February 10, 1998

Journal of the House

Hall of the House of Representatives, Topeka, KS,
Tuesday, February 10, 1998, 11:00 a.m. 
 The House met pursuant to adjournment with Speaker pro tem Wagle in the chair.


 I, Ron Thornburgh, Secretary of State of the State of Kansas, do hereby certify that
Margaret E. Long was appointed by the Governor on February 9, 1998, for the unexpired
term, Thirty-Eighth Representative District, and that the oath of office has been adminis-
tered to Margaret E. Long and was filed in my office on the ninth day of February, 1998.

 In Testimony Whereof: I hereto set my hand and cause to be affixed my official seal.
Done at the City of Topeka this 10th day of February, A.D. 1998.

                                                                                    Ron Thornburgh

                                                                                    Secretary of State

 Speaker pro tem Wagle introduced Margaret Long, who fills the vacancy created by the
death of Jim Long and will now represent the 38th Representative District.

 The House of Representatives is once again organized with 125 members.

 The roll was called with 118 members present.

 Reps. Lloyd and E. Peterson were excused on verified illness.

 Reps. Farmer, Helgerson, Klein, Pottorff and Sawyer were excused on excused absence
by the Speaker.

 Prayer by Chaplain Washington:

      Gracious Father,

       We look to You as our source this morning. All that we need belongs to and
      proceeds from You.

       You said in Psalms 50:10-11, that every animal in the forest is Yours . . . (tri-stars)at the
      cattle on a 1000 hills are Yours. Every bird in every mountain and every animal in
      every field is Yours. In fact, verse 12 says that the whole world is Yours and even if
      You were hungry You wouldn't ask from us.

       So we come asking from You this morning. We really come as beggars, seeking
      another loan. All that we get in this life must come from You, and returns to You.
      We must confess that we brought nothing into this world when we came, and we'll
      take nothing when we leave. We've never seen a U-Haul trailing a hearse.

       So teach us daily, to rely upon You. All we can do is to make a motion. You have
      to carry it. We beg, and You provide. We crave, and You fulfill. We ask, and You
      supply. We pray, and You answer.

       Now give us of Your wisdom Lord, that through the work of this House, You might
      meet many of the needs of this state.

       I come to You in the Name of Your Son, Jesus. Amen and Amen.


 Special guests of the day were the International Officers from the Command and General
Staff College, Fort Leavenworth.

 Rep. Wilk addressed the following remarks:

 Mr. Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives:

 It gives me great pleasure to welcome to our House chambers the International members
of the 1998 Command and General Staff College. This annual event has become for me
one of my favorite days of the legislative session.

 This past weekend I was struck by the various images carried over the international air
waves. The parade of nations this past Friday at the opening of the Winter Olympics was a
moving experience. The gathering for the Olympic games be it winter or summer is always
a special event. It is a vivid and colorful expression of the various cultures and societies that
make up our wonderful world. The athletes representing their respective countries are the
best of the best. The world waits and celebrates the Olympics every four years. For Leav-
enworth and the state of Kansas we have a ``Parade of Nations'' every year. I believe the
Winter Olympics allows me to truly put the magnitude of international representation in
perspective. In Nagano, Japan, 72 countries are represented, in our gallery today we have
90 elite officers representing 74 different countries. Just as the athletes gathered at the
Olympics represent the ``best of the best'' the officers in our gallery this morning represent
the ``best of the best'' in the military world. These officers arrived in Leavenworth from
around the world last summer and will complete their training and return to their homelands
in mid 1998.

 I would ask the body to reflect with me for just a few moments on who has visited and
observed our House chambers the last 12 months. The officers from the International class
are making their 37th visit. We have become accustomed to their visit. Last year we had
the first democratically elected Governor of Russia, Gov. Schavanov visit and address this
Chamber. Just last week we had a group of students from Veronezh, Russia, visit and observe
our proceedings. And this past summer in what I view to be a progressive and necessary
outreach program we had a bi-partisan delegation travel to Veronezh, Russia, and share
their experiences with our Russian contemporaries. I visited with several of those members
who made the trip last summer and without exception it changed their perspective of Russia
and just as importantly it changed their perspective of Kansas.

 The Kansas Legislature does not write or vote on international policy. But given the
examples just cited, we do participate in a major way in international diplomacy. It is en-
cumbent upon each of us to reach beyond our state and coastal borders to those who seek
to understand and desire to practice in a democratic government. The officers in our gallery
today are not here for merely ceremonial purposes, they are here to observe, learn, and
understand our democratic process. In a small way each of us is contributing to their edu-
cation and their total experience in the international program.

 All of us in the Kansas Legislature love the democratic process and the opportunities it
affords every Kansan and every American. Each elected official in the Chamber today gets
to participate in democracy at a level and degree that few people in the world ever get to
experience. We get to disagree, debate, and ultimately VOTE and decide on public policy
issues. We get to do this because of the sacrifices made by military people before us, and
because of the commitment and sacrifices of individuals like those in our Chambers today.
To the elite officers in our gallery, and on behalf of the entire House Chamber I want to
say thank you, for your commitment and dedication, and welcome to Kansas.

 Rep. Crow addressed the following remarks:

 Mr. Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives:

 I have the great honor today to welcome the international members of the 1998 Command
and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth to our state Capitol. These officers, who are
the best and brightest members of their nation's military forces, are here in Kansas to
proudly represent their countries. They come in peace and good will to study alongside
American military officers. While they are in Kansas, they will share their skills, their cul-
tures, their ideals, and their dreams and they will enrich our state by their presence.

 For over 100 years, international students have come to our Command and General Staff
College to accept the challenge and responsibility to provide the best possible leadership
for their home countries. The international officer program began slowly at the turn of the
last century. The earliest international students were elite officers from nearby countries,
Mexico, Puerto Rico and Cuba. In the 1940's the program grew as officers came from all
over the world to train as allies and friends.

 In Kansas and in Leavenworth County, we are indeed honored and privileged to share
our state and community with these officer and their families while they are here. Today
we have 90 of the world's greatest officers with us here, representing 74 countries. I am
proud to be given this great honor of welcoming them to our state, our capitol and our

 It is my privilege to share with you the 74 countries represented by our visitors here today.
We have officers from:

 Albania--Lieutenant Colonel Zija Bahja

 Algeria--Captain Hannache Nacer

 Argentina--Major Guillermo Alejandro Saa

 Australia--Major Simon Roach, Major Martin Ignatius Faulkner

 Bangladesh--Major Mustafa Ahmed Saqeb

 Belgium--Major Rudy Debaene

 Belize--Major Cedric Andrew Borland

 Benin--Major Honore Agnou Basso

 Bolivia--Major Jose Antonio Agreda Mendivil

 Botswana--Lieutenant Colonel Gaolathe Galebotswe

 Brazil--Lieutenant Colonel Jose Julio Dias Barreto

 Bulgaria--Major Iordan Petrov Iordanov

 Cambodia--Major Kay Yomea

 Cameroon--Captain Eyong Tambong Ebot

 Canada--Major Joseph Serge Caron, Major Paul Anthony Duff

 Croatia--Colonel Zdravko Klanac

 Czech Republic--Captain Martin Kavalir

 Denmark--Captain Kenn Bille Iversen

 Ecuador--Lieutenant Colonel Carlos A. Vintimilla P.

 Egypt--Lieutenant Colonel Farid Mohamed Mostafa El-Daoushy, Lieutenant Colonel
Mahmoud Morsy Talba Morsy

 El Salvador--Major Hector D. Erazo Gallegos

 Estonia--Captain Hannes Toomsalu

 Ethiopia--Captain Hailu Gebregziabher Gidey

 Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia--Major Zvonko Atanasovski

 France--Major Charles Sevin

 Georgia--Lieutenant Colonel David Nairashvili

 Germany--Lieutenant Colonel Michael Hochwart, Major Frank Rapp

 Ghana--Major Francis Vib-Sanziri

 Greece--Lieutenant Colonel Dimitrios Mikos

 Guyana--Lieutenant Colonel Lawrence Eulon Paul

 Hungary--Lieutenant Colonel Laszlo Toth

 India--Lieutenant Colonel Ajay Sah

 Israel--Lieutenant Colonel Hovav Zabary

 Italy--Captain Claudio Dei, Captain Giulio Lucia

 Japan--Lieutenant Colonel Masahisa Sato

 Jordan--Lieutenant Colonel Ahmad Majed Mohammad Aitan, Major Fahed Faleh Ah-
mad Al-Damen

 Kenya--Major Johnson Mogoa Ondieki

 Korea--Lieutenant Colonel Kim, Seok-Koo; Lieutenant Colonel Kim, Seung Taek; Major
Kim, Sung-Kyu

 Kuwait--Major Fayez M.S. Al Anezi

 Lebanon--Colonel Khodor Tawil

 Lithuania--Major Kestutis Kurselis

 Malaysia--Major Muhammad Anwar bin Abdullah

 Mexico--Lieutenant Colonel Dario Avalos Pedraza

 Moldova--Captain Alexei Carasiov

 Nepal--Major Binoj Basnyat, Major Ratindra Khatri

 Netherlands--Major Leo Beulen

 New Zealand--Major Paul Nicholas King

 Norway--Major Roy Abelsen

 Oman--Major Salim Nassir Hamed Al-Salmy

 Pakistan--Major Agha Masood Akram

 Philippines--Lieutenant Colonel Christopher A. Tanabe

 Poland--Captain Wiktor Mikolajec

 Portugal--Lieutenant Colonel Luis Filipe Tavares Nunes

 Qatar--Major Saoud Faisal Al-Thani

 Romania--Lieutenant Colonel Teodor Frunzeti

 Russia--Lieutenant Colonel Alexander N. Arkhangelskiy, Captain Roman Germanovich

 Saudi Arabia--Lieutenant Colonel Abdullah M.M. Al-Shehri, Major Mohammad Obeid
Al-Abdali, Major Khalaf bin Th. A. Al-Harbi

 Senegal--Captain Samba Tall

 Singapore--Major Chan, Chun Sing

 Slovak Republic--Lieutenant Colonel Stefan Hlavaty

 Slovenia--Lieutenant Colonel Milan Obreza

 Spain--Major Gabriel Bayarte Aguerri

 Sweden--Major Bengt Allan Svensson

 Switzerland--Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Berger

 Taiwan--Mr Te-chin Liu

 Thailand--Lieutenant Colonel Trairong Tongnuasug, Lieutenant Colonel Naretrak Thi-
tathan, Lieutenant Colonel Chuchart Cumnooch

 Tunisia--Major Saidi Hamadi

 Turkey--Major Salih Sevil

 Uganda--Lieutenant Colonel Nakibus James Lakara

 Ukraine--Lieutenant Colonel Ivan Kovalenko

 United Arab Emirates--Major Salem Ali Abdullah Al Mazrooei

 United Kingdom--Major Edward Hammond Rivers Marlow, Major Peter Sean Rafferty

 Venezuela--Lieutenant Colonel Braz Sousa Freytas, Major Roman Alberto Pineda Rivas

 Zimbabwe--Major Freedom Simon Tsodzai

 Rep. Ruff addressed the following remarks:

 As I add my welcome to you, our International Officers, I want to take my welcome a
step further. Although most of our good wishes have been directed toward you, I would like
to especially welcome your wives and children. So when you return to Fort Leavenworth
this evening, please extend my best wishes to your families.

 For you see, I know what it is like to have a father in the military. I remember all too
well what it is like to attend 11 schools in 12 years. Living half way around the world was a
matter of routine for many of us. I know what your wives and children are going through,
coming to America and living in a country so different from yours.

 My military father, like many of yours I'm sure, told us we were on a great adventure
and other little children were not as fortunate. I must admit there were times when I didn't
agree. But growing up the daughter of a military officer made for a wonderful childhood
and I might add excellent training for those who want to follow a career in politics.

 My fellow representatives JoAnn Freeborn and Marti Crow, were military daughters. And
I am sure they can attest to the unique experiences that accompany such a childhood.

 While some of the countries Rep. Crow named are quite familiar to us Americans, others
are not. But because you are here, we are all learning to be good neighbors in a large
international community.

 Many of you will someday be high ranking officers in your country's military or possibly
in your government. I hope this visit to our state's capitol will stay in your memory and I
hope your experiences at Fort Leavenworth will stay in your heart.

 Because, you see, Kansas is in the heart of our great country. You will find no better
Americans than those here in Kansas. This is our heartland and you, your wives and children
are certainly welcome guests. So when after today's activities and all the sights seen and
people you will meet, please take home this special message: That this Army daughter knows
what your family is experiencing so far away from home. And that is why I want you to
extend to them my most heartfelt welcome to Kansas.

 Brigadeer General Joseph R. Inge, Deputy Commandant of the Command and General
Staff College, addressed the following remarks:

 Mr. Speaker, Distinguished Guests, Representative Crow, Representative Ruff, Repre-
sentative Wilk: Thank you for your kind introduction and reception.

 In 1827, high up on bluffs overlooking the Missouri River, Colonel Henry Leavenworth
established an enduring outpost of the American nation. Though his orders said he should
lay out this advanced post on the eastern bank of the Missouri, the rolling grasslands and
surrounding ridgeline on the Kansas side of the river represented a better location to the
colonel's practiced eye. Therefore, without awaiting permission, Colonel Leavenworth built
his post where he thought best. The garrison that grew where he planted his flag still remains
as the oldest, continuously active Army post west of the Mississippi River. As ``The Gateway
to the West,'' Fort Leavenworth initially was a platform for launching the westward expan-
sion that Americans saw as their ``Manifest Destiny.''

 As the trickle of traders and settlers traveling the Santa Fe and Oregon Trails swelled to
a flood, Fort Leavenworth's role grew in importance. The post's initial mission, to advance
the flag and protect American citizens, remains valid today. Guarding and protecting the
frontier since 1827, Fort Leavenworth now uses technology and education to address our
nation's new challenges, wherever they may be on the globe. The bustling dragoon canton-
ment which welcomed steamboats and conestoga wagons full of settlers to the trails of
American Folklore is now crowded with automobiles and buses. You can still see the wagon
ruts of the 1840's climbing out of the Missouri bottoms, now preserved amidst the asphalt
and buildings of the 1990's.

 The rolling hills and historic buildings of the post have been home to a legion of American
heroes, some of whom rest with Henry Leavenworth in its National Cemetery, under the
blue Kansas sky. Among these heroes are the troopers of the 10th Cavalry Regiment, one
of four black regiments known to history as the ``Buffalo Soldiers.'' Formed at the fort in
1866 and again stationed there in the 1930's, the 10th Cavalry remains a continuing part of
the post through the presence of retired veterans and the magnificent ``Buffalo Soldier''
monument on Grant Avenue.

 From its earliest days Fort Leavenworth has played a role in Army education. Much of
the nation's military leadership in the Civil War learned its trade while stationed at the post.
Men whose names have become immortal--Sidney Johnston, George G. Meade, William
Tecumseh Sherman, Phil Sheridan, Robert E. Lee, and Jeb Stuart--all passed through our

 One of those men, while Commanding General of the Army years later, envisioned a
continuing need to educate officers in their profession. In 1881, William T. Sherman created
``The School of Application for Infantry and Cavalry'' on the post. General Sherman's charter
for the school was to produce, ``quality officers for any duty that they may be called upon
to perform, or for any position however high in rank that they may aspire to in service.''
This tradition of professional education remains valid today. Fort Leavenworth still prepares
Army Officers to fight and win our nation's next war, whatever form it may take.

 In its 117-year life, the College has spawned generations of military leaders. A list of the
alumni comprises a Who's Who of American Military History. It includes soldiers such as
George Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, George Patton, and Colin Powell.
These leaders have defended this nation's interests in all of the wars and conflicts of the
20th century. Their legacy lives on today at the Command and General Staff College. One
of our young Canadian officers recently said, ``If the British Empire was won on the playing
fields of Eton, then Desert Storm was won in the corridors of Fort Leavenworth.'' As we
enter the 21st century, the tradition continues.

 Every professional Army officer, whether active duty, Army Reserve, or National Guard,
comes to us at some stage during his or her career. Because America's wars are now joint
in nature, we also educate many sister service officers--Air Force, Navy, and Marine. Gen-
eral Gordon Sullivan, a former Army Chief of Staff, stated it best when he said, ``Fort
Leavenworth is the jewel in the crown of the Army's school system and the main repository
of our professional knowledge and research.'' Ours is a great center of teaching and learning:
the heart, soul, and brain of your Army.

 Continuing the tradition begun in 1854 with the founding of Leavenworth City, Fort
Leavenworth is proud and fortunate to enjoy a strong and enduring relationship with the
people of the State of Kansas. The college's ``Partnership with Industry'' program allows our
students to work with leaders from many local industries to research and solve ``real world''
business problems. Both Kansas State University and the University of Kansas offer coop-
erative degree programs to our students. We sponsor visits to their schools and ROTC
programs. Several of our College staff and faculty serve as adjunct faculty at Kansas colleges
and universities.

 The International Officers present here with you today truly demonstrate that Fort Leav-
enworth has, in fact, now become a ``Gateway to the World.'' This diverse group of highly
competent and professional officers from 74 different countries mirrors the global society
in which we live today. Their very diversity and presence here is a true signal that the cold
war is behind us.

 This day is an important part of the education offered to our international students. The
opportunity for them to attend a session of the Kansas State Legislature is a proud moment
for us as Americans for we are, in fact, sharing our democratic heritage and values. Coupled
with their visits to many Kansas industries and schools, this session is a tremendous enhancer
to their understanding of Americans and our way of life.

 Since our first international officer, Swiss Army Lieutenant Henri Lecompte, attended
the course in 1894, we have hosted some 6000 officers from 142 countries. Over 40% of
these officers have attained general officer rank. Twenty-three of them have become the
head of state in their respective countries. In contrast, only one American graduate--Kansas'
own Dwight David Eisenhower--became President of the United States. An even greater
number of these international graduates have served in key cabinet positions and as am-
bassadors for their nations.

 We are proud that these international officers take back to their countries a view of
America which was forged in Kansas and at Fort Leavenworth. Many local civilian sponsors
generously volunteer their time and homes to help us provide a positive view of American
culture. These generous individuals play a critical role in shaping international attitudes
towards us as a people and a nation.

 As we progress deeper into the post cold war era, the importance of international military
relationships becomes ever more important. As recent humanitarian and peace keeping
efforts around the world show, American soldiers more often than not will be standing side
by side with soldiers of the armies represented here. In the continuing progression of man-
kind toward democracy and human rights, international military cooperation will become
the norm. If you wish to gauge the extent of this cooperation for yourself, simply examine
Fort Leavenworth, where it is practiced on a daily and routine basis.

 On behalf of all of us at Fort Leavenworth, I am deeply grateful for your hospitality today
in allowing us to visit and observe government in action. Thank you very much for your


 The following bills were introduced and read by title:

 HB 2854, An act concerning civil procedure; relating to the rules of evidence; concerning
the authentication of copies of records; amending K.S.A. 60-465 and repealing the existing
section, by Committee on Judiciary.

 HB 2855, An act concerning tax liens on personal property; relating to collections, by
Committee on Judiciary.

 HB 2856, An act concerning public records; relating to county and court records; amend-
ing K.S.A. 19-250, 19-252 and 20-159 and repealing the existing sections, by Committee on

 HB 2857, An act concerning children and minors; relating to visitation rights of grand-
parents; amending K.S.A. 38-129 and 38-130 and K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 38-1502 and 60-1616
and repealing the existing sections; also repealing K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 38-1502b, by Com-
mittee on Judiciary.

 HB 2858, An act concerning background checks on criminal history record information,
by Committee on Judiciary.

 HB 2859, An act concerning the state security hospital at Larned; amending K.S.A. 76-
1305, 76-1306 and 76-1307 and repealing the existing sections, by Committee on Judiciary.

 HB 2860, An act concerning crimes and punishments; creating the crime of giving a
check drawn against a closed account; prescribing penalties therefor; relating to giving a
worthless check; amending K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 21-3707 and repealing the existing section,
by Committee on Judiciary.

 HB 2861, An act concerning juveniles; amending K.S.A. 75-2935, 75-4362 and 75-7024
and K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 38-1602, 38-1604, 38-1636, 38-1663, 38-1663, as amended by section
5 of this act, 65-6001 and 65-6008 and repealing the existing sections; also repealing K.S.A.
1997 Supp. 38-1663 as amended by section 64 of chapter 156 of the 1997 Session Laws of
Kansas, by Committee on Judiciary.

 HB 2862, An act concerning children; relating to joint shared child custody and parenting
time; concerning child support; relating to falsely reporting a crime; amending K.S.A. 20-
164, 21-3422, 21-3422a, 21-3818, 23-601, 23-602, 23-701, 38-1302, 38-1309, 38-1310, 38-
1597, 60-1607, 60-1612, 60-1614, 60-1617 and 75-720 and K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 5-509, 20-
302b, 23-9,305, 23-1001, 23-1002, 38-1121, 38-1138, 38-1563, 38-1569, 38-1583, 38-1641,
38-1664, 38-16,119, 60-1610, 60-1616, 60-1621, 60-3107 and 74-7334 and repealing the
existing sections; also repealing K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 20-302c, by Committee on Judiciary.
 HB 2863, An act concerning corrections; relating to a voluntary hormonal chemical treat-
ment program for inmates; amending K.S.A. 75-5210 and repealing the existing section, by
Representative Swenson.

 HB 2864, An act concerning the boiler safety act; amending K.S.A. 44-913, 44-914, 44-
915, 44-916, 44-917, 44-918, 44-919, 44-920, 44-921, 44-922, 44-923, 44-924, 44-925, 44-
926, 44-928 and 44-929 and repealing the existing sections, by Committee on Business,
Commerce and Labor.

 HB 2865, An act concerning license plates for United States military veterans; amending
K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 8-1,146 and repealing the existing section, by Representatives Kuether,
Crow, Dreher, Flaharty, Flora, Gilbert, Johnson, Phelps, Ruff, Sloan and Toelkes.

 HB 2866, An act concerning cities; relating to the powers and duties of the governing
body thereof, by Representative O'Neal.

 HB 2867, An act concerning crimes and punishment; relating to sexual exploitation of a
child; amending K.S.A. 21-3516 and repealing the existing section, by Representative

 HB 2868, An act concerning wildlife; relating to certain big game permits and tags;
amending K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 32-937 and repealing the existing section, by Committee on

 HB 2869, An act relating to crimes and punishments; requiring suspension of driver's
licenses for conviction for certain crimes; amending K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 38-1663 and K.S.A.
1995 Supp. 38-1663, as amended by section 64 of chapter 156 of the 1997 Session Laws of
Kansas and repealing the existing sections; also repealing K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 38-1663, as
amended by section 2 of this act, by Representatives P. Long, Compton, Cox, Faber, Horst,
Hutchins, Jennison, Mays, McCreary, Mollenkamp, Osborne, Packer, Vining and Wilson.


 The following bills and resolutions were referred to committees as indicated:

 Education: HB 2850, 2851, 2853.

 Taxation: HB 2852.

 Transportation: HB 2849.


 Rep. Adkins stated the Select Committee on Higher Education submits the following
initial report:

February 10, 1998


 Representative David Adkins, Chair

 Representative Joe Kejr, Vice-Chair

 Representative Ed McKechnie, Ranking Minority Member

 Representative Mike Farmer

 Representative Jim Garner

 Representative Henry Helgerson, Jr.

 Representative Andrew Howell

 Representative Jan Pauls

 Representative Shari Weber

February 10, 1998
The Honorable Tim Shallenburger,

 Speaker of the House

The Honorable Tom Sawyer,

 Minority Leader

Members of the House of Representatives

Citizens of Kansas

Dear Fellow Kansans:

On the eve of this century a library was erected on the campus of the University of Kansas
in Lawrence. Spooner Hall, dedicated in 1894, housed the university's library until 1924.
Kansans then understood the importance of education to the future of our state and their
investment over a century ago continues to serve as a resource for today's students. On the
facade of Spooner Hall, inscribed in sandstone, are the words, ``Whosoever Findeth Wisdom
Findeth Life.'' These words serve as a reminder of the commitment our generation of
leadership must make to ensure that Kansas remains a vibrant venue for the pursuit of
wisdom. The economic, cultural, artistic, and scientific life of our state is directly linked to
our state's successful pursuit of the highest standards of excellence in our system of higher
education. It is with this in mind that the House Select Committee on Higher Education
accepted its charge from Speaker Shallenburger and Leader Sawyer.

Since our appointment the members of the Select Committee have worked diligently to
review previous studies of higher education in Kansasparticularly the report of the interim
committee led by Representatives Empson and Reinhardt. Building on this foundation we
began our deliberations by discussing the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities present
in our current system of higher education. We also focused attention on our expectations
for higher education. These components of our inquiry, taken as a whole, provided us with
a valid justification for change. For nearly a quarter century policymakers have easily artic-
ulated their frustrations and concerns with the status quo, but a consensus on a solution to
address these concerns has proven elusive. Our current state Constitution imposes a sub-
stantial constraint on meaningful reform. The interests of individual sectors of higher edu-
cation in our state has often led to turf battles that have undermined previous reform
initiatives. A lack of trust among key stakeholders has also compromised the ability to con-
struct a unified system of higher education. It is time to bridge these gaps.

Many factors have contributed to the frustrations with our existing governance structure for
higher education. The Legislature must accept responsibility for its failure to provide ap-
propriate strategic planning through its Legislative Educational Planning Committee. Ad-
ditionally, resources, systemwide, have not been allocated to allow our institutions to fulfill
our legislative expectations. It is not enough for legislators tomerely focus on the problems.
We must be willing to provide leadership to create lasting solutions. Our plan is an attempt
to do just that.

The plan which is outlined in the pages that follow is a comprehensive proposal designed
to address critical issues of governance and finance. It is designed to restore trust, enhance
coordination, provide investments in excellence with account

ability, and create a unified voice for higher education in Kansas. It is not designed to
accommodate the individual needs of any institution, sector of higher education, or com-
munity. It is crafted to meet the needs of the state as a whole. It is designed to provide
access and quality for all Kansas citizens.

The mission of higher education has changed significantly in the past two decades. Previous
generations obtained training or a degree for a specific career or trade. Many graduates
worked in their chosen field for decades before retiring. Today, graduates can expect to
change careers many times and rare is the job that does not require a skilled worker. The
Kansas economy will remain robust only if we can provide employers with workers trained
to compete in a global economy. Lifelong learning opportunities must be available through-
out our state as Kansans in all phases of life re-educate themselves to meet the challenges
of a quickly changing marketplace.

``Whosoever Findeth Wisdom Findeth Life.'' These words remind us that the quality of life
for many Kansans will be determined by their ability to access sources of knowledge. Much
is right with our state's higher education institutions. They are among our state's most
valuable resources. There is no reason for us to accept that they cannot be made even better.

In responding to this proposal some leaders will urge delay. They may believe that yet
another study group or legislative committee or blue ribbon panel will discover the ``magical''
solution . . . one which makes everyone happy and doesn't cost any money. I am confident
such a solution does not exist. I am equally confident that the time to act is now. Our state
has the financial strength to fund this proposal at this time. We need not delay fulfilling our
expectation of excellence in our state's higher education system. We risk more in doing
nothing than we do in exercising the leadership necessary to make a positive difference now.

This proposal will be shared with community leaders throughout our state when the Com-
mittee travels during the week of February 10,1998. A schedule of our tour is included in
this report. During our site visits in 16 communities we will obtain input from stakeholders
and business leaders to guide us in developing our final legislative package. Naturally, we
also welcome the input of other legislators and Executive Branch policymakers.

Finally, let me thank the staff of the Legislative Research Department and staff from the
Revisor of Statutes Office and the Kansas Board of Regents and the Kansas Education
Department for their assistance in providing the Committee with information and assistance
during our deliberations. I also commend our ``shadow committee'' of key stakeholders
whose insights greatly enhanced our understanding. I appreciate their counsel and input.

Respectfully submitted,

David Adkins, Chair

Select Committee on Higher Education

Prior Postsecondary Studies

Since 1972 and the work of the Master Planning Commission, there have been numerous
other entities over the past 25 years studying postsecondary education in Kansas and offering
alternative recommendations about how to restructure the system. Some of the groups were
charged by the Legislature with that task, while others were authorized by the Governor,
the State Board of Regents, or the State Board of Education. In other cases, groups or
individuals assumed that responsibility on their own initiative. No fewer than 25 studies
have been completed in the past quarter century. The number of studies alone may be one
indicator of a perception that something may be ``broken'' in the postsecondary system and
that different parts or even the entire system may need to be ``fixed'' based on the recom-
mendations produced by the studies.

 Although few recommendations from various studies have been implemented, change has
taken place. There have been mergers of community colleges with area vocational schools
and the development of regional consortia by groups of institutions. Other potential mergers
have been considered, including Fort Hays State University and Barton County Community
College, and Pittsburg State University and Labette County Community College. Legislation
passed in 1994 allows area vocational schools to become technical colleges. Four schools
have made that conversion to degree-granting institutions. An attempt at statewide coor-
dination was undertaken in the 1990s as a result of the Legislative Educational Planning
Committee (LEPC) directive that brought the State Board of Regents and the State Board
of Education into joint meetings.

 Since 1993, however, legislative complaints have grown more persistent that there had
been enough studies and not enough action. The 1995 Legislature, in response to this
complaint and at the initiative of the House Select Committee on Postsecondary Education,
enacted H.B. 2553 creating the Kansas Council on the Future of Postsecondary Education.
Its primary responsibility was to develop a comprehensive state plan for postsecondary
education in Kansas.

 Two years later in March of 1997, the Council submitted a summary of its conclusions
and recommendations to the Legislature. Included was the statement that ``The Council
has no plans for any additional meetings.'' Rather than developing a plan, the Council
became another study group which produced a vision statement and three different gov-
ernance and coordination options.

 Most recently, a proposal was introduced during the 1997 Session to reorganize postse-
condary education under a Commissioner of Higher Education. The 1997 interim produced
another study that recommends enhancements and changes in the way the state finances
community colleges and Washburn University.

 The issue of whether the Kansas postsecondary education system needs to be restructured
is being addressed by the 1998 Legislature and specifically by the House Select Committee
on Higher Education. Aims C. McGuinness, Jr., told the LEPC during the 1994 interim
that, in his opinion as a consultant for the National Center for Higher Education Manage-
ment Systems:

      How to shape the structures and policies for a constructive relationship between the
      state and higher education will be one of the most important challenges of the next
      decade. It is time for states to step back and examine the relevance for the next century
      of structures formed for an earlier time.

Also being considered this session is financing for the Kansas postsecondary system.

House Select Higher Education Committee

 The members of the Committee are:

      David Adkins, Chairperson

      Joe Kejr, Vice-Chairperson

      Ed McKechnie, Ranking Minority Member

      Mike Farmer

      Jim Garner

      Henry Helgerson

      Andrew Howell

      Jan Pauls

      Shari Weber

 The Committee goals are to:

 · review the several studies of postsecondary education funding, coordination, and gov-
                              ernance over the years, in particular the report of the Joint Committee from the 1997
                              interim session;

 · determine the most effective and cost-efficient method of governance or coordination
                              or public postsecondary institutions within Kansas;

 · examine the goals and missions of Kansas postsecondary institutions to determine if
                              Kansas' institutions have world class attributes and if targeted excellence funds would
                              help institutions meet those goals;

 · review the current use of technology and examine the potential for greater use of tech-
                              nology in preparing Kansas students for the next century;

 · review the equity of faculty salaries in Kansas to determine if Kansas is competitive in
                              attracting and retaining world class faculty;

 · review the current funding mechanism of Kansas higher education institutions to de-
                              termine the potential for a more economic use of Kansas' resources in serving the needs
                              of Kansas' students, business, industry, and our population; and

 · determine if property taxes currently used to fund some functions can be replaced by
                              other revenue sources.

 The schedule for the Committee:

 · initial report by 30th day of the session (February 10, 1998); and

 · final report prior to sine die of the 1998 Legislature (May or June).

Map of where Kansas Public Postsecondary Institutions are located
Profile of Kansas

 Residents of Kansas are high users of the state's postsecondary education system--78
percent of the state's high school graduates attend a postsecondary institution. Kansas also
has a large number of institutions per capita, making access to an institution for a lifetime
of learning relatively easy for most residents.

 The state provides a high level of state support for its postsecondary institutions and has
traditionally kept student tuition low in order to make an education affordable. Of total State
General Fund expenditures, 15 percent are for postsecondary education. The charts below
show how the state postsecondary education dollars and headcount enrollments are spread
among the sectors:

Pie Graph of State Fund Postsecondary Expenditures
*   Excludes Comprehensive Grant Program and Washburn Operating Grant.

**  Includes Operating Grant, Public TV Grant, and Proportionate Share of Comprehen-
                  sive Grant Program funding.

*** Includes Proportionate Share of Comprehensive Grant Program funding.

Kansas Higher Education Institution Enrollment
Fall 1997 Headcounts
Pie Graph of Kansas Higher Education Institition Enrollment, Fall 1997 Headcounts

 Note: Does not include data from seven AVTS.

 Barclay College, Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Haskell Indian Nations Uni-
versity, Kansas City College and Bible School, and Manhattan Christian College.

 The state's institutions are diverse and represent a public and private mix that serves
different clientele and offers everything from community services to high-level graduate,
professional, and research programs. Kansans value education and think of postsecondary
institutions as partners with the private sector in the economic development of the state.
The public postsecondary education system consists of institutions that are under the juris-
diction of two constitutionally-created boards, one of which is responsible for elementary-
secondary education, and a municipal university under the governance of a local board.
Community colleges, technical colleges, and area vocational schools also have local govern-
ing boards.

 The Committee spent significant time in identifying the strengths of the current postse-
condary education system, and identifying the weaknesses (along with the barriers to change)
inherent in the current system.



      Four-Year Institutions

      · Distinct Missions of Each Institution provide a diversity of offerings and allow the
                                  institutions to be responsive to those established missions.

      · Strong Public Support for Institutions has allowed the institutions to become quite
                                  adept at raising funds from private sources.

      · Research Support for government and business in Kansas is strong.

      · Low Tuition Rates provide good value for students.

      · Institutional Leadership is strong.

      · High Ability Scholars are attracted to the institutions.

      Community Colleges, Technical Colleges, and Area Vocational Schools

      · Responsive to Student Needs in regard to service areas, access, and flexibility of
                                  course offerings.

      · Public/Private Partnerships in Place provide business support, job training and
                                  retraining services, and foster economic development in the state.

      · Established Missions are relevant to the concepts of lifelong learning and the edu-
                                  cational needs of the 21st century.

      · Low Tuition Rates provide good value for students.

      · Local Support/Control makes institutions responsive to the needs of the community.

Systemic Weaknesses/Barriers to Change

      · Lack of a Focal Point gives the perception that no one is ``in charge'' of postsecondary
                                        education in Kansas, and hinders any kind of systemic coordinated strategic planning.

      · Perceptions of Unnecessary Duplication of Course and Program Offerings lead
                                  to confusion regarding the relative missions of the various institutions.

      · Mutual Mistrust of the Parties Involved (Legislature vs. Institutions, Institutions
                                  vs. Institutions, Community Colleges vs. Universities) leads to low confidence that
                                  parties will follow through on commitments made, to perceived inequities in funding
                                  and defensive posturing.

      · Legislative Leadership (Legislative Educational Planning Committee) has failed to
                                  achieve its intended purpose to plan for postsecondary education.

      · Current Funding Mechanisms often encourage negative competition for students;
                                  and reward institutions for ``bodies'' only, with little regard for quality or respect for
                                  service area boundaries.

      · Lack of a Central Data Resource weakens the Legislature's oversight ability and
                                  hinders the institutions in demonstrating their accountability in providing accessible,
                                  affordable educational opportunities.

      · Current Constitutional Structure impairs Executive Branch involvement in postse-
                                  condary education policy.

Committee Findings

 The Committee finds many strengths in higher education in Kansas and believes that the
state has a good system, but it can be better. It should be excellent. The quality of our
programs can be improved and the system can become more equitable. Based on its review,
the Committee makes the following findings:

   I. Educational Leadership

                                                If Kansas is to reach its economic potential, the Kansas postsecondary education
                                                system needs to meet the challenges of access, quality, articulation, accountability,
                                                and enhanced research and service. Currently, there is a vacuum of leadership in
                                                the governance and coordination of postsecondary education in Kansas. Institutions
                                                have been left without the support of a single advocate to clearly articulate their
                                                needs. This has compromised postsecondary education's ability to contribute to the
                                                academic and economic development of Kansas.

  II. Educational Commitment

                                      The responsibility of community college education traditionally has been vested in
                                      communities. The Committee finds that community colleges have evolved from local
                                      institutions into centers of lifelong learning with statewide missions. This requires
                                      the state to become more of a partner to fund and coordinate community colleges
                                      with four-year institutions.

                                      Specifically, the Committee finds:

                                      Community Colleges

                                       Local property taxes have been relied on too heavily as a funding source and such
                                       reliance is inappropriate for institutions with regional and statewide missions.

                                      Washburn University

                                       Local property taxes have been relied on too heavily as a funding source for Wash-
                                       burn University. Washburn University should be treated as a full partner in the
                                       state's university system in recognition of the important function the University

                                      Technical Colleges and Area Vocational Schools

                                       Technical Colleges and Area Vocational Schools have evolved from being insti-
                                       tutions of training for students desiring entry-level employment to institutions
                                       providing lifelong learning, training for high technology employment, and prep-
                                       aration for re-entry to the workforce with enhanced economic security.

 III. Educational Excellence

                            The Legislative and Executive Branches of government have failed to define and
                            insist upon world-class standards for postsecondary education. Because of this, cur-
                            rent funding mechanisms are not tied to the achievement and maintenance of ex-
                            cellence. There should be a commitment by policymakers to sharpen and fund the
                            distinct areas of excellence at the state's four-year institutions in order to meet the
                            evolving needs of consumers of higher education in Kansas. The Committee further
                            finds that Kansas State University, the University of Kansas, and Wichita State Uni-
                            versity should seek to increase their national ranking as research institutions within
                            their missions.

 IV. Educational Access

                          Recognizing concerns over the access of the citizens of the state to postsecondary
                          education, attention should be given to the concepts of a virtual university and a
                          commitment should be made to make courses and programs available so that students
                          can graduate in four years.

  V. Educational Oversight

                                    The Legislative and Executive Branches of government have failed to provide the
                                    oversight and support necessary in order for the state's public postsecondary insti-
                                    tutions to attain world-class standards.

Committee Proposal

 What is lacking is one voice to advocate for all the sectors combined and to reconcile
competing interests into a unified whole that will improve the quality we have and bring
about the excellence to which we aspire. We need to tie funding to expectations and per-
formance. To do that, the Committee has developed a plan that addresses both coordination
and funding of higher education and makes the following proposal.

Governance and Coordination

 The Committee recommends a constitutional amendment to abolish the current Board
of Regents, and to create the Kansas Council on Higher Education. The Council would be
responsible for coordination of all postsecondary activities, including the state's public uni-
versities, community colleges, technical colleges, and area vocational schools. In addition,
the Council would have direct governance responsibilities over the existing Regents univer-
sities and Washburn University. Community colleges, technical colleges, and area vocational
schools would continue to be governed by local boards in order to remain responsive to
local community and economic development needs. The Council would be responsible for
establishing a planning process for postsecondary education. Under the Committee's plan,
it is envisioned that existing postsecondary institutions would be able to affiliate or merge,
as approved by the Council. The responsibility of the State Board of Education for elemen-
tary and secondary education would be unchanged.

 Composition of the Council. The Council would consist of 11 members, appointed by
the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. For purposes of appointing the first Council,
the Governor will choose from a list of nominees submitted by the following entities:

      · Board of Regents--five positions selected from at least ten nominees;

      · State Board of Education--two positions selected from at least four nominees;

      · Kansas Association of Community College Trustees--two positions selected from at
                                  least four nominees;

      · Kansas Association of Vocational/Technical Education--one position from at least two
                                  nominees; and

      · Washburn University Board of Regents--one position from at least two nominees.

 Six members would serve six-year terms and the remaining members would serve three-
year terms. The Governor would appoint the chair of the first Council. Thereafter, members
would serve staggered terms of six years, subject to a two-term limit and the Council would
elect its own chair. Nominees to the initial Council cannot be elected officials or employees
of any postsecondary institution. Other aspects relative to Council membership include:

      · two members per Congressional district, with the remainder at large;

      · not more than one member per county, unless each county in a Congressional district
                                  has a member of the board;

      · members shall receive per diem compensation at the same rate as members of the
                                  Legislature, plus actual expenditures, as approved by the Council; and

      · no more than six members can be from the same political party.

 Duties of the Council. The Council will consist of the Division of Governance and the
Division of Coordination.

 As the governing entity for the existing Regents institutions and Washburn University,
the Council shall:

      · select institutional heads;

      · establish personnel policies;

      · approve programs and degrees;

      · approve course locations;

      · set fees and tuition; and

      · approve and recommend institutional budgets (including capital improvements) for
                                  submission to the Governor and Legislature.

 As the coordinating entity for all public postsecondary institutions, the Council shall:

      · develop comprehensive long-range plans that accommodate change and encourage
                                  innovation for a state system of postsecondary education encompassing all aspects of
                                  academic, vocational, and lifelong learning in Kansas;

      · determine institutional roles and approve institutional missions;

      · require the development of institutional master plans that, within the role and mission
                                  of each institution, address programs, facilities, and other matters the Council

      · develop measurable performance indicators that ensure periodic evaluation of program
                                  quality, provide a means by which institutions will be held accountable, and serve as
                                  a basis for appropriating resources;

      · review and approve degree programs and conduct ongoing program review;

      · recommend statewide postsecondary funding levels to the Governor and the

      · encourage and oversee cooperative postsecondary programs among institutions de-
                                  signed to improve the transferability of courses, coordinate services and offerings in
                                  shared service areas, and facilitate the sharing of resources. In doing so, the Council
                                  will guard against unnecessary duplicationof courses and programs and, to the extent
                                  appropriate, take into account educational offerings of the independent colleges and

      · administer statewide student financial assistance programs;

      · develop and implement long-range plans for the utilization of distance learning strat-
                                  egies and technologies in order to make programs available to students; and

      · collect and maintain a uniform postsecondary education database.

 Three new statutorily created entities would assist the Council. One, the Educational
Coordinating Commission, would be a liaison committee between the Council and the State
Board of Education to insure a seamless system of education for Kansas residents. Another
entity would be composed of statutorily created advisory committees.

 The third would be a legislative oversight committee, consisting of 12 members (eight
from the House and four from the Senate). The Committee would be authorized to meet
anywhere in the state on the call of the chair, and would be vested with compulsory process
for any institution governed or coordinated by the Council. The Committee also would assist
in the development and monitoring of performance measures to ensure the fiscal and aca-
demic integrity of the postsecondary education system. The Committee also would receive
reports from the Educational Coordinating Commission, the statutory advisory committees,
and an annual strategic planning report from the Council. The Joint Committee will replace
the Legislative Educational Planning Committee, which would be abolished. The Joint Com-
mittee is charged with submitting a report to the 1999 Legislature on the feasibility of a
virtual campus to provide educational access to programs offered by public postsecondary
institutions via technology.

 Other powers and duties of the Council with regard to its governance and coordination
functions would be specified in the statutes. The proposed structure for postsecondary
education is Attachment 1 to this report.

 Merger and Affiliation. The Committee's proposal would allow postsecondary institu-
tions to merge or affiliate. Any community college, technical college, or area vocational
school governing board that wanted to affiliate with a four-year university would submit a
request to the Council. Upon approval by the Council, community college operating mill
levies would be eliminated except for levies for capital improvements and debt retirement.
Local governing boards would have jurisdiction over noncredit economic development
courses and community service activities. Institutional heads would be hired by the head of
the affiliated university and budget requests would be part of the university request.

 Two-year institutions could merge with one or more community colleges, technical col-
leges, or area vocational schools upon petition of the institutional governing boards, subject
to the approval of the Council. The joint county mill levy of merged institutions would be
capped at 10 mills. The Committee also proposes a requirement that the governing board
of a community college or an area vocational technical school place the matter of merger
with another postsecondary institution on the agenda of its next regular board meeting upon
petition by 15 percent of the registered voters of the district. The board would be required
to either reject the citizen petition or agree to the merger of institutions.

 Washburn University. Under the Committee's proposal, Washburn University would
become a state institution under the governance of the Council on Higher Education. The
University would retain levy authority for the purpose of repair and rehabilitation, and
construction of facilities and for retirement of debt. The local board would be retained for
mill levy authority pertaining to facilities.

      Timeline. The sequence of events will be as follows:

      · a resolution to amend the Constitution and enabling legislation adopted by the 1998

      · constitutional amendment submitted for voter approval at August 1998 primary;

      · appointments to new Council made by Governor by February 1, 1999;

      · six-month transition period ensues between Board of Regents and State Board of
                                  Education and the new Council;

      · transfer to new Council effective July 1, 2000;

      · Board of Regents dissolved on June 30, 2000 with closure procedures not to exceed
                                  six months; and

      · during transition period, Secretary of Administration provides needed staff support
                                  from the Department of Administration until new Council staff is in place.


 The funding package recommended by the Committee will be phased in over a period
of four years and is intended to encourage and reward excellence in all sectors of postse-
condary education. Specific components include:

      · all State General Fund appropriations for FY 1999-FY 2002 to implement the com-
                                  ponents of the recommendations of the Select Committee will be made by the 1998

      · property tax relief for community colleges and Washburn University;

      · two-year college and university funding for enhancements and equity;

      · an enhancement for technology acquisitions that will foster world class access;

      · Regents institutions will refine areas of national and world excellence that have relevant
                                  economic and employment benefit for Kansas and that additional funding from the
                                  state will be committed to enable excellence to be achieved;

      · for world class relevant academic education at: Emporia State University, Fort Hays
                                  State University, Kansas State University, Pittsburg State University, University of
                                  Kansas, and Wichita State University, an enhancement to allow expansion, improve-
                                  ment and refinement of institutional missions; (This includes national and worldwide
                                  recognition of areas of distinction in at least one area at each of the four-year insti-
                                  tutions. Additionally, Kansas State University, the University of Kansas, and Wichita
                                  State University will improve their national ranking and attain distinct recognition for
                                  relevant academic research.)

      · a waiver from tuition and fees for eight semesters for any Kansas resident who is a
                                  national merit scholar to attend an undergraduate program at any public university in
                                  Kansas; (Such students will be designated Eisenhower scholars by the State of Kansas.)

      · elimination of the operating mill levy for Washburn University; (A local Washburn
                                  University mill levy, subject to the local board, would be used only for capital and
                                  other improvements, similar to the local mill levy for Wichita State University.)

      · in order to respond to initial postsecondary education and life-long learning skills,
                                  community colleges and area vocational technical schools will be challenged to provide
                                  areas of world-class distinction;

      · in order to respond to the economic needs of Kansas, community colleges and area
                                  vocational technical schools will develop the capacity to meet the peak demands of
                                  business, industry, and consumers;

      · resources to provide merger or affiliation options for community colleges;

      · elimination of community college out-district tuition;

      · minimum state participation in community college funding of 30 percent;

      · community college mill levies capped at no more than 15 mills;

      · increased community college credit hour and general state aid;

      · funding of two for one on vocational courses, including providing equity funding for
                                  five area vocational schools that are attached to community colleges;

      · the Council of Higher Education will develop a program review and audit function
                                  for all governed or coordinated institutions; (This will include the development and
                                  implementation of performance standards.) and

      · a funding commitment for area vocational technical schools.

 Attachment 2 graphically displays the proposed level of funding for FY 1999 through FY
2003 that provides the following:

      · an annual base increase in funding for the Kansas higher education system of 4 percent;

      · phased in property tax relief totaling an annual amount of $57.9 million; and

      · two-year college and university enhancements and equity funding that is phased-in,
                                  but reaches an annual amount of $25.0 million (above the base increases).

 Attachment 3 displays additional detailed funding information for FY 1999 through FY

Expected Outcomes

 If the Committee's proposal is adopted, Kansas will have a coordinated, comprehensive
system of excellence through instruction, research, and life-long learning opportunities that
benefit the residents of the state and promote economic development. The system will be
flexible and responsive to future needs and demands, will be accessible to students in all
parts of the state, will provide programs of national and international distinction, and will
be built upon the goodwill and cooperation of educators and policymakers working toward
a common goal to improve the system.

 Central to the Committee's vision are clearly defined missions for each public postsecon-
dary education sector and, within these broad parameters, for the institutions individually.
The broad parameters are:

 Research Institutions and Public Universities. The public universities should, de-
pending upon their specific missions, provide college-level education at the baccalaureate,
master's, professional, and doctor of philosophy degree-levels that lead to continued edu-
cation or employment. They also should be a resource to the state and their local commu-
nities. The research institutions, utilizing both public and private resources, should engage
in programs of intellectual distinction and practical application. Each institution should
identify and nurture programs of uniqueness that achieve national and international dis-

 Community Colleges. Community colleges should provide pre-baccalaureate certifi-
cates and degrees that lead to continued education at a four-year university or lead to
employment or job retraining. Community colleges also should serve as a resource to their
communities, provide life-long learning opportunities, and meet the demands of business
and industry.

 Technical Colleges and Area Vocational Schools. Technical colleges and area voca-
tional schools, depending upon the type of institution, should offer programs at the associate
degree or certificate levels that provide occupational and technical training leading to em-
ployment or job retraining. To the extent possible, program graduates should be able to
easily move to other postsecondary education institutions. Technical colleges and area vo-
cational schools should have strong ties to their service areas and cultivate private sector
support, both financial and programmatic, from employers in their communities.

 To the general definition of each public postsecondary education sector, the Committee
adds a definition of the role of the Governor and the Legislature:

      State-Level Policymakers. The Governor and the Legislature should establish a public
      agenda that sets forth the expectations for public postsecondary education in Kansas,
      provide the framework within which the system can operate, and allocate resources on
      the basis of performance as measured by the attainment of these expectations.

      The Committee believes that program quality is fundamental to its expectations for the
      postsecondary education system and that quality is achieved through the components
      that are listed below. More importantly, each component can be measured and should
      be the basis by which programs are evaluated and resources allocated.

 COMPONENT:Clearly defined institutional missions
MEASURES:Mission statements and institutional strategic plans in support ofthe mission are developed, expanded, and refined as appropriateand reflect unique areas of distinction at each institution
Resources are allocated to achieve institutional missions
Programs offered support institutional missions
Programs have received regional, national, or international rec-ognition for excellence
 COMPONENT:Qualified, competent faculty and instructors
MEASURES:Faculty and instructors possess required credentials andexperience
Performance of faculty and instructors is reviewed and evaluated
Faculty is compensated at a level intended to make Kansas com-petitive with employment in other states and the private sector
 COMPONENT:Institutional cooperation and collaboration
MEASURES:Programs are in place that provide for the shared use of tech-nology, equipment, supplies, and other resources
Partnerships have been made with the private sector and in par-ticular with the business community
 COMPONENT:Efficient administration and operation of the system
MEASURES:Unjustified duplication and waste in administrative and educa-tional programs have been eliminated
Courses transfer easily from one institution to another
Uniform data are collected and maintained
 COMPONENT:High-level achievement of student body
MEASURES:Coordination has been achieved with elementary-secondary ed-ucation to ensure that high school graduates are prepared toengage in postsecondary education
Student financial aid is adequate to ensure that access to aneducation is not denied on the basis of income
Students are able to obtain the courses and support services theyneed in order to successfully complete programs in a reasonableamount of time
Student completion rates demonstrate user-satisfaction withprograms
 COMPONENT:Program achievements
MEASURES:Programs and services are provided at locations and times orthrough the use of instructional technologies that provide accessto Kansas residents in all parts of the state
Services and programs are provided to enable students who en-ter institutions to succeed
Students who move to another level of postsecondary educationperform well at next level
Students who prepare for employment or enroll in job retrainingprograms are successful in finding or maintaining employment
Private sector support, including financial support and employersatisfaction, is high

Attachment 1:  Education Leadership in Kansas      

Attachment 2:  State General Fund Financing of Higher Education in Kansas      

Proposed Higher Education Funding Increases
(In Millions)

Annual Increases
FY 1999
Property Tax Relief:
$7.7Community Colleges (15 mills)
19.7Additional Property Tax Relief
5.0Washburn University (mill levy reduction)
$32.4Subtotal--Property Tax Relief--FY 1999
3.1Two-Year College Enhancements
6.4Regents Excellence
0.2Coordinating Board Operations
$9.7Subtotal--Enhancements--FY 1999
$42.1Grand Total--FY 1999
FY 2000
Property Tax Relief:
9.3Community Colleges (15 mills)
8.2Washburn University (mill levy reduction)
$17.5Subtotal Property Tax Relief--FY 2000
4.3Two-Year College Enhancements
15.2University Excellence
0.8Coordinating Board Operations
$20.3Subtotal--Enhancements--FY 2000
$37.8Grand Total--FY 2000
FY 2001
Property Tax Relief:
0.0Community Colleges (15 mills)
0.0Washburn University (mill levy reduction)
$8.0Subtotal Property Tax Relief--FY 2001
25.0Two-Year College and University Enhancements and Equity
$25.0Subtotal--Enhancements--FY 2001
$33.0Grand Total--FY 2001
FY 2002
Property Tax Relief:
0.0Community Colleges (15 mills)
0.0Washburn University (mill levy reduction)
$0.0Subtotal Property Tax Relief--FY 2002
Annual Increases
25.0Two-Year College and University Enhancements and Equity
$25.0Subtotal--Enhancements--FY 2002
$25.0Grand Total--FY 2002

Summary of Increases--FY 1999-FY 2002
$57.9Property Tax Relief
$137.9Grand Total Increases- FY 1999--FY 2002


 HB 2545, 2548, 2554, 2557, 2565, 2566, 2567, 2595 approved on February 6, 1998.


 From Barbara J. Hinton, Legislative Post Auditor, Performance Audit Report, Reviewing
the Department of Wildlife and Parks' Management of Lands Leased for Farming and
Grazing, February 1998.

 The complete report is kept on file and open for inspection in the office of the Chief


 No objection was made to HB 2584; SB 411, 412 appearing on the Consent Calendar
for the third day. The bills were advanced to Final Action on Bills and Concurrent


 Speaker pro tem Wagle announced that order of business, Final Action on Bills and
Concurrent Resolutions, would be passed over today.

 On motion of Rep. Jennison, the House went into Committee of the Whole, with Rep.
Powell in the chair.


 On motion of Rep. Powell, Committee of the Whole report, as follows, was adopted:

 Recommended that committee report to HB 2607 be adopted and the bill be passed as

 Committee report to HB 2637 be adopted and the bill be passed as amended.

 Committee report recommending a substitute bill to Sub. HB 2478 be adopted; and the
substitute bill be passed.

 Committee reports to HB 2512 be adopted and the bill be passed as amended.

 Committee reports to SB 14 be adopted and the bill be passed as amended.

 Committee reports to SB 16 be adopted and the bill be passed as amended.

 Committee report to SCR 1613 be adopted and the resolution be adopted as amended.

 Upon unanimous consent, the House referred back to the regular order of business,
Introduction of Bills and Concurrent Resolutions.


 The following bill was introduced and read by title:

 HB 2870, An act concerning school district finance; affecting the counting of pupils
attending kindergarten; amending K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 72-6407 and repealing the existing
section, by Representatives Showalter and Storm, Adkins, Alldritt, Ballard, Correll, Cox,
Crow, Dillon,Feuerborn, Findley, Garner, Gilbert, Grant, Henderson, Horst, Johnson,
Kuether, McClure, Minor, Pauls, Phelps, Ray, Reardon, Reinhardt, Sawyer, Sharp, Shriver,
Spangler, Toelkes, Tomlinson and Wempe.


 Speaker pro tem Wagle announced the appointment of Rep. M. Long to Committee on
Governmental Organization and Elections and Committee on Transportation.


 HB 2419, 2621 reported correctly engrossed February 9, 1998.

 On motion of Rep. Jennison, the House adjourned until 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, February
11, 1998.

JANET E. JONES, Cheif Clerk.