AGO 1997-18.

CourtKansas
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

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT