  |
 |
| ||
|
By Linda Mowery-Denning
Last Updated: February 02, 2010
More than a decade ago, Hill City attorney Kenneth Clark raised a ruckus when state officials started talking about moving judges' jobs from western Kansas and other less populated regions to larger counties with backlogs of cases.
Clark led the charge against the proposal and Topeka backed down, at least temporarily. But now the issue is back and this time, proponents say, the outcome could be different because of the state's financial woes.
“What we're faced with is a fundamental philosophical issue," said state Rep. Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence.
“Does the public want government to operate efficiently or are they willing to pay the necessary taxes to support a less efficient operation?"
The proposed legislation would allow the Supreme Court to determine as unnecessary magistrate judge positions in counties with fewer than 600 cases. The remaining judges in the district would assume the workload.
A county would have the ability to preserve the position if commissioners agree to pay the magistrate judge's salary and other compensation. That could amount to more than $60,000.
Another bill pending before the legislature would replace some district judge positions with lesser magistrate judge positions, thus saving the state money because a district judge's annual pay is about $120,000 a year.
“It's not an attempt to punish or deprive rural county residents of anything. It's an attempt to manage the judicial system in a most financially responsible manner," Sloan said.
There is a lesson to be learned here.
Since attorney Clark's successful effort to maintain judges in every county, the population of rural Kansas has continued to decline. Technology also was not nearly the factor back then that it is now.
As hard as it is to admit, the Lorraine and Claflin school districts have the right idea when board members talk about combining their resources. We have banks that are too big to fail. At the other end of the spectrum we have school districts, townships and — even counties — that are too small to survive.
A friend who lives in rural Kansas and tends to be more realistic than most says we need a plan — not just any plan — but a plan that honestly addresses the economic, social and cultural conditions that have defined our counties for a century or longer.
She's right, of course. It's much better for a county or a region to chart its own course into the future than it is for the state to step in and set the rules.
The trends of the past decades are not going to stop anytime soon. Nor can we count on state coffers to suddenly spill over with cash. That means we can expect more stress on the state's already limited resources — and more pressure for rural Kansas to do as much or more with less.
Yes, we need a plan and the sooner the better.
Comments? Please Respond.
Home | News | Sports | Opinion | Obituaries | Area Communities | Community | Public Notices | Backyard Adventures
Blogs | NIE | Classifieds | Photo Gallery | Subscribers Only | Archives | About Us | Subscribe