Bourbon County, Government

Unapproved Minutes of the March 11 Uniontown City Council

Leave a comment

The Regular Council Meeting on March 11, 2025 at Uniontown Community Center was called to order at 7:00PM by Mayor Jurgensen.  Council members present were Jess Ervin, Amber Kelly, Mary Pemberton, Savannah Pritchett, and Bradley Stewart.  Also in attendance for all or part of the meeting were Joe George, the PSU Nursing Students Anthony Arulzu, Shannon Kalgreen, Mia Perez, Cora Simpson, City Treasurer Sally Johnson, City Superintendent Bobby Rich, and City Clerk Danea Esslinger.

 

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/PROJECTS

Public Restroom toilets, Taylor Plumbing–not in attendance, Mitchell Trenching submitted a bid for replacing lines from main through building.

 

Motion by Kelly, Second by Pritchett, Approved 5-0 to accept Mitchell Trenching bid of $900.

 

SEED Grant bid opening–one bid was received by Terry Nading for all SEED projects total material and labor $14,440.

Terry Nading provided 2 sizes for the bullet proof glass window: 58 ¾” x 29 7/8” for $1,600 or 36” x 29 7/8” for $800 and labor $1,260.

 

Motion by Ervin, Second by Kelly, Approved 5-0 to accept Terry Nading bid proposal for all but the window at this time.

 

FEMA Flooding bid opening–2 bids were received for all 4 components by Marbery Concrete, Inc. and Roger and Sons Concrete. No decision made on theses bids at this time as Council is waiting until after the FEMA meeting on 3/18/25.

 

2 Sidewalk bid opening-2 concrete bids were received. Marbery Concrete, Inc. and Roger and Sons Concrete. No decision made on the 2 concrete bids at this time as Council is waiting on response from business owner.

 

 

CITIZENS REQUESTS

None

 

FINANCIAL REPORT

Treasurer Johnson presented the February 2025 financial reports.  Beginning Checking Account Balance for all funds for February was $306,769.02, Receipts $37,051.18, Transfers Out $3,024.00, Expenditures $59,968.41, Checking Account Closing Balance $280,827.79. Bank Statement Balance $289,529.93, including Checking Account Interest of $58.11, Outstanding Deposits $0, Outstanding Checks $8,702.14, Reconciled Balance $280,827.79.  Water Utilities Certificates of Deposit $38,042.59, Sewer Utilities Certificate of Deposit $2,2822.26, Gas Utilities Certificates of Deposit $44,871.48, Total All Funds, including Certificates of Deposit $386,564.12. Year-to-Date Interest in Checking Acct is $119.73, and Utility CDs $581.65 for a Total Year-to-Date Interest of $701.38.  Transfers from Sewer Utility Fund to Sewer Revolving Loan $1,402.00; from Water Utility Fund to GO Water Bond & Interest $1,622.00 for Total Transfers of $3,024.00. Net Loss for the month of February $25,941.23, Year-to-Date Net Income $16,964.05.  Appropriations to date for February 2025 are $50,641.45

 

APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA

Motion by Ervin, Second byKelly, Approved 5-0, to approve Consent Agenda:

  • Minutes of February 11, 2024 Regular Council Meeting.
  • Treasurer’s Reports & Monthly Transaction Report for February 2025 and the Accounts Payables

 

DEPARTMENT REPORTS

Superintendent:  Bobby Rich

Tractor-tractor repair completed, Brad Stewart delivered and picked up tractor with his trailer and fuel, please compensate him for

wear and tear on equipment and fuel costs for $500

 

Motion by Kelly, Second by Pritchett, Approved 4-0-1 (Stewart abstain) to approve payment.

 

Mosquito Workshop-superintendent requested workshop attendance.

 

Motion by Kelly, Second by Stewart, Approved 5-0 to approve Mosquito workshop attendance.

 

Clerk Report:  Danea Esslinger  

Jayhawk software & Quickbooks online update-started the Jayhawk software requirements and have not started Quickbooks online.

Telephone/Blue Tooth Ear Headset/Monitor-asked Council for 2 new monitors, new updated telephones, and blue tooth headset

 

Motion by Kelly, Second by Stewart, Approved 5-0 to approve requested equipment.

 

Reminders for upcoming events for the City of Uniontown:

Rabies Clinic will be on 3/29/25 @ 1:30pm to 3pm with Dr. Lora Holeman

City Office will be closed on March 19, 20, 21, 27, & 28, 2025

CCMFOA Conference – March 19-21, Manhattan

KACM Conference – March 27-28, Manhattan

Dogs at large-Dog catcher has been unable to catch the dogs at large in the City. Council advise to send 2 citations for repeat offenders, and a certified letter to the other offender.

 

COUNCIL & COMMITTEE REPORTS

Councilman Ervin –none

Councilman Kelly – none

Councilwoman Pemberton – are we are still needing and accepting book donations? Treasurer Johnson said yes.

Councilwoman Pritchett –letter needed to tenant and landlord regarding trash on front porch and now in back yard

Councilman Stewart– none

Mayor Jurgensen –none

 

OLD BUSINESS

Warehouse Building Electric update-have electricity installed and have rollup doors programed

Council stated to get a bids for the foam installation for the warehouse building.

 

Motion by Pritchett, Second by Ervin, Approved 5-0 to get bids for the foam installation of the Warehouse.

 

Park electric –electrician is waiting for boring to be completed

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Motion by Kelly, Second by Pritchett, Approved 5-0, to enter into executive session pursuant to non-elected personnel exception, KSA 75-4319(b)(1), in order to discuss performance of non-elected personnel, the open meeting to resume at 9:00 PM.

 

Johnson called in at 8:45, out at 9:00.

 

Motion by Kelly, Second by Pritchett, Approved 5-0, to enter into executive session pursuant to non-elected personnel exception, KSA 75-4319(b)(1), in order to discuss performance of non-elected personnel, the open meeting to resume at 9:15 PM.

 

Esslinger called in at 9:03, out at 9:20.

 

Motion by Kelly, Second by Pritchett, Approved 5-0, to enter into executive session pursuant to non-elected personnel exception, KSA 75-4319(b)(1), in order to discuss performance of non-elected personnel, the open meeting to resume at 9:30 PM.

 

Open meeting resumed at 9:30.  No action from executive session.

 

City Clerk asked the council if need to send a debtor to collections with CBK, Inc. Council agreed to send.

 

Council member stated need to change the next month meeting from April 8, 2025 at 7:00 PM to April 9, 2025 at 5:30 PM.

 

Motion by Kelly, Second by Ervin, Approved 5-0 to move date and time of next month meeting to April 9, 2025 at 5:30 PM.

 

ADJOURN Time 9:45 Moved by Ervin, 2nd Kelly, Approved 5-0

 

Obituary

Obituary of Janice Patterson

Leave a comment

 

Janice Patterson, age 100, a resident of Ft. Scott, Kansas, died peacefully at the Medicalodge on Thursday, March 13, 2025.  Jan was born February 13, 1925, in Mapleton, Kansas, to Willis Francis Patterson and Mabel Evelyn Cooper Patterson.  Her family lived on a farm south of Mapleton.

She attended school in Mapleton for her early years and graduated as Valedictorian from Fulton High School in 1943.  In the fall of that year, Jan enrolled as a freshman at Ft. Scott Junior College.  The 1944 school yearbook pictured her as a Student Council Member and part of the annual staff.  The next year, she went to Kansas City to work for Pratt and Whitney, a defense contractor during World War II

By 1950, she was working for Skelley Oil in Kansas City.  By the early 1970’s, she was transferred to Tulsa, Oklahoma where her career ended with Chevron Oil.  In the early 1980’s, she retired and returned to Ft. Scott.  She was very active in the First Christian Church where she eventually became a deacon.  Jan also played bridge, attended FCE meetings and belonged to different social groups.

 

Jan was preceded in death by her parents Willis and Mabel Patterson as well as her brothers, Elgin Patterson, John Patterson, Byron Patterson and sister-in-law, Erma Essicks Patterson, a sister, Doris Underwood and brother-in-law, Jake Underwood, and a niece, Ruth Ann Underwood Burleson.

Jan is survived by two nieces, Susan Underwood Karleskint of Uniontown, Kansas and Mary Underwood Gregory and husband, Brad, of Lee’s Summit, Missouri.  In addition, there are six great nieces and nephews and seven great-great-nieces and nephews.

 

Funeral services will be held at 10:30 A.M. Saturday, March 29th at the Cheney Witt Chapel.

Burial will follow in the Mapleton Cemetery.

The family will receive friends on Saturday from 10:00 A.M. until service time at the funeral home.

Memorials are suggested to the First United Methodist Church and may be left in care of the Cheney Witt Chapel, 201 S. Main, P.O. Box 347, Ft. Scott, KS 66701.  Words of remembrance may be submitted to the online guestbook at cheneywitt.com.

Opinion

Opinion: Choosing The Best Path – A Response to Mary Pemberton

3 Comments

Earlier this week, I wrote an opinion piece suggesting that there is no positive outcome to be had by commissioners using their personal money to fund a lawsuit against themselves and then spending your taxpayer money to defend against that suit. I walked through my logic as to why this is true regardless of whether you 100% support solar, 100% oppose solar, or fall somewhere in between. I maintain that there is no possible positive outcome (regardless of how you feel about solar) where the commissioners continuing to sue themselves is beneficial to the county. This is true regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit. Based on this, I called for the commissioners to drop their role as plaintiffs on the lawsuit.

At first, I was delighted to see that Mary Pemberton wrote a response and looked forward to reading what part of my logic she disagreed with. However, after working through her 1,100+ word submission, I was disappointed. While she definitely articulates her anger at a number of things and is clearly upset that anyone would suggest the commissioners’ lawsuit isn’t in the best interest of the county,at no point does she address the concerns I raised in my argument. She doesn’t point to any possible outcome where the county benefits by the commissioners maintaining their position as plaintiffs on a lawsuit they started before they were elected.

She mentions a number of grievances with how decisions have been made in the past. She calls on people to join her in unsubscribing from the places that publish her opinion because…they publish people’s opinions. She expresses her fear of fires, claims that Halloween is a “scary date” for signing contracts, complains about the county being responsible for maintaining roads, and offers her insights the lifespan of power inverters. There is plenty to read on various subjects, but there is one thing missing. She doesn’t dispute my argument. There is no mention of a path forward where an overall positive state is achieved by the commissioners’ continued use of their own money to pay for a lawsuit against the county and use your taxpayer money to defend against their suit.

My original point still stands. No matter how you feel about what has happened in the past, we need to look at where we are today and think rationally about where different paths will take us in the future. Whether you share Mary’s outrage at past commissioners, whether you give any credence to her concerns about “scary dates,” whether you are indignant or indifferent about solar, the path forward is based on where we are today. It branches from here. One path has the commissioners continuing to join a few plaintiffs against the county and burn taxpayer money to defend against that suit. There are no possible good outcomes for the county on that path.  But there is another path that has them drop off the suit and continue working to achieve the best results for everyone they represent.

Mark Shead

Note: FortScott.biz publishes opinion pieces with a variety of perspectives. If you would like to share your opinion, please send a letter to [email protected]. 

Opinion

Letter to the Editor: Mary Pemberton

1 Comment

Letter from Mary Pemberton in response to this opinion piece.

—

My, Oh My!  How quickly fortscott.biz and Concerned Citizens changed from being a place where you could get news about local happenings and people could share stories and opinions about a variety of topics, to a personal soapbox for Mark Shead (all others will be “moderated”).

Let me refresh your obviously biased memory, Mark.  November 13, 2023 the county commission was presented with contracts for Hinton Creek Solar development, which they quickly voted and signed.  Was there prior discussion or notification with the public about this development?  Were the neighboring homeowners notified or consulted for their feedback on real or perceived health and safety issues (or even told about the project)?  NO, there was none of that.  Commissioners did not negotiate the contracts, Rob Harrington with REDI “negotiated” for them.  The same Rob Harrington who promotes solar developments across the U.S. for The Center for Infrastructure & Economic Development which is a subsidiary of (funded entirely by) NextEra Energy, who also happens to be the developer for the Hinton Creek Solar project.  No conflict of interest there!  He did the best he could when he managed to get a 25’ setbacks from the property line!  Half the average “donation” (aka PILOT)  that other counties receive was as good as Bourbon County could get!  No need to mention fire protection or training in the contracts, we will just let it burn for a week or more until it extinguishes on its own, after all, chances are it won’t spread to that neighbor 25’ away!

It doesn’t sound like the Commissioners were “fully engaged, carefully understanding any potential side effects, finding ways to address concerns, balancing risks”.   It sounds like they took a money grab without thinking about any potential effects or making any attempt to address concerns or risks.    Do some of the people who have spoken or posted articles about detrimental side effects exaggerate the danger, whether knowingly or unknowingly?  Yes, but you, Mark, are doing the same thing by refusing to acknowledge there is any risk whatsoever!  Do you really believe there is not an increased risk of fire (compared to other power generation systems)?    Do you really believe there is no risk of the structures not being removed at end of life when the contracts are written to give the developer 10 years before they have to put up security for the removal (in Bourbon County’s case, our commissioners agreed to  NextEra providing a piece of paper stating that they have enough funds to cover decommissioning, not that they actually put aside the money into a fund for that purpose).  A little-known fact (but easily discovered if researching) about solar is that certain components (such as inverters) only have a lifespan of about 12 years, at which time the owner or developer can choose to terminate the facility or “repower” meaning replace those components. Which also means they get another 10 or even 15 years without having to put up decommissioning security and get a new round of government subsidies and property tax abatements.  It is very likely that Bourbon County will never see any or at most only a year or two of the huge windfall property taxes that the project would bring in after the 10-year abatement expires.

Then recall, Mark, that on October 31, 2024  the commissioners made a last minute amendment to their meeting agenda to sign new contracts with the solar developers (funny how it became a last minute need when the developers’ representatives were told and made airline reservations two weeks prior so they would be there for the signing).  When originally signed in Nov 2023, Commissioners Harris and Beth and Counselor Meeks did not provide the third commissioner a copy of the contracts prior to the meeting in which they were signed;  in 2024 the third commissioner was not emailed a copy of the contracts until after he was at his full-time evening/night-shift job, knowing he wouldn’t have time to read them thoroughly prior to the commission meeting (then they refused to delay the vote to give him time to read them).    Also, recall the original Hinton Creek Solar contracts were terminated and the “donation” money was diverted to a non-profit organization hand-picked by one commissioner and to two schools which are entirely or largely out of district of the project.  Not saying that the non-profit is not a worthy organization, but it shouldn’t be up to one or two commissioners to decide to give away what should be considered tax funds.  It left the County NO monetary benefit whatsoever and will actually cost the County money or will leave us in worse shape than without the project (ex. the agreements do not require the developer to maintain roads, that is left to the county to fund).

The urgent, lame-duck, behind the scenes manipulation of the contracts and donations is what caused the lawsuit.  Do I need to remind you how many times Former Commissioner Harris told citizens “FILE A LAWSUIT” when they simply asked for their opinions to be considered?  He even said it again immediately after signing the revised contracts on Halloween (perhaps the SCARY date was chosen on purpose).   If the former commissioners, counselor and economic development director had truly been looking out for and taking into consideration the best interests, opinions and desires of all the citizens of the county, or had done their research on the issues rather than relying solely on the attorney for the developer, then more than likely none of this fiasco, including the lawsuit, would have happened.   Alternative energy projects are controversial in all counties; most counties deal with the controversy in a public manner (town hall meetings, zoning meetings, and other public forums where information is disseminated and opinions can be voiced) and it never comes to a lawsuit.  Should Bourbon County forever be a pawn in the hands of a few people who happen to hold power at the time a decision needs to be made and who choose to make decisions based on their own personal benefits (or opinions or retributions) rather than the betterment of the county or wishes of the majority of residents?    Should the new commissioners roll over to the fact that their lame-duck predecessors tried to contract away their power to protect citizens (which is not only immoral and unethical, it is illegal)?

So, Mr. Shead, rather than asking my current commissioner to continue taking part in the “good-old-boy” system and ignore his duty to the citizens of the county, I ask everyone reading this who subscribes to fortscott.biz or the Concerned Bourbon Co. Citizens Facebook page to unsubscribe from these.  Perhaps someone else will start an actual news-based “paper” or website to fill the void that you have created.

 

Written and Submitted by  Mary Pemberton

 

 

Government, Kansas

Kansas Supreme Court announces new portal to search appellate cases

Leave a comment

TOPEKA—Beginning today, people can search appellate cases using a public access portal that not only gives case information but also public case documents.

 

The Kansas Appellate Courts Public Access Portal is part of the Kansas eCourt project to centralize case information on a single web-based platform, transforming the way courts serve the people of Kansas. The multiyear project introduced a new case management system in district and appellate courts, making it possible to search statewide court case information online.

 

“We are thrilled to announce this much-anticipated milestone for the Kansas court system,” said Chief Justice Marla Luckert. “For the first time in the history of our courts, public case information and case documents in both district and appellate courts can be searched online without cost.”

 

Using the portal to search cases

 

Before searching cases on the Kansas Appellate Courts Public Access Portal, a person must register as a portal user. A link to the registration form is in the top right corner of the portal home page.

 

All registered users must abide by the Kansas Courts Public Access Portal User Agreement.

 

If a person is registered to use the Kansas District Court Public Access Portal, they do not need to register to use the Kansas Appellate Courts Public Access Portal. Their registration transfers to the appellate portal and their username and password are the same.

 

Case information and case documents

 

People who use the portal to search appellate cases will get information that includes party names and a register of events. It can also include case documents.

 

Only case documents filed after March 13, 2025, will be available on the portal. To access a public case document filed prior to March 13, 2025, a user would need to request it from the clerk of the appellate courts.

 

More information about the portal and what it offers is on the kscourts.gov webpage Search Appellate Court Records.

 

Some case information, documents not available

 

Sealed cases and sealed records are not public, and some cases are exempt from disclosure under the Kansas Open Records Act (K.S.A. 45-221). Other records may be exempt by judicial rule, order, or caselaw.

 

Cases and records not available through the public access portal are identified in Supreme Court Kansas eCourt Rules (20–25).

 

Supreme Court Rule 22: Access to Public Electronic District Court and Appellate Case Records

 

Updated Supreme Court Rule 22

 

Administrative Order 2025-RL-027 signed and filed Friday, March 21, adopted modifications to Supreme Court Rule 22 that take effect today, March 24. Modifications to Supreme Court Rule 22 make more case types searchable through the district court and appellate courts public access portals.

 

Under updates to Rule 22, certain case types in the domestic, juvenile offender, and probate case categories become available on the public access portals effective today, March 24, 2025.

 

Searching these case types will give registered users access to case events but not case documents. To access public case documents, a user must visit a courthouse or the Kansas Judicial Center to use a computer terminal to search these case types.

 

Kansas eCourt case management system

 

Beginning in 2019, district courts were brought onto a centralized case management system following a statewide rollout plan. The last district court moved to the new system in November 2024.

 

The appellate courts began operating on the appellate version of the same case management system in June 2024. Additional time was needed to prepare to offer case information and documents online through a public access portal.

Kansas Judicial Branch

Office of Judicial Administration

301 SW 10th Avenue

Topeka, KS 66612-1507

785-296-2256

kscourts.gov

Government, Kansas

Governor Kelly Vetoes Restrictive Voting Legislation

Leave a comment


TOPEKA – Governor Laura Kelly on Monday vetoed Senate Bill 4.

The following veto message is from Governor Kelly regarding her veto of Senate Bill 4:

“The three-day grace period for mail ballots was a bipartisan solution approved by the Legislature in 2017 to address delays in processing of mail by the United States Postal Service, particularly in rural areas. The goal was to ensure that all Kansans had their votes counted, no matter where they lived.

“Not only will removing the three-day grace period for mail ballots disenfranchise thousands of Kansas voters, but it also shows a lack of understanding of our elections in Kansas. Implementing this will create confusion among county election officials, who will have to update policies and procedures on handling of mail ballots in a higher turnout election year.

“This bill is an attack on rural Kansans who want to participate in the electoral process guaranteed by our Constitution. I will not sign legislation that deprives Kansans from having their vote counted.

“Therefore, under Article 2, Section 14(a) of the Constitution, I hereby veto Senate Bill 4.”

Government, Kansas

Move-Over Protections for all Highway Drivers Bill

Leave a comment

Governor Kelly Signs Bipartisan Bill Expanding Move-Over Protections for all Highway Drivers


TOPEKA – Governor Laura Kelly signed on Monday  Senate Bill 8, which requires drivers to move over when passing stationary vehicles displaying hazard warning lights.

“Thanks to this commonsense bill, all drivers will now be required to move over or slow down if there is a vehicle on the side of the road with flashing lights,” Governor Laura Kelly said. “This bill will improve safety and will make it easier to educate the driving public.”

Senate Bill 8 works to protect both drivers of disabled vehicles displaying hazard warning signal lights and other drivers on the road. The bill requires drivers on the road to proceed with caution and change lanes away from the disabled vehicle if it is possible and safe to do so.

“Eighty-two crashes occurred from 2018-2023 with someone in a vehicle while on the side of the road,” said State Representative for the 125th District Shannon Francis. “This bill will improve driver behavior by creating consistency with other move-over bills for law enforcement, first responders, and utility vehicles, among others.”

Historically, move-over protections had been limited to emergency personnel. Over time, these protections included road service vehicles, utility, and tow trucks. This year, move-over protections will apply to all highway vehicles.

“Senate Bill 8 is a commonsense safety measure that will enhance protections for all travelers on Kansas roadways,” said Senator for District 7 Ethan Corson  “With its enactment, we’re taking meaningful steps to look out for drivers and passengers.”

In addition to Senate Bill 8, Governor Kelly also signed the following bipartisan bills:

Senate Bill 2: Validates the election results for the bond issuance question submitted by the board of education of USD 200, Greeley County, at a special election held on May 21, 2024.

Senate Bill 7: Increases the statutory limits on bonds issued by a township based on township population and purpose of the bond issuance, increasing townships’ ability to access resources for infrastructure and facility improvements.

Senate Bill 88: Ensures the state long-term care ombudsman and regional ombudsman receive memory care training to better serve Kansans with dementia and other memory illnesses.

Senate Bill 175: Modernizes the definition of athletic trainer and provides an exemption for trainers licensed in other states or countries to practice in Kansas.

House Bill 2261: Resolves ambiguity surrounding the classification of Kansas Highway Patrol majors.

###
Fort Scott, Sports, Youth

FSMS Student Luci Miles Wins Folk Wrestling State Championship

1 Comment

 

Luci Miles. Submitted photo.

Folkstyle Wrestling is a combative sport where one wrestler tries to physically control the opponent against their will without injuring them, according tohttps://www.indeewrestling.com/folkstyle-wrestling-rules/

When two wrestlers wrestle each other, both wrestlers must weigh within one weight class of each other. You win a match by pinning your opponent, by scoring more match points than your opponent, or by disqualification if your opponent breaks certain rules. according to the website.

According to her dad, Mike Miles, Luci Miles, a 6th grader at Fort Scott Middle School, folk wrestles for Paola Panthers Wrestling Club, a kids’ youth wrestling club. She has been wrestling since she was five years old.
She was coached by Brett Martin, Darvin Willard, and Travis Allen.
Kids Folkstyle Wrestling season is from late October to March.  They compete on weekends throughout those months at various tournaments in the states of Kansas, Missouri, and  Oklahoma, according to https://usawrestlingevents.com/event/2500013602
The Kids State Wrestling competition is always a couple of weeks after Kansas High School State contests, with a tournament every year in Topeka.

“You have to qualify from your district and place top four to make it to the state tournament,” Miles said.  “Luci has won District 1 five times in a row.  She has been in the state finals for the past five years.  She has been runner-up for the past 4 years.  This year she finally broke through and won the under 90 lb. girls division.”

The 2025 Kansas Kids Folkstyle Wrestling State Championship Tournament was March 14-16 in Topeka.

The tournament features wrestlers in four age divisions, boys and girls: 8 and under (8U), 10 and under (10U), 12 and under (12U), and 14 and under (14U).  This tournament aims to provide a platform for showcasing boys and girls in age groups wrestling talents. As young wrestlers from around the country gather, they will compete with the top competition around the country with hopes to becoming National Champions, according to the website.

Luci Miles. Submitted photo.
Business, Fort Scott Chamber of Commerce

Human Resource Roundtable Offered By The Chamber on March 25

Leave a comment

You’re invited!

HR Roundtable hosted by the Chamber

 

Tomorrow, Tuesday, March 25th

12-1pm

Labconco

2500 Liberty Bell Rd.

The Fort Scott Area Chamber of Commerce invites members to a Human Resources (HR) Roundtable luncheon to discuss relevant topics that impact the workplace.

The meeting will be held Tuesday, March 25th, from 12 to 1pm at Labconco. Those interested in attending may RSVP on fortscott.com with an option to attend with or without a $10 lunch.

The HR Roundtables are open to any Chamber members who deal with HR related issues and any size of organization or business, not just HR professionals. This will be an inaugural meeting to see what those attending would like future meetings to consist of as far as guest speakers and topics of discussion.

Click HERE to RSVP.
Thank you to our Chamber Champion members shown below…
Fort Scott Area Chamber of Commerce

231 E. Wall St., Fort Scott, KS 66701

620-223-3566

fortscott.com
Facebook
Opinion

Opinion: Win or lose, commissioners suing county is a loss for citizens

2 Comments

Bourbon County finds itself in the singular position of having every county commissioner joined with a few landowners as plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the county commissioners. Like most people in Bourbon County, I want to see more industries come to the county. Also, like most people, I want my county representatives to be fully engaged in carefully understanding any potential side effects, finding ways to address concerns, balancing risks, and working hard to facilitate healthy growth without throwing up unnecessary roadblocks.

The lawsuit creates an extraordinary state of affairs that has made me question whether the concerns of people like me were being represented fairly. I reached out to my commissioner, asking how he felt they could fairly represent all their constituents as a whole while actively joining a few citizens in a lawsuit against the county. I explained that this seemed like a pretty significant conflict of interest, but I wanted to have an open mind and hear what he had to say before fully forming an opinion.

I’d encourage you to ask your commissioner the same question. After carefully reading my commissioner’s position and re-reading the lawsuit a few times, I now have no doubt that the commissioners have positioned themselves such that it is impossible for them to make decisions for the best of the county as a whole—especially when it comes to working with solar companies. Whether the commissioners win or lose in their lawsuit against the county, the citizens lose by being deprived of commissioners who can ethically execute their duties.

I recognize that in their capacity as individuals on the lawsuit, they think they are doing something good for the county, but they are no longer merely private individuals. Their activities that may have started as individuals ruin their ability to function as commissioners for the county in this matter. Citizens should want commissioners who are sympathetic and will listen to the claims of the landowners who want to bar their neighbors from renting land to solar companies. However, remaining party to a lawsuit suing the county creates conflicts that prevent them from fairly executing their duties.

As plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the commissioners are making a bet that they can sue themselves to undo their predecessors’ decisions. Should they succeed as plaintiffs, it would catastrophically undermine the ability of this and future commissions to make agreements with any business that wants to expand into the county. It would likely expose the county and taxpayers to much larger lawsuits from landowners who have signed contracts to lease their land. It is hard to imagine any way for the commissioners to work with their defense lawyer and try to bring the lawsuit to an end to preserve taxpayers’ money while simultaneously funding and participating in the lawsuit as plaintiffs who are trying to take the lawsuit all the way to trial. Even for people who oppose industrial solar in any form, a win for the plaintiffs could hardly be seen as a net positive once the collateral damage is accounted for.

It appears to me that the most likely outcome is for the county to win the defense against the lawsuit, even with the commissioners’ best efforts as plaintiffs to make the county lose. In the scenario where the county wins the lawsuit, the commissioners will have squandered their ability to work with solar companies to address citizens’ concerns during the time that those concerns have the best chance of being addressed.

This isn’t hypothetical. Advance Power tried to have a meeting with the public on March 19th. This is precisely the sort of meeting that constituents would want the commissioners to attend. They could hear citizens’ concerns along with the solar company’s responses and information. However, the commissioners let everyone know they were refusing to attend, saying, “With everything that’s going on and things that we’re working on, we’re not going to associate ourselves with them at this point in time.”

Their response makes perfect sense from the standpoint of an individual who is suing both the solar companies and the county commissioners, but it is the exact opposite of the type of leadership we need from our commissioners. The commissioners are spending their personal money to sue the county and spending your taxpayer money to defend against their lawsuit.

As citizens of the county, we all have a vested interest in seeing our county commissioners remove themselves from this lawsuit as soon as possible so they can fully function in their capacity as our elected representatives, free of the ethical conflicts with which they are currently encumbered.

Based on all of this, I have asked my commissioner to drop himself from the lawsuit so he can function as a representative of all his constituents. I would encourage you to do the same.

Mark Shead

Note: FortScott.biz publishes opinion pieces with a variety of perspectives. If you would like to share your opinion, please send a letter to [email protected]. 

Bourbon County Local News