Submitted by: Carla Nemecek, Southwind Extension District Director & Agent

One of K-State Research & Extension’s signature methods to disseminate information and to evoke learning is through “having a meeting.” We’ve all put on, or attended, lots and lots of meetings. And, if I’m being honest, those meetings haven’t all necessarily been successful, great meetings. Over the years, I have attended my share of meetings, and today I am going to share what I believe makes for a “good meeting.”
Having the right topics would seem rather obvious, and for that reason, I am not going to go down that track. I will assume that you have the appropriate topics and the right people to make presentations. So, given that, what else can one do to make for a great meeting?

– Publicize. Make certain the right people know about the meeting. Tell those people who come in contact with your target audience about the meeting. Even if you don’t expect a professional within your community to attend, you still want them to know about it so that they can pass it on to their clientele. Good examples might be the banker, implement dealer, clergy, social worker or anyone who tends to come in contact with those you hope to see at your meeting. Make sure those individuals have all the info they need to promote your upcoming meeting to their clientele. Make a list of persons you believe the meeting will be most beneficial to, and then stick your neck out and make a personal contact with those individuals to let them know that you want them there. Putting an article in the paper or an announcement on the radio may not be enough. Personal contact is so much more powerful. And, to do these things, you have to believe in your work, and be enthusiastic about your bringing this information or learning opportunity to your intended audience.

– Meeting place. Make sure you have chosen the best place for the meeting. Can the room be set up for the best possible learning environment? Does your intended audience find the meeting place to be inviting and comfortable?

– Setting the stage. Is the emcee fully prepared to welcome the audience and to introduce the speakers? Giving strong introductions for a speaker and the topic can set the stage for that speaker to have an even better learning experience. Letting the audience know why they made the right decision to be there on that day, and that they will be learning about topics of importance to them also sets the stage for a great meeting. Make certain you know how to pronounce the speaker’s name. It is less embarrassing to ask the speaker before the meeting, than to mispronounce a name in the introduction. And know something about the speaker in introducing them. Again, helping the audience to become familiar and excited about the speaker is the most important job of the person making the introduction.

– Be positive. Above all other things, as a speaker or as the emcee, you should be totally positive. No matter if the visual equipment breaks down, or the PA system acts up, great speakers find some way to remain positive and enthusiastic for why they are there. They do not lay blame on others, but rather search for solutions. No matter what happens, people expect positive.

– And, if you are the emcee or organizer, you have to be as interested as anyone with the content of the program. As courtesy to the speaker and to those you invited, you too must exhibit an interest in the information being presented. When it is time for questions, you should be prepared with a couple questions if no one in the audience is willing to speak up.

This column is intended to get you thinking about the things you can do to set the stage and create great meetings. As much as some would like to believe technology could replace the need for a meeting, humans will always have that social need for learning together. As professional educators, we have the obligation to make those learning experiences the best they can be. For more information, find Southwind Extension on the web, www.southwind.ksu.edu

National Foster Care Month

May is National Foster Care month, and here in Kansas, we’re working hard to ensure we have plenty of caring and quality foster care parents for our Kansas children.

The Kansas Department of Children and Families (DCF) has launched a major marketing campaign that encourages Kansas parents to consider fostering, or to support those in their community who choose to be foster parents. Many of our Senators have teamed up with DCF to create public service announcements around the state to spread this awareness.

We’re encouraged by this campaign as a first step to improve the state’s foster care system and to ensure every Kansas child – no matter what circumstances they were born into – has a warm bed, clean clothes and a loving family unit to call theirs.

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORTS:

WORKING AFTER RETIREMENT (House Substitute for Senate Bill 21): House Sub. for SB 21 makes changes to the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System pertaining to working after retirement.

Under current law, KPERS retirees may return to work for employers who participate in the Retirement System if there has been a bona fide separation in employment of a minimum of 60 days with no preexisting arrangement to return to work. For most newly retired individuals, the law caps annual earnings at $25,000. When a retiree earns that amount, the person must decide either to stop working or stop receiving KPERS benefits for the remainder of the calendar year. Several groups of retirees—such as nurses at certain state institutions, individuals covered by the Kansas Police and Firemen’s Retirement System or the Retirement System for Judges, local government officials, and individuals employed with a participating employer prior to May 1, 2015 —are exempt from the cap. Certain licensed school district employees are also exempt. Participating employers who hire retirees are required to contribute to KPERS at varying rates, which can be as great as 30 percent of the retirees’ compensation, depending on the circumstances

The bill establishes a new working-after-retirement rule, which would take effect on January 1, 2018. For retirees under the age of 62, there would be a 180-day waiting period before returning to work. If the retiree is 62 or older, the current 60-day waiting period would apply. The current prohibition placed upon prearrangement for employment would continue to apply. For covered positions, the employer would pay the statutory contribution rate on the first $25,000 of compensation and, for that portion of compensation greater than $25,000, the contribution rate would be equal to 30 percent of the compensation. Covered positions for non-school employees are those that are not seasonal or temporary and whose employment requires at least 1,000 hours of work per year; covered positions for school employees are those that are not seasonal or temporary and whose employment requires at least 630 hours of work per year or at least 3.5 hours a day for at least 180 days. For non-covered positions, the employer would not make contributions.

The Senate adopted the Conference Committee Report Tuesday May 23, by a vote of 38-1 *I voted in favor of this bill: It clears up an IRS requirement, and it also gives more uniformity to retirees that qualify for KPERS.*

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(House Substitute for Senate Bill 60): House Sub. for SB 60 extends the sunset for certain fees assessed by the Kansas Department of Agriculture on pesticides, fertilizer, and milk, cream, and dairy products. The bill also reinstates certain dam inspections fees and allow the KDA to assess a fee for processing certain paper documents when an electronic alternative for submission exists. Finally, the bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to lower certain fees and potentially raise certain fees through rules and regulations, if certain criteria are met.

The Senate adopted the Conference Committee Report Tuesday May 23, by a vote of 32-7

*I voted against this bill: It gives the Secretary of Agriculture the ability to adjust fees with no legislative oversight.*

BILL SIGNINGS:

Senate Bill 89 – This bill amends the law relating to the collection of certain vehicle title and registration fees. *I voted for this bill*

House Substitute for Senate Bill 40 – Establishes new criminal charges aimed at reducing human trafficking and sexual exploitation of children and requires holders of Commercial Drivers Licenses be trained to recognize possible human trafficking. *I voted for this bill*

House Substitute for Senate Bill 120– Updates the code for civil procedure. *I voted for this bill*

Senate Bill 149 – Amends statutes regarding briefing in the Kansas Supreme Court and representation of state agencies by the Attorney General’s office. *I voted for this bill*

House Bill 2054 – Allows certain state agencies to share information with one another for the purpose of carrying out their official duties, allows for the Kansas Department of Corrections to request assistance from other jurisdictions if needed, and amends the law related to fee funds.*I voted against this bill: This bill allows for personal information to be shared more openly between agencies, public officials and private contractors.*

The Governor has now signed 79 bills into law this session and vetoed two. By law, the Kansas governor has 10 calendar days to sign the bill into law, veto the bill or allow the bill to become law without his or her signature.

NEXT WEEK:

Next week is the fifth week of Veto Session. We will continue working on our three big ticket items: taxes, budget and school finance. I hope you’ll reach out with any comments, questions, or concerns regarding these issues or others. If you are on Twitter or Facebook, I encourage you to follow along with the #ksleg hashtag for real-time updates on legislative happenings in Topeka as we work to wrap this legislative session up.

FLOOR ACTION:

PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION (Substitute for HB 2230): Sub. for HB 2230, authorizes a property tax exemption and make a change to property tax exemption procedure for certain types of property.

This bill passed the Senate Thursday May 25, by a vote of 38-0.

*I voted for this bill: This bill allows the old army ammunition plant, the ability to attract new business to our region.*

Why does removing the small business exemption mean increasing taxes on the poorest of the poor?

Submitted by Richard Hilderbrand, Kansas District 13 Senator

There is a lot of frustration among the citizens of Kansas over the current legislature’s inability to balance the budget. This frustration is well-founded and must be addressed with a fiscally responsible solution. There is a large percentage of citizens that believe the small business exemption is the cause and want to see the exemption removed. If a tax proposal to remove the LLC exemption was ever to come before both chambers, it would likely pass by a veto-proof margin. If this is the case, then why hasn’t this happened yet? It is obvious this is the one part of the tax plan that most legislators and citizens both believe should be changed. One only needs to look at The Hays Daily News article dated May 5, 2017. In this article, it has this very revealing quote “If we take that part out of the overall tax plan, we take all of our leverage out,” said Sen. Laura Kelly, D-Topeka. Kelly said closing what is often referred to as the LLC loophole is the “politically palatable” part of the tax hikes, but it isn’t the bulk of the money the state needs to raise. “The real money in the tax cuts was not in that provision, it was in the reduction of the brackets,” she said, referring to income tax rates.

http://www.hdnews.net/news/local/lawmakers-continue-hunt-for-tax-solution/article_c688638d-2db8-5911-b855-8e2d60006045.html

In a recent Docking Institute poll, it asked how the citizens of Kansas wanted their legislators to fix the current budget crisis. This is what this poll showed: 41 percent want their legislators to cut spending, 34 percent want their legislators to cut spending and increase taxes, and 25 percent want their legislators to increase taxes to fix this budget crisis. You will notice that 75 percent think all or part of the solution is to cut spending, while none think the solution is to raise state spending.

http://www.fhsu.edu/uploadedFiles/executive/docking/Kansas%20Speaks%202017(1).pdf

Then why do the only bills that we are voting on so far have large increase in spending along with over $1 billion in new taxes to pay for it? This not only defies the wishes of our constituents, but more importantly it is reckless and is fiscally irresponsible. I have heard from those that want to pass this massive tax and spend policy that this is the hardest thing to do. I strongly disagree with this view. The hardest thing to do is continue to vote on your principles and to not be swayed by the emotions of the day. We must get our finances in order and established for a long-term solution, so that our state can get back on the road to recovery.

We do have a budget crisis and our constituents are counting on us to fix this problem. This is something that we must do, we must quit playing politics over this issue. The constituents in Kansas expect the legislators to fund education to meet the requirements of the ruling handed down by the Kansas Supreme Court. They also expect the legislators to fully fund KPERS and to quit deferring the payments that have become the norm. They also want the money that is ear marked for our highways to stay in KDOT.

Just last night the House took up SB 30. It failed on a vote of 53-yeas to 68-nays. If this bill would have passed, and subsequently passed the senate, it would have looked like this:

*It would have raised taxes on every single tax payer by $1.217 billion over the next two years.

*Lowered the minimum earned income from $5,000 to $2,500 for single filers, and from $12,500 to $5,000 for families.

*Retroactively raised the lowest tax bracket for families making $0-$30,000 from 2.7 percent to 2.9 percent for the 2017 tax year.

*Raised the lowest tax bracket for families in year 2018 from 2.9 percent to 3.1 percent.

*Retroactively raised the middle tax bracket for families making $30,001 – $60,000 from 4.6 percent to 4.9 percent for the 2017 tax year.

*Raised the middle tax bracket for families in year 2018 from 4.9 percent to 5.25 percent.

*Retroactively created a new top tax bracket for families making $60,001 and above from 4.6 percent to 5.2 percent for the 2017 tax year.

*Raised the new top tax bracket for families in year 2018 from 5.2 percent to 5.7 percent.

*Retroactively raised the lowest tax bracket for individuals making $0 -$15,000 from 2.7 percent to 2.9 percent for the 2017 tax year.

*Raised the lowest tax bracket in year 2018 from 2.9 percent to 3.1 percent.

*Retroactively raised the middle tax bracket for individuals making $15,001 – $30,000 from 4.6 percent to 4.9 percent for the 2017 tax year.

*Raised the middle tax bracket in year 2018 from 4.9 percent to 5.25 percent.

*Retroactively created a new top tax bracket for individuals making $30,001 and above from 4.6 percent to 5.2 percent for the 2017 tax year.

*Raised the new top tax bracket in year 2018 from 5.2 percent to 5.7 percent.

*Retroactively repealed the small business exemption.

http://www.kslegislature.org/…/doc…/ccr_2017_sb30_h_2129.pdf

This tax bill would have put an even bigger burden on our constituents that are struggling to make ends meet. How can we as a state ask an individual that is making only $2,500 and a family making $5,000 a year to retroactively pay for our out of control spending? It would have classified, per this new tax structure, an individual making $30,001 and a family making $60,001 as rich and taxed them the same rate as someone making $1 million. This is not a fiscally responsible tax plan.

The state has increased its spending in the general fund from $5,268,100,000 in 2010 to an estimated $6,306,030,075 for 2017. This is an almost 20 percent increase in spending over seven years. That is an average increase of 2.46 percent per year. The average rate of inflation during that same period is only 1.7 percent per year. If the state’s spending would have been the same as the rate of inflation, our spending in 2017 would only be $5,807,414,859. The estimated revenue for 2017 is $6,073,100,000. That would have left the state with $265,685,140.54 to go towards meeting some of our other needs that I highlighted earlier.

http://budget.ks.gov/publications/FY2017/FY2017_Comparison_Report–UPDATED–8-15-2016.pdf

http://budget.ks.gov/publications/FY2017/FY2017_GBR_Vol2.pdf

So, I ask this question: Why must the poorest of the poor pay for the states irresponsible fiscal policies?