“That’s where the four weeks comes in,” Tran said. … “And then a spare week just in case they need a little bit more time. And that’s standard.” (video, 36:04)
The elevator keeps running until the work actually begins, he said: “Nothing gets shut down until they’re ready to start. The elevator will be fully operational.” (video, 38:29)
Otis currently has the county scheduled for the whole month of October. Harth first asked whether the work could start Oct. 26, then proposed Oct. 20, citing a jury trial expected to run through Oct. 2 and a separate commitment on Oct. 19.
“If they could start the 20th, that would be even better,” she said, adding that it would also leave cushion before Thanksgiving week. (video, 39:17)
Tran said he would ask, and pressed for Otis to come to Fort Scott for a pre-construction meeting with the judge, court staff, commissioners and maintenance personnel.
“They can outline the table of events, how they plan it, all the different phases of construction,” he said. “And then you can decide whether you want it from October the 20th to November the 10th, or do you want it sooner.” (video, 50:43)
Commissioners discussed holding that meeting Wednesday, Aug. 19, possibly an hour before a budget work session, but did not finalize a date. Tran had not reached the Otis representative by the end of the meeting and said he would follow up with Harth.
A possible asbestos question at 108
Tran raised a complication near the end of the meeting. While the others walked the building, he said, he had been looking for hazards, drawing on a safety certification he previously held.
“In one of the closets, there are nine-by-nine floor tiles. And in that room, the carpet is not glued down, it’s taped. So that tells me to be careful,” he said. “Do I think there’s a hazard to your health or your staff’s health right now? No, I do not. But what I’m saying is if you do any type of construction, I would have somebody look at what you’re trying to do.” (video, 55:17)
Nine-by-nine floor tile is a common indicator of asbestos-era material. Tran said he expected an abatement company would have to come from Kansas City. No local company was identified during the discussion.
Paying for it
Commissioner Gregg Motley said grant money looks unlikely.
“There’s very few grants, private grants, for government, and there’s even fewer for construction or remodeling,” he said. Most of the grants they had looked at go to dual-purpose buildings, he said, citing Memorial Hall, which qualified as a citizen-benefit building rather than a government one. He said he would meet with the Southeast Kansas Regional Planning Commission on Thursday. (video, 63:50)
Commissioner David Beerbower suggested the short timeline might require using or adapting a sales-tax approach the sheriff had raised earlier. (video, 64:42)
No price has been put on the buildout. Beerbower said the court’s rough diagram of what it needs in each space, plus an equipment list, would let the county prepare a request for proposals if commissioners decide to proceed. The court will inventory what it already owns first — it has some laptops and possibly pandemic-era tablets, Harth said, but not the three 32-inch smart TVs the plan calls for — and the county may lease chairs rather than buy them.
Beerbower suggested copying the jail’s existing setup rather than designing new stations: “We don’t have to reinvent anything. We just copy what whoever installed for you guys could do.” (video, 61:43)
What happens if the four weeks slips
Harth said she has notified her departmental justice and is prepared to propose the relocation formally to the court. But the plan depends on Otis holding to four weeks.
“If they can’t get it done in four weeks, we’re going to have to regroup on where we’re going for trials,” she said. “We’re going to start running into speedy trial problems with criminal. That’s my biggest concern — where are we going to have jury trials?” (video, 65:49)
Harth laid out the stakes in more detail at the commission’s July 27 meeting, when the elevator was still out of service. The court had been “really down since June 16th,” she said then. One defendant charged with aggravated kidnapping had her jury trial continued because summonses had to go out and the court could not be assured the elevator would work. Because the obstacle is the court’s inability to hold a jury trial, she said, the delay “is not going to be assessed against the defendant” — and “if these people run out of time, these cases will have to be dismissed.” (video, July 27, 62:01)
Background
Commissioners approved the Otis modernization on Dec. 18, 2025, allocating $199,000 from the jail sales tax fund, Fund 370. The funding vote split, with Beerbower voting against that funding source.
Harth appeared at that December meeting, when the elevator was down, and told commissioners: “This is an ADA violation for us and probably a 19-104 violation for the county.” (video, Dec. 18, 2:15:39) K.S.A. 19-104 requires Kansas counties to provide a suitable courthouse and keep it in repair.
Beerbower handed out a maintenance history at Wednesday’s work session. The elevator was installed in 1977, he said, and the commission’s own minutes on it begin in November 2019.
Commissioners gave the court a key so staff can get back into 108 W. Second, walk it again and build a punch list, with the key to be returned to the commission’s executive assistant afterward. Harth said she and Gerken would return Friday with the Office of Judicial Administration’s audiovisual-grant contact to walk the courtrooms.
Bourbon County Clerk Susan Walker announced her resignation at Monday night’s county commission meeting. Her last day will be Aug. 31, ending 24 years of service in Bourbon County.
Walker provided FortScott.biz with the text of the statement she read to commissioners. Her statement appears below.
For 24 years, I have had the honor — and the burden — of serving this community. It has been a journey of victories and valleys, of moments that tested my resolve and moments that renewed my hope.
Today, I stand before you with a heavy heart but a clear conscience, to announce that I will be stepping down from my position as County Clerk, effective 08/31/26. This decision has not been made lightly. It comes after deep reflection, prayer, and an unwavering commitment to act in the best interest of the county I have been honored to serve.
From the very beginning, my compass has been my faith. 1 Peter 4:10 states “As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s grace” I have tried to live up to God’s guidance— imperfectly at times — and I have had the solemn responsibility of serving this community. The path has been marked by both achievement and adversity, by moments of unity and moments of division.
Public service, for me, has never been about titles or power. It has been about stewardship — caring for what God has entrusted me to do – helping the people he has placed in my path.
I know this past year has been difficult. There has been disagreement, disappointment, and even anger. I will not ignore that reality.
But I also believe that God’s plans are bigger for me. Leadership requires the discernment to know when one’s continued presence advances the mission — and when stepping aside will better serve the people. I believe this is such a moment.
Over these two and a half decades, I have been blessed to work alongside dedicated employees, citizens, visionary leaders, and many volunteers. Together – and I emphasize that word – , we have:
Led a visioning process that transformed our dreams into the Riverfront Park — a place where families gather, memories are made, and our community comes alive.
As a community we set world records that put our town on the map and reminded us of the joy of coming together.
Recognized the need for a new aquatic center, giving our children and families a safe, modern place to swim, play, and grow.
Understood the importance of passing a school bond referendum for USD 234, investing in the future of our students and teachers.
Invested and secured a new facility for City Hall, ensuring our local government can serve the public more effectively for years to come.
In 2021, I was hired to address the financial deficiencies that had plagued Bourbon County for years — deficiencies that had led to repeated failed audits. This also led to many uncomfortable conversations, poor financial controls and political figures refusing to cooperate due to pride. However, through diligence those deficiencies have been corrected. Our audits had been clean since 2022. However, in 2025 a violation occurred when the commission failed to pass an amended budget.
As a citizen, I must speak candid: the future of Bourbon County rests in the hands of the current commission. If better fiscal decisions are not made — if discipline and foresight are not applied — this county will face serious trouble in the near future. This is a statement I have stated for the past 2-3 years. Many decisions have been made from vindictiveness, and the citizens will be the ones to ultimately pay for those decisions.
Chairman, I’m addressing you directly because your behavior toward me has crossed every reasonable line. You ignore me, you speak to me with open disrespect, and you make sexist comments that demean my position and my work. On top of that, you make underhanded public statements designed to make people think I’m doing something criminal when I am not. I have left my office in order, in balance with the Treasurer and it is unfortunate I must state this because of the attempts for past and current elected officials who tried to “set me up” for a crime. One I did not commit – instead it reflects incompetent leadership and a misunderstanding of how processes work.
This is unacceptable. It’s harmful. And it violates the basic standards of professionalism and integrity that your position requires. I’ve served this community for 2 decades, and I will not sit quietly while you attempt to undermine my reputation and my work…so, I will be taking a deep dive tonight to talk about my feelings and reveal the truth.
Accountability goes both ways and I am not ashamed for standing up for the employees, uncovering questionable transactions, exposing incompetent elected officials, and addressing plain hate.
Misinformed citizens and two of you on this commission wanted to break me and ruin my reputation – My response is – thank you for freeing me.
These past few years the political climate has taken a toll not only on me but also my staff. They will also be transferring out of the clerk’s office to another elected officials office at the end of this week.
My decision to step down was decided a month ago when I took another job and that is to mark a definitive boundary to protect my personal well-being and prioritize God and my family over public office.
My staff and I stayed to see the election through, and I thank them for continuing to stick it out despite all the public scrutiny. When the public attacks me for errors or mistakes they are also attacking the workers at the election and my staff.
Blaming elected officials from behind a keyboard is easy. Doing nothing for the community and then complaining about its problems doesn’t help anyone. If someone isn’t willing to show up, volunteer, or contribute in any way, then they’re choosing to be part of the problem, not the solution.
And to those keyboard warriors—I challenge you to volunteer at the next general election in November. Step up and be part of the work, not just the noise.
No public office is worth the destruction of one’s peace and well-being.
My prayer for the employees of Bourbon County is that leadership will recognize the dedicated, hardworking people they have — and show them the gratitude, respect, and support they so richly deserve.
I pray for the people who quietly step up and serve this community, even when it’s tough. Many stay silent because they’ve seen the abuse and criticism that one can face. But your strength matters. Your courage matters. And your work is what keeps this community moving forward.
I pray you don’t lose heart. I pray you keep showing up. Because it’s the ones who continue to serve—despite the noise—who make this community better.
I want to thank the employees and citizens who have supported my family, me, and my staff through this rough journey – I will miss you and the career I deeply treasured.
Deputy Clerk, Michael Hoyt, will finish the meeting tonight and will fill the office until the republican party appoints a new County Clerk.
Susan Walker announced her resignation at the Bourbon County commission meeting at 6:33 pm on Monday August 10th, 2026. Her last day will be August 31st.
She specifically pointed to incompetent leadership and lack of integrity on the part of Commissioner Tran as one of the reasons for resignation.
The staff from the clerks office will also be transferring elsewhere.
Susan said Deputy Clerk Michael Hoyt will finish the meeting and fill the office until another clerk is appointed by the Republican party.
FORT SCOTT — The Fort Scott City Commission abandoned a planned closed-door session on Aug. 4 after the city attorney and two commissioners said they could not confirm that the outside group named on the public agenda actually exists.
The published agenda listed an executive session with the “Bourbon County Development Group.” Commissioner Matthew Wells moved to recess into that session under the exception in KSA 75-4319 covering the financial affairs or trade secrets of corporations, partnerships, trusts and individual proprietorships.
City Attorney Bob Farmer stopped the motion with a question. “Is that the name of the group? Are they incorporated? Do we have that information?” he asked. Wells answered: “That I cannot answer.”
Commissioner Tracy Dancer then said he had checked. “There is no LLC registered with the Kansas Secretary of State called Bourbon County Development Group,” he said. He added that the statutory exception Wells had cited did not appear to fit, because there was “no corporation, partnership, trust, or individual proprietorship” to discuss.
Farmer pointed to the commission’s recent open-meetings training and to a past complaint. The commission had been “challenged by a citizen that, what we did and talked about was later considered to be inappropriate,” he said. “I’d rather not put us in that position again. I don’t know what we’re gonna talk about and I shouldn’t.” Later in the exchange he was blunter about the stakes: “that’s the problem is that we got in trouble with the Attorney General’s office for very similar stuff.”
Commissioner Tim Van Hoecke said residents had already noticed that “on the agenda, the public agenda, it says with the Bourbon County Development Group of which it doesn’t exist anywhere.” “So I don’t know where that name came from, but that is absolutely a valid concern because I’ve already had a couple of people call me.” Commissioner Julie Buchta said she had fielded the same question.
Wells defended the request, arguing the identity question would have answered itself behind closed doors. “Had we gone into an executive session, you would have found out who they were and what they were offering to do,” he said, adding that he was not the authorized representative for the organization and could not speak for it.
No commissioner seconded the motion. “Mayor, the executive session failed for the lack of a second,” Van Hoecke said, noting that “the guest that was going to attend is left.” The commission moved on to unfinished business without discussing the proposal in open session.
Wells returned to the question later in the meeting to put a formal objection on the record. Citing the same statute, he said “a specific company name is not required for an executive session,” and told colleagues: “So what we did was wrong. The executive session was called the correct way according to the KSA.”
FortScott.biz reached out to Clifton Beth, who had asked for the session, to find out what he wanted to discuss. Beth said it would have covered two unrelated projects: a residential development and a larger commercial one.
The housing proposal involved land now outside the city that the owner was willing to have annexed, Beth said, with 40 or more units — most likely duplexes aimed at the rental market rather than single-family houses, which he said are hard to build in Fort Scott and sell for more than they cost to put up. The plan depended on connecting to the city sewer system, which would allow more units per acre than county lateral-field requirements permit, and on pursuing a Rural Housing Incentive District, a state program that puts the increase in property tax revenue toward infrastructure such as sewers. Annexation would also have brought the property and adjacent buildings onto the city tax rolls, he said.
Beth said he asked for a closed session because the investor did not want his name made public and because the discussion would have covered costs and the location of the site. He says he was using Bourbon County Development Group as a DBA, and would have set up a separate entity for the project if it advanced. He disagrees with the reading of the statute offered at the meeting, he said, because the exception also covers an individual proprietorship. He said he did not accept the commission’s stated reason for refusing, attributing the decision instead to friction between himself and members of the commission.
Beth said he couldn’t discuss the commercial project in detail, saying only that it involves an out-of-state partner and that Fort Scott is one of several communities being considered. The housing project is now on hold. He said his partner’s response was that they could build somewhere else.
Confusion on voting outcome
Later in the meeting the commission twice recorded 2-2 votes with one abstention, then could not agree whether either motion had passed.
Both concerned items where Dancer had stepped aside. When Dancer began to move a rewrite of the city’s alcohol ordinance, City Manager Brad Matkin interrupted to raise a conflict. Dancer said he does not own an establishment but is the owner’s husband, and confirmed the business was the Green Lantern. “I think that’s a conflict of interest,” Matkin said. Dancer replied: “Okay, I will abstain.”
That left four voting commissioners. Salsbury moved first, asking the city attorney to draft an ordinance matching state terminology so that businesses serving alcohol pay the licensing fee once, either to the state or to the city. Wells voted against it, Dancer abstained, and Salsbury and Buchta voted yes. It wasn’t clear what Van Hoecke’s vote was on that motion.
Wells then offered a competing motion, to amend section 5.08.040 to include drinking establishments and keep the city’s occupancy tax in place. That was the motion that split evenly. City Clerk Lisa Lewis recorded it as passing, saying the abstention “goes toward what the motion was in favor of.” Wells agreed: “the rules clearly state that in the case of a tie, an abstention is a yes vote.” Van Hoecke read the commission’s code of procedure the opposite way. “The way I read it, if it’s a 2-2 and an abstention, it dies,” he said.
The same split recurred on a motion by Buchta to require every contractor working inside the city limits to hold a city license and show proof of insurance, with homeowners still pulling their own permits. When the tally again came out 2-2 with one abstention, Van Hoecke said he had run an AI search on the question, which told him the motion failed. Wells objected that the answer carried no authority: “Right, but that’s the AI’s interpretation.”
Van Hoecke acknowledged the point and said the city’s own code of procedure runs long enough that he had not finished reading it. Both motions were left standing as passed for the time being, and he said he may bring motions to reconsider at the next meeting once he has read the rule in full.
Also at the meeting
The commission approved Ordinance No. 3800 renewing the electric franchise with Evergy Kansas South at a 6 percent franchise fee, on a 4-1 vote with Wells opposed. Matkin told commissioners that “6% is as high as they will go,” and confirmed the revenue goes into the general fund.
Commissioners approved a proposal from Fort Scott Police Lt. Jason Eastwood to convert the city-owned Gunn Park House into a child services center, so investigators no longer have to drive child victims out of the county for forensic interviews and so children taken into protective custody have somewhere other than the police station to wait. Eastwood, a 16-year veteran of the department, asked for approval and permission to chase outside money rather than for city funds. The motion authorized the department to pursue grant funding and other financial resources.
Commissioners also approved the July 7 consent agenda they had tabled at the previous meeting, after the finance office traced an inflated expense figure to a duplicated date range. Dancer said the total presented in July had been $1,112,893, roughly $670,000 too high; the corrected figure is about $442,000. The July 21 meeting had tabled the item over a duplicated rescue-truck expenditure appearing on two financial reports.
On investments, the commission approved placing $250,000 in a certificate of deposit with Union State Bank and authorized Matkin to place up to $2 million more with the other bidder at 3.85 percent, subject to confirmation from the city’s financial staff. The action closes out a question left open on July 21, when the commission rescinded its own motion accepting Union State’s bid and tabled the matter after learning the bank would take only $250,000 rather than the full $2 million.
Cory Bryars and Teresa Davenport of the cancer-support nonprofit Care2Share told commissioners the group has paid out more than $72,000 so far in 2026 across more than 1,500 separate payments, a figure Bryars said is up about 50 percent year over year. The group gave out $118,000 last year and is tracking toward almost $150,000 in 2026. Bryars said the organization needs volunteers, particularly drivers.
The commission also settled a dispute over $15,000 for economic development. Commissioners concluded the city could not simply withdraw the money from the land bank, which operates as an independent agency. Wells compared the idea to telling the public library the city was taking $15,000 without asking. Matkin proposed an alternative and no commissioner objected: rather than a formal vote, he said he would have the finance manager “take $15,000 out of general fund reserves” and move it into the land bank, adding, “I’ll take care of that tomorrow.”
In closing comments, commissioners returned to a tension between two of the city’s biggest ambitions. The commission backed a $4 million rodeo arena project in July. Dancer said the Bourbon County Commission’s vote not to spend money reclaiming the hospital building worried him, and argued the rodeo arena should not be the top priority while the hospital’s future is unsettled, because “nobody will book in a venue where there isn’t ready access to a an emergency room.” He suggested the city consider building a facility it could lease or sell to Freeman to keep an emergency room and a 10-bed hospital in town.
Matkin pushed back, saying that delaying the arena to build a hospital would mean the arena never gets built, and that people are already stepping up to fund it. He said he meets with Freeman next week and wants to hear the company’s plans directly rather than secondhand. Dancer answered that the city “didn’t hear it from Mercy either until it was too late to do anything about it.”
Consideration of the blighted property at 118 E. Wall was pulled from the agenda, with commissioners citing personal circumstances involving the owner. Farmer discussed receivership and land-bank routes for addressing such properties.
Earlier the same evening the commission held a work session on building a written performance evaluation for the city manager, comparing forms used by other Kansas municipalities and discussing how to weight categories and whether to include a self-assessment.
The two sides in former Bourbon County chief information officer Shane Walker’s federal lawsuit have told the court they reached an agreement to settle it. On August 3, the court closed the case with a one-page order that begins: “The parties have advised the Court that they have reached an agreement settling this case in its entirety.”
That report is the basis for the closure. The order gives no other information about the agreement: no dollar amount, no terms. A settlement is not an admission of liability, and the court did not rule on the merits of any of Walker’s ten claims. The complaint’s disputed allegations were never decided in court.
Closed, but not dismissed
An administrative closing is not a dismissal, and an agreement reported to the court is not the same as a final dismissal. The order directs the clerk to “administratively terminate this action without prejudice” and gives the parties until September 3, 2026 to file a stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Until then, the parties may ask to reopen the case for good cause. If September 3 passes with no stipulation and no request to reopen, the order says it “shall constitute the Court’s entry of final judgment of dismissal with prejudice” under Rule 41(a)(2); a dismissal with prejudice generally bars refiling the claims.
By September 3, one of three things happens: the parties file dismissal papers and the case ends; someone asks to reopen it; or neither happens and the closure becomes a final dismissal automatically.
How far the case got
The county and the individual defendants answered the complaint on June 23 and never filed a motion to dismiss. On July 8, Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell put the case on a scheduling track: the two sides were to confer by July 24 about, among other things, “the possibilities of settling or resolving the case,” submit a proposed scheduling order by August 3, and appear for a scheduling conference on August 13. No scheduling order was ever entered. On August 3, the court closed the case instead. No discovery filings appear on the docket (initial disclosures are exchanged between the parties rather than filed).
What the suit alleged
Walker worked for the county from December 2005 until July 9, 2025, when the commission voted unanimously to eliminate his position. His complaint alleged he was on approved FMLA leave when it happened, and that the real reason was retaliation for discrimination complaints that he and his wife, County Clerk Susan Walker, had filed against the county. The elected Register of Deeds rehired him that November, at $16 an hour, down from a salary of $88,616.84, according to the complaint. His ten counts spanned breach of contract, the Kansas Wage Payment Act, four Title VII retaliation counts, First Amendment free-speech and association claims, Fourteenth Amendment due process, and FMLA retaliation and interference; he sued the Board of County Commissioners, Commissioners Sam Tran, Mika Milburn-Kee and David Beerbower, and HR contractor Dr. Steve Cohen. The defendants denied the retaliation claims, describing the job elimination as a lawful layoff, and raised defenses including qualified immunity. Our earlier coverage: the complaint, and the county’s answer.
The case is Walker v. Bourbon County, Kansas, Board of Commissioners et al., No. 6:26-cv-01057, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The closure order is posted here; the scheduling order is here.
Three votes separate Mike Hueston and Lyle K. (Pete) Owenby in the Republican primary for Bourbon County Commissioner District 1, according to the unofficial results the Bourbon County Clerk’s office posted after Tuesday’s primary election. Countywide, 2,908 ballots were cast.
The race is too close to call, and none of these numbers are final. Provisional ballots are not included in the unofficial totals; the county Board of Canvassers decides which of them count and makes the results official at the canvass, which the Bourbon County Monitor reports is scheduled for Aug. 17. The Monitor also reported that County Clerk Susan Walker said the number of outstanding provisional ballots would be released Wednesday. Under a recent change in Kansas law, mailed advance ballots had to be in by 7 p.m. on Election Day to count. FortScott.biz published a step-by-step walkthrough of how the county counts, reconciles and canvasses ballots in June.
County Commissioner: unofficial totals
District 1, Republican
Candidate
Votes
Vote %
Mike Hueston
163
42.67%
Lyle K. (Pete) Owenby
160
41.88%
Lisa Dillon
59
15.45%
The nominee will appear on the November general election ballot with Clinton L. Walker of Mapleton, unopposed in the Democratic primary.
District 1, Democratic
Candidate
Votes
Vote %
Clinton L. Walker
88
100.00%
District 3, Republican
Candidate
Votes
Vote %
Joe Allen
307
65.60%
Josh Jones
161
34.40%
The results report lists Jones as Joshua Jones; he filed as Josh Jones. No Democrat filed for District 3; the Democratic primary line recorded six write-in votes.
District 4, Republican
Candidate
Votes
Vote %
Gregg Motley
427
100.00%
No Democrat filed for District 4; the Democratic line recorded 12 write-in votes.
Township clerk: unofficial totals
All township clerk candidates ran as Republicans; no Democrat filed for any township clerk office. Marion Township was the only contested race. In the county’s other townships no candidate filed, and those races recorded only scattered write-in votes.
Five Republican precinct committee races drew more than one candidate.
Race
Candidate
Votes
7th Ward Committeeman
Robert S. Love
79
7th Ward Committeeman
Michael Hoyt
73
Drywood Committeewoman
Vickie Shead
67
Drywood Committeewoman
Laura Krom
18
Marmaton D2 Committeeman
Jeffrey L. Reed
68
Marmaton D2 Committeeman
Micheal Bryant
23
Osage Committeeman
Marvin Creager
47
Osage Committeeman
Joshua Kee
22
Timberhill Committeeman
Timothy H. Emerson Sr.
20
Timberhill Committeeman
Brandon Whisenhunt
18
What happens next
The Board of Canvassers will review provisional ballots before certifying the official results. In a race as close as the District 1 Republican primary, those ballots could matter. FortScott.biz will report the official totals after the canvass.
The full unofficial report, “Statement of Votes Cast by Geography,” is posted on the Bourbon County website. It also includes Bourbon County’s votes in the federal, state and statewide-ballot-question primaries; those contests are decided by voters beyond Bourbon County, and the county’s numbers alone do not determine their outcomes.
Bourbon County Appraiser Matt Quick has resigned, with his last working day set for August 18. In a letter emailed to all five county commissioners Monday evening, Quick said he and his wife “have been presented with an exciting opportunity to embark on a new life adventure,” and called leaving the office “bittersweet.”
The letter, sent shortly after 5 p.m. on Monday, August 3, was addressed to the commission and copied to the County Clerk’s office, Treasurer Jennifer Hawkins, and the Register of Deeds.
The office he leaves. The county appraiser values all taxable real and personal property in Bourbon County each year, houses, farmland, commercial buildings, vehicles, and business equipment. Those valuations are the base on which the county, cities, school districts, and other taxing entities levy property taxes. Under Kansas law (K.S.A. 19-430), the appraiser is appointed by resolution of the county commission for a four-year term, and an appointee must have at least three years of mass appraisal experience and hold a state credential, either the Registered Mass Appraiser (RMA) designation Quick mentions in his letter, or a certified general real property appraiser’s license.
Quick’s letter counts eight years of service to the community. Commission records show he has led the office since July 2021, when commissioners named him interim county appraiser by Resolution 22-21; a Kansas Department of Revenue compliance reviewer praised his work before the commission that December, and his reappointment to a new four-year term came before the commission in the summer of 2025.
His departure is one of two from the office this month: Quick writes that his personal property manager is also leaving, with a last day of August 14. He notes that no state reports or analysis are due until October, which he says gives the commission time to find a replacement who can do their own analysis for the 2027 tax year, and that Matthew Booker, the county’s district representative with the state Property Valuation Division, will guide commissioners through candidates.
His letter follows in full.
Dear Commissioners,
After much thought and consideration, I am formally submitting my resignation as County Appraiser for Bourbon County, with my last working day being August 18, 2026.
Serving this community for the past eight years has been both an honor and a privilege. I am deeply grateful for the trust placed in me, the collaboration with dedicated colleagues, and the opportunity to contribute to the county’s growth and success.
My wife and I have been presented with an exciting opportunity to embark on a new life adventure, and while I am eager for what lies ahead, leaving this role and the people I’ve worked alongside is bittersweet.
I will be informing Matthew Booker who is our District Rep with Property Valuation Division with the state to let them know. They will be your guides for candidates to replace me as they must be an RMA with the state to qualify. My office will be self-sustainable for the next few months. There are no reports or analysis for the state that needs to be done until October. This will allow you to find a replacement and they will be able to do their own analysis for the 2027 tax year. My Personal Property manager is also leaving and last day will be on the 14th so they can find the right person for them in that position as well. My field appraisers Mike and Herb have been faithful hard-working employees that brave the elements and the people of Bourbon County and will continue to do their jobs at the highest level after I am gone. Janet my office manager has been with the county since 2008. She is a wealth of knowledge about running all aspects of the department and is a loyal and trustworthy employee. She will keep things running smoothly in my absence. I hope that the employees in my office will be treated with respect and dignity that long term dedicated assets that they deserve.
Thank you for the support, guidance, and friendship I have experienced during my tenure. Bourbon County will always hold a special place in my heart.
With sincere appreciation,
Matt Quick
The appraiser’s office is in the county courthouse at 210 S. National Ave. FortScott.biz will follow the commission’s search for a successor as it develops.
