Wichitopekington

Spring weather. Expensive fuel. Bulging guts. Time for a walk.

But while there’s plenty of open spaces in Wichita, it’s not a great place for a stroll, according to Prevention Magazine, which published its nationwide walkability ratings recently. Wichita was near the bottom of the list in Kansas and the nation. That distinction is also published in the latest issue of the Kansas Government Journal, the publication of the League of Kansas Municipalities.

“Although it does have a decent Walk Score — 89 out of 100 — it has the third lowest ratio of parks per square mile in the state, a huge hindrance to walkers,” the rating explanation says.

Want to know more? Check out walk scores for any given address online, and see an Eagle story about plans to improve walking.

The two sides — for and against a smoking ban — have been sitting through the routine prayers and proclamations at City Council meetings for several months now just in case smoking comes up. And the pro and con folks have also filled up the public comment agenda — that slice of time the council dedicates to listening to just about anyone talk about just about anything at the beginning of their meeting.

Now it appears the Big Day has come. The Council is finally poised to discuss and vote on a smoking ban. And everyone seems to expect a showdown. Clean Air Wichita, for example, announced by e-mail that speakers from the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, a local health care group and their leaders will be at the meeting. They oppose the ban because they say it doesn’t go far enough — they want something that bans smoking at all businesses, not just food service businesses.

The votes line-up in favor of the compromised ban — the critical four votes being Mayor Carl Brewer and council members Lavonta Williams, Sharon Fearey and Jeff Longwell. But all things political can change. Some of those most actively opposing the ban couldn’t be reached early Monday afternoon for this post about who’s showing up at the meeting. But if history is a guide, those opposing the ban will show up in force as well.

The council meeting starts at 9 a.m. The ban is number 12a on the agenda, meaning the discussion probably (no promises here) won’t start until after 9:30 a.m. — if not 10 or 10:30 a.m. The proposal would ban smoking anywhere that kids under age 18 are, which means most restaurants will be smoke-free unless they have a smoking room that, among other caveats, has its own ventilation. The bars, meanwhile, could just card folks at the door to make sure they’re older than 18 and post a sign outside to warn folks that the air may not be so pure inside.

The full proposed law can be found on page 269 of the PDF council agenda.

As Durham, N.C. narrows its list of finalists for city manager, each of the candidates is being pressed to explain why they were ousted from their previous cities, according to today’s story in The News and Observer. During a Monday night forum designed to let community members there meet the three finalists for city manager, reporters pressed former Wichita city manager George Kolb to respond to criticisms about his communication with council members, confrontations with Sunflower Community Action and why he was forced to resign in January. (Kolb has since been working as a guest lecturer at Wichita State University.)

Kolb, no stranger to these questions, defended himself as he has in the past. He said he keeps council members informed, handled Sunflower appropriately and resigned because of “philosophical differences.” But he also used his community interview to boast the progress he felt he facilitated in Wichita.

Prompted by community member questions, Kolb said minority contractors obtained about 10 percent more city business under his watch, which appears to be true — or close to it — based on the most recent city-generated reports. He also highlighted the city’s partnership with private philanthropists to build the Boys and Girls Club on 21st Street. (Kolb said it’s a model for the nation, but he didn’t mention that President Bush liked the idea so much he came out to see it.) And he said if he gets the job in Durham, he will hold himself and city staff accountable. “People ought to be held accountable for what they say they’re going to do,” he told the crowd.

Kolb, who said he felt has been mis-characterized in past Eagle articles, also seemed to acknowledge that being city manager is a job done under intense pressure, and that it’s not always pretty. “Sometimes these things can be boring,” he said of the community forum. “We’re not professional actors. We’re not professors who stand before a class, although some of them can be boring too.”

City Council members are considering an addition to their rules that would discourage them from leaking out information about what they discussed in private executive session meetings. Open government watchdogs are disappointed with the rule. Council members say it’s a necessary way to keep personnel information from getting out and save the city money by not driving up the price of property when the city is considering buying it. Council member Jeff Longwell said he strongly believes in transparency in government. But he said some things must remain private and that the city attorney always interjects if the private meeting discussions stray from what they may legally discuss.

The proposed policy states:

“During the course of their duties, Council members will receive confidential information or attorney-client privileged communications that for good reason may be withheld under the Kansas Open Records Act, Kansas Open Meetings Act and other laws. This will be information that is commercially sensitive or is personal to a particular individual or organization and may affect City’s legal rights and responsibilities. Council members acknowledge that failure to observe confidentiality will impede the performance of the council by inhibiting information flows and undermining public confidence in the council. The confidentiality of this information will be protected by Council members and not disclosed unless a resolution of the Council to release the information is adopted by a majority vote of the Council members.”

If someone violates the policy, the council by majority vote could either “censure” or “reprimand” that person, which is recorded in council minutes showing majority of the council believe the “leak” was improper and violated council rules. The policy seems to stem from council members telling reporters and others about some things that were said or discussed in executive session. It was most prevalent during last year’s council and mayor campaigns. Some “leaks” have come from council members who believed discussions went beyond what can legally be discussed in executive session. Other “leaks” have been to business people and lobbyists about land acquisition and business proposals.

Wichitopekington e-mailed the proposed rule to open government advocates for reaction. Here are some excerpts.

Randy Brown, a senior fellow at Wichita State University’s Elliott School of Communication and the executive director of the Kansas Sunshine Coalition for Open Government, wrote: “Sure there are a few things that need sensitive private discussion. But this proposal is part of a new culture of secrecy that can only damage the democratic and further erode the public trust. The idea that the City of Wichita or any other government body can control the flow of information is a kind of governmental arrogance that’s epidemic these days.”

Doug Anstaett, executive director of the Kansas Press Association, wrote: “If the council wants to increase the public’s confidence in it, then it should limit executive sessions to a bare minimum and make sure the discussions never stray from those subjects covered by the Kansas Open Meetings Act. To muzzle those courageous enough to speak out when KOMA is violated is an anti-free speech and free press stance that should not be tolerated by the citizens of Wichita.“

Mike Merriam, a Topeka-based attorney who has represented the Kansas Press Association and some media outlets, wrote: “This proposed rule is rather silly. It apparently only applies to “information” received and attorney client privileged communications, so it would not prohibit revealing any other aspect of the discussion. The elected council members are the “client” for privilege purposes, and the client controls the privilege, not the attorney. A client is always free to disclose otherwise privileged communications if it so chooses. It’s only the lawyer who can’t disclose without permission. The threat of censure is meaningless. The council can say whatever it likes but it has no power to punish an elected member. If I was on the council and was censured for whistleblowing on an improper session, I’d be proud of it. Maybe issue my own censures right back.”

The Council plans to vote on this proposal along with other revisions and additions to the council’s rules at their March 18 meeting.