Editorial: Kansas City Lawyer Questions Jackson County Question 1 Fine Print

TKC NOTE: Interesting tidbit on this post sent our way . . . The Star promised it would published but then backed off at the zero hour: "They left us hanging until the last minute," one KICK-ASS TKC TIPSTER told us. The worthwhile editorial was graciously sent our way because we're happy to publish every side of local election debate. Check it:

Question the Fine Print on Question 1

By E.E. Keenan

Jackson County will hold a special election this Tuesday asking voters to raise their sales taxes. The extra toll on every purchase made by local residents—including on food, clothing, medicine and utilities--has been getting a lot of attention. But with that attention has come a great deal of misinformation--and lack of factual discussion.

While proponents of Question 1 claim the tax will go toward “economic development,” in the form of “jobs,” “cures,” and “discoveries for human diseases,” these promises hide a much harsher reality. The architects of Question 1 have carefully worded their contract with Jackson County so that the 20-year agreement, taking $800 million from local taxpayers, can be changed, or “refined,” at will by the elite board that governs it. In short, even if the public never sees any benefit from the pricey translational research center, they will still be required to fund it at the rate of $40 million a year for the next two decades.

Question 1 asks Jackson County residents to place their hard-earned money into the hands of a private board controlled by corporate executives. The Governing Board consists of four CEOs, an additional member chosen by a CEO, and one Jackson County Legislator. In essence, the jury is rigged. Even if the lone legislator believes funds are being used improperly, she or he can easily be silenced by the CEOs controlling the Board.

The agreement provides $1 million of the tax each year to an “Oversight” Board appointed by the County Executive. But this Oversight Board has no real control. Its only function is to contract for an annual audit. According to the backers’ memo, the Oversight Board can “present” its findings, but it has no power to withhold or redirect the funds. The CEO-controlled Governing Board has the sole, unchecked power over its purse strings and operations.

Worse is that the Governing Board has given itself the right to use twenty-five percent of this tax revenue on “administrative expenses.” That’s $10 million each year on salaries for the Governing Board and other executives. It begs the question as to how much will actually be left for the “economic development” promised to taxpayers.

So before you vote, read the fine print. Labeling a project so ill-conceived, so full of far-flung promises, and with such questionable financials, as “economic development”, is at best dishonest. In reality, Question 1 is a tax pork barrel for private interests, with no meaningful public oversight.
#############

E.E. Keenan is a workers’ rights attorney in Kansas City. He is with Citizens for Fairness, which opposes Question 1.