As Bourbon County Commissioner Mika Milburn-Kee fights criminal charges brought by the Kansas Attorney General, some residents have asked whether the money being donated to help pay her legal bills should it count as campaign contributions.

FortScott.biz filed an open-records request with the state agency that oversees campaign finance in Kansas, and the records show it took up that exact question earlier this year. An investigator for the agency told Milburn-Kee that money given specifically to cover her legal defense is not a campaign contribution as defined by the Kansas Campaign Finance Act, and does not have to be reported as one.

The situation stems from charges related to an Oct. 25, 2025 incident when the county commission room while it was being used for early-voting. For the full history, see State of Kansas vs. Mika Milburn-Kee and Judge Rejects Late Felony Charge; State Will Refile All Counts. Lawyers to defend against the charges costs money. As supporters discussed raising funds to help, questions circulated about whether those donations should have been reported as campaign contributions.

The records show that on April 13, Milburn-Kee emailed the agency herself “to request guidance regarding transparency and reporting requirements.” She asked whether “financial assistance for personal legal defense from family members or friends” is “subject to reporting requirements under Kansas ethics or campaign finance,” and said she wanted to “remain fully transparent and compliant with all legal and ethical obligations.”

Two days later, investigator Scott Smith responded with the agency’s written guidance:

“Funds donated or gifted to you for the purpose of paying for your legal defense of the criminal charges against you are not campaign contributions as defined by the Kansas Campaign Finance Act (CFA) and therefore do not need to be reported on any report required by the CFA.”

Smith added two points. First, Milburn-Kee cannot use her commissioner campaign contributions to pay for this defense. Second, he wrote that the donor’s intent for the money is what matters, and suggested she and anyone helping her raise funds make that purpose clear:

“It is the donator’s intent for the use of the funds that is key. Accordingly, I suggest that you, and anybody assisting you with raising funds for your legal defense, make it clear that you are not soliciting or accepting the funds as campaign contributions and that the funds will be used for your legal defense costs.”

The same guidance applies regardless of how the money is collected: “The foregoing applies to funds raised on the GoFundMe platform or by any other means.”

The agency is the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission (KPDC), formerly the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission. It enforces the Kansas Campaign Finance Act along with state lobbying laws and conflict-of-interest and financial-disclosure laws for state-level officials. It is important to note that the KPDC oversees state-level campaign finance, not every ethics question about local officials. When a resident’s complaint about the fundraising reached the agency, it said so plainly:

“We do not enforce any ethics / conflicts of interest laws applicable to local political officers, including county commissioners. You may wish to consult with your county attorney or county counselor to determine if there are any local ethics / conflicts of interest laws that may be implicated.”

So the guidance answers the campaign-finance question she raised, but the commission was clear it does not decide whether any local county rule might apply.

The records also show the concern was formally raised when a resident sent a complaint about the fundraising to the Attorney General’s office, which forwarded it to the KPDC. Responding, investigator Smith gave the agency’s bottom line:

“Based on the information and allegations in your complaint, there is no apparent violation of any of the laws enforced by our office. However, if you have specific, verifiable information that may constitute a violation of the Kansas Campaign Finance Act, such as the commissioner using her campaign funds for her legal defense, then please let us know.”

The question behind the rumor was whether Milburn-Kee should have reported these donations as campaign contributions. Since the state says the donations for her defense are not campaign contributions, the Campaign Finance Act doesn’t specify any reporting requirement for them. However, that guidance only considers the relevance of Kansas campaign contributions laws.  The commission specifically noted it does not decide any separate local ethics or legal questions regarding such donations.

FortScott.biz obtained these documents through a Kansas Open Records Act request. The commission released four responsive records and withheld one internal staff email chain under a KORA exemption for agency deliberations. The released records are posted in full below.

KPDC records on legal-defense donations for Commissioner Milburn-Kee (KORA response)

Related coverage

• State of Kansas vs. Mika Milburn-Kee
• Breaking: Kansas AG Moves to Add a Felony Charge Against Commissioner Milburn-Kee
• Judge Rejects Late Felony Charge Against Commissioner Milburn-Kee; State Will Refile All Counts
• Pretrial Hearing Friday in the Case Against Commissioner Milburn-Kee

Commissioner Milburn-Kee was contacted for comment but had not replied by the time this story was scheduled.

A judge has rejected the Kansas Attorney General’s bid to add a felony charge against Bourbon County Commissioner Mika Milburn-Kee on the eve of her trial, and the State responded by dismissing the case so it can refile all of the charges together.

At a June 26 pretrial conference, Senior Judge Merlin G. Wheeler denied the State’s motion to amend the complaint to add a third count, Intimidation of Voters, a severity level 7 nonperson felony. The State had filed that motion, with several others, the afternoon before the hearing. Milburn-Kee has faced only two misdemeanors since March. FortScott.biz reported the felony motion when it was filed June 25.

Assistant Attorney General Olivia Higdon said the State has evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support the felony, and that the person it alleges was intimidated is,a witness (who is already on the witness list), Brandi Ross. The State said the charge rests on the original probable-cause affidavit filed when the case began, which already referenced voter intimidation. All of the counts stem from an Oct. 25, 2025 incident at the county commission room while it was being used as an early-voting polling place.

Milburn-Kee’s attorneys, Tricia and Thomas Bath, objected that the motion arrived too late to answer, that a substantive charge should be argued in person rather than over Zoom, and that adding a felony now would prejudice her rights. They cast the move as pressure tied to her decision to demand a jury trial.

Wheeler said this was not the first time the Attorney General’s office had brought last-minute charges in his courtroom, and he made clear he did not blame Higdon personally but the principals in her office. Because a felony would entitle the defense to a preliminary hearing that could not be held before the scheduled July trial, he denied the amendment.

Rather than go to trial on the misdemeanors alone, the State moved to dismiss the case and refile all three counts together, which Wheeler allowed. The July 6 through 8 jury trial is off. The case will restart under a new case number, and a first appearance and preliminary examination is set for Aug. 3 at 1 p.m. in Fort Scott, where the State must show probable cause for each count.

Speedy-trial clock

Wheeler was careful to lock in one point. Dismissing and refiling does not buy the State a fresh clock. Under Kansas’s speedy-trial law, K.S.A. 22-3402, a defendant who is out on bond must be brought to trial within 180 days of arraignment, not counting delays the defense causes. Wheeler ordered that the time already elapsed, which he dated to April 15, keeps running in the refiled case rather than starting over at zero. By that measure the State has until roughly mid-October to bring Milburn-Kee to trial.

Why no plea deal has materialized.

The Attorney General’s office does not make the first plea offer, so it would be up to Milburn-Kee’s lawyers to approach the State with a proposed plea or to apply for diversion, a stance Judge Wheeler called consistent with the standards for prosecutors. The Attorney General stated that the defense had not pursued any type of plea deal or diversion and indicated that, since it looked like the case was going to go to a jury trial, the state wanted to bring all the charges it believes it has enough evidence to convict on, including the felony it hadn’t filed previously.

Higdon cast the timing as an effort to give Milburn-Kee a way to resolve the case without losing her position. The State, she said, had hoped Milburn-kee’s defense would bring a plea that would let her keep her seat rather than take the case to a jury.

“Our intention with the filing was hopefully to be able to give her a plea offer where she would not have to leave office, with the Class A misdemeanor moving forward and dismissing the Class B,” Higdon said. “However, if this case was going to receive a trial, we wanted to be able to try the whole thing.”

Judge Wheeler also noted that the courthouse elevator is broken and not expected to be fixed in time, that he had been arranging an accessible location, and that he expected a large turnout given the political tension between the county commission and the county clerk.

A charge is an accusation, not a finding of guilt, and Milburn-Kee is presumed innocent unless and until a jury decides otherwise. FortScott.biz will report on the Aug. 3 hearing.

A former maintenance worker’s photos of crumbling pipe insulation prompted a Kansas environmental official to walk the building. The early word, relayed by the county’s emergency manager, was that nothing looked like an immediate hazard as long as the material stays undisturbed. No samples have been taken, and the state is still reviewing.

Questions about asbestos in the Bourbon County Courthouse, raised publicly this week by a former maintenance worker who photographed deteriorating pipe insulation in the basement, led to a visit from a representative from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) to the nearly century-old building. According to the county’s emergency manager, the representative said during the walkthrough that he did not see anything hazardous that had to be addressed right now, as long as the material is not disturbed. The representative is conferring with others at the agency and will get back to the county with more detail about what actions or precautions should be taken.

The courthouse was built in the 1930s, and asbestos is common in buildings of its era. None of the officials contacted for this story disputed that it is likely present. The question residents have been asking is a different one. Is it dangerous, and is anything being done about it?

Asbestos is generally most dangerous when it is crumbling or broken up and its fibers become airborne, where they can be breathed in. Whether the courthouse material is in fact asbestos, and whether it is releasing any fibers, has not been determined, because no samples have been collected and tested. A visual walkthrough cannot answer that on its own.

How the concern surfaced

The issue was raised by William Jackson, who worked in the courthouse maintenance this spring. He said he found insulation and ceiling tiles he believed were asbestos deteriorating in the basement, with dust collecting on supplies and on workers’ desks, and that he could not find any asbestos records in the county’s maintenance files. He sent his supervisor a written request for permission to have the material tested.

Jackson said he sent the request Friday and was fired Saturday morning. He believes the two were connected and that he was let go for raising the concern. County officials declined to comment on his departure.

What the state found

After Jackson’s photos circulated, Bourbon County Emergency Manager Lou Howard walked the building with a KDHE representative, who also had the photos that had been sent to the agency.

“He stated that at the time he looked, he did not see anything that was concerning,” Howard said. “They did not see anything that was hazardous right now that had to be addressed.”

“He did say that if there was active construction going on at the time, then it would be a concern. But nothing is being disturbed. Everything is as it should be.”

Lou Howard, Bourbon County Emergency Manager

Howard said she offered to walk the representative through the rest of the courthouse and that he said he did not need to, based on what he had already seen. She said in the past an area basement had been used as the county’s emergency operations center until other space became available. The review is not finished. The representative was passing the information and photos to a supervisor, and the county is waiting to hear what action it should take, which could include further testing.

More photos from the basement

What this does and doesn’t settle

Howard’s account is the most direct word so far on the courthouse. However, it was a visual walkthrough, not laboratory sampling. No material was collected and tested, and the representative did not view the entire building. Some residents have worried that deteriorating material in the basement could send fibers into the building’s heating and cooling system and on to other floors. The walkthrough did not include air sampling or an evaluation of that system, and the state’s guidance to the county is still pending.

The caution about disturbed material is also the heart of the original complaint. Jackson’s concern was that the insulation is already breaking down. Confirming whether that is releasing any asbestos fibers would require testing.

For now, the practical takeaway for residents and courthouse employees is limited but real. The early, visual look reported by the county found nothing requiring immediate action, the chief risk would come from disturbing the material, and a final determination from the state is still to come.

FortScott.biz will update this story when KDHE provides further guidance.

Bourbon County and four individuals have filed their formal response to former county IT director Shane Walker’s federal lawsuit, and the answer narrows what the case is actually about. On the basic sequence of events, the two sides now largely agree. What remains in dispute is why Shane Walker lost his county job — and whether the officials can be held legally responsible for it.

The defendants (the Board of County Commissioners plus Commissioners Sam Tran, Mika Milburn-Kee and David Beerbower, and contractor Dr. Steve Cohen) filed their answer June 23 in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Document 13), represented by Andrew D. Holder of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith. They answered the complaint rather than moving to dismiss it, on a deadline the clerk had extended to that date. For the claims Shane Walker raised, see our earlier report: Federal Lawsuit Alleging Retaliation, Discrimination, and FMLA Violations.

Where the parties now agree

The answer admits key dates and events in the timeline Walker laid out, even as it denies the bulk of his broader allegations. The county admits that he worked for the county from about December 15, 2005 until he left the payroll on or around July 9, 2025; that the commission’s vote to eliminate his position was unanimous and that the county outsourced the IT department; and that the elected Register of Deeds rehired him around November 17, 2025. It admits that Walker is married to Susan Walker, the current County Clerk and former CFO, and that he filed discrimination complaints with the Kansas Human Rights Commission in September 2024 and September 2025. It also admits the episode in which Commissioner Milburn-Kee asked for passwords, Walker and a coworker refused, and the coworker called police and was later fired.

Where they diverge

The agreement stops at motive. Walker’s complaint casts the elimination of his job as retaliation for those discrimination complaints and for taking medical leave. The county’s answer reframes the same event as a layoff. The county repeatedly “denies that Plaintiff was ‘terminated,’” admitting only that he was “laid off,” and it states that any action it took “was not retaliatory, and would have occurred based on legitimate, lawful, and independent reasons regardless of Plaintiff’s protected conduct, if any.” The county also denies Walker’s allegations about how he was treated after he was rehired.

The word choice carries legal weight. Walker pairs the retaliation claims with a breach-of-contract count and a Kansas Wage Payment Act claim; by calling the move a layoff and arguing it “substantially performed” and later “modified” his employment agreement, the county contests whether any contract was broken or wages withheld.

Beyond the facts, the county’s answer also raises legal defenses that, if accepted, could dispose of parts of the case before a jury weighs the question of motive. The individual defendants assert qualified immunity against the federal civil-rights (Section 1983) claims. The county claims governmental immunity under the Kansas Tort Claims Act. And the answer asserts that punitive damages cannot be recovered against a municipality. On Shane Walker’s free-speech claims, the county invokes Garcetti v. Ceballos, arguing his speech was made as part of his official duties and is therefore not protected. In all, the answer lists 23 defenses and asks that the defendants be dismissed from the case.

Walker, represented by Wichita attorney Gaye B. Tibbets, has demanded a jury trial. The case is Walker v. Board of County Commissioners of Bourbon County, Kansas, et al., No. 6:26-cv-01057, before U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree. An answer is one side’s response; the complaint’s allegations and the county’s denials and defenses have not been tested in court. The county’s full answer is posted here.

County Clerk Susan Walker’s routine June 15 request to use the commission room for early voting, election nights and election school touched off a heated exchange over a room that is at the center of a criminal case.

The commission room has doubled as election space for years: voting booths line the courthouse hallway while the room itself is used to check in voters and handle provisional ballots. It was that arrangement, on October 25, 2025, that put Commissioner Mika Milburn-Kee in legal jeopardy. Security-camera footage reviewed by FortScott.biz showed Milburn-Kee seated at the commission table, beside a stack of what the clerk said were unverified provisional ballots, reading a newspaper and waving to a voter while early voting was underway. Walker twice told her election law barred her from the polling area; Milburn-Kee objected that it was her office before moving out about twelve minutes later. In March 2026 the Kansas Attorney General charged her with two misdemeanors, including the polling-place “three-foot rule,” a count that would force her from office if she is convicted. Her jury trial is set to begin July 6, 2026, with a pre-trial conference June 26.

Against that backdrop, Milburn-Kee moved June 15 to deny Walker’s request to use the room, citing its many uses and noting it is the only workspace she has. Walker pushed back saying she has nowhere else, no budget to rent space, and the room is her most secure option. Chairman Samuel Tran disputed that it is “secure,” and the two talked over each other until Walker asked Tran “please don’t be disrespectful to me” and he replied that she was “coming to the table asking for a favor,” and finally telling her to “do what you have to do, madam.” Tran alluded to a past “issue” he didn’t want to “resurface.” Milburn-Kee’s motion failed. Milburn-Kee and Tran were the only ones who voted for it with the rest of the commission against. Commissioner Gregg Motley’s motion to grant Walker’s full request passed with Tran and Milburn-Kee voting against.

The dispute turned on whether the clerk had a workable alternative. Tran proposed moving early voting to the courthouse’s main atrium and using County Appraiser Matt Quick’s office and conference room. Walker rejected that as neither secure nor convenient for her election judges, calling the commission room “the securest” space available; she said she has no other location and no budget to rent one. Milburn-Kee argued the room is needed for its “multi-use purpose,” she said it is her only workspace and that she comes in early and on weekends to set it up, and noted her motion would still lend Walker the county’s Public Works and maintenance crews to move and set up election equipment. Commissioner David Beerbower was skeptical, noting the county would not ask the appraiser or other courthouse officeholders to give up their offices: “I’m baffled.” Commissioner Joe Allen framed the conflict as narrow, “four Mondays, four meetings,” the handful of Monday commission meetings that fall within the voting window, which Walker said she had already worked around so the board could still meet.

The exchange begins around 1:20:43 in the June 15 meeting video.