AGO 1997-18.
Court | Kansas |
Kansas Attorney General Opinions
1997.
AGO 1997-18.
Feburary 10,
1997
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION
No. 97-18The Honorable Herman G. DillonState
Representative, 32nd District State Capitol, Rm. 273-W
Topeka, Kansas 66612 Re: Cities and Municipalities--Consolidation of
Municipalities--Consolidation of Kansas City, Kansas, and Wyandotte County
Synopsis: The report submitted January 13, 1997, by the Wyandotte County/Kansas
City Consolidation Study Committee is addressed herein as follows. Absent any
limitation in the appropriation therefore, public funds may be expended for the
purpose of educating the electorate on the issue to be presented to it by the
Consolidation Study Commission, or for encouraging members of the electorate to
vote on the issue, but may not be expended for thepurposes of advocating a
particular position. The proposed elimination of elective offices does not
violate state statute. The present configuration of unified commission
districts does not appear violative of the Voting Rights Act. The legislative
veto authority established by K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 12-343(f) is invalid. Cited
herein: K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 12-340; 12-342; 12-343; 12-344; K.S.A. 12-3901;
K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 12-3904; 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1973b, 1973c.* * *
Dear Representative Dillon:
As Representative for the thirty-second district, you request our
opinion regarding the proposed consolidation of the governments of the City of
Kansas City and Wyandotte County. Specifically, you ask the following:
Whether the Wyandotte County/Kansas City Consolidation Study
Commission may expend $50,000 for the purpose of promoting the consolidation
issue;
Whether the elimination of elected offices as proposed by the
study commission violates state law;
Whether the commission districts proposed by the study commission
comply with the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A §§
1973 et seq.;
Whether the House of Representatives can allow legislation to go
before the voters without having an opportunity to debate or amend;
Whether every city/county form of government has a right to have
a consolidation study commission appointed by the Governor and $50,000 to fund
the study;
Whether the City of Kansas City and Wyandotte County can
consolidate without legislative oversight; and
Whether the procedure requiring both legislative bodies to reject
the plan in order to keep it off the ballot is valid.
Through enactment of K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 12-340 et seq., the Kansas
Legislature authorized the establishment of the Consolidation Study Commission
of Kansas City, Kansas, and Wyandotte County. The purpose of the Commission was
to prepare and adopt a plan addressing the consolidation of the City and County
or certain City and County offices, functions, services and operations. K.S.A.
1996 Supp. 12-343.
Exercising its statutory authority, the Commission has submitted
to the Legislature its consolidation study report dated January 13, 1997. Under
the report, the Board of County Commissioners for Wyandotte County and the City
Council and Mayor for the City of Kansas City would be replaced with a
ten-member Unified Board of Commissioners and a Chief Executive/Mayor. The
duties and functions of the City Clerk and County Clerk and the City Treasurer
and County Treasurer would be consolidated into the positions of Unified Clerk
and Unified Treasurer. The positions of Unified Clerk, Unified Treasurer,
Public Administrator and Surveyor would be filled through appointment, rather
than election. The offices of Sheriff, District Attorney and Register of Deeds
would be retained as elected offices. In order to facilitate the election
procedure proposed in the consolidation study report, the Commission provided
that the persons currently serving as Sheriff and Register of Deeds would serve
their terms of office through the scheduled end of the term in January, 2001,
and until the election period held in April, 2001.
We begin with the question of expending public funds to promote
an issue. The ability of a governmental body to engage in political activities
was addressed in Attorney General Opinions No. 93-33 and 93-125. In these
opinions, it was determined a local board of education and a city,
respectively, had authority to expend public funds for the purpose of educating
the electorate on an issue presented to it for a vote, but public funds could
not be expended to promote or advocate the governing body's position on the
issue.
"It would be establishing a dangerous and untenable precedent to
permit the government or any agency thereof, to use public funds to disseminate
propaganda in favor of or against any issue or candidate. This may be done by
totalitarian, dictatorial, or autocratic governments but it cannot be
tolerated, directly or indirectly, in these democratic United States of
America. This is true even if the position advocated is...
To continue reading
Request your trial