George Diepenbrock, "Kline fiasco really about fear of changing school standards" (2005)

Kline fiasco really about fear of changing school standards

Watson said this morning in a phone conversation that most of Kline's meetings with the conservative state school board members were used to discuss school finance legislation, while the moderates met with Senate Vice President John Vratil, R-Leawood, a well-known moderate. The evolution discussion was minimal in Kline's meetings, Watson said.

By GEORGE DIEPENBROCK
> <em>Southwest Daily Times<em>

The recent outburts from many state media editorial boards and Democratic legislators late last week and early this week on Attorney General Phill Kline's two separate closed meetings with conservative members of the Kansas State Board of Education need to be examined in context.

Kline and members of his staff indicated he discussed mostly education funding legislation and minutely talked about legal action should the board vote to put stickers on school science text books calling evolution a theory rather than fact.

In 1999, the state board's conservative majority gained national attention in a landmark decision to not teach evolution as the only major theory of life science's current existence.

The state board reversed its 1999 decision following the 2000 election, which left conservatives no longer in the majority. The 2002 election resulted in a 5-5 split on the issue.

But after the August 2004 election, conservatives now have regained a 6-4 edge, and it appears they are pursuing avenues to change state science standards again to teach other theories, mainly intelligent design, in addition to evolution.

All week many state newspapers slammed Kline for conducting the closed meetings. Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, called a news conference at the Statehouse when he floated the idea of investigating the Attorney General's office.

Many said Kline's meetings with three conservative state school board officials at one time and a separate meeting with the other three conservatives violated of the Kansas Open Meetings Act.

Then after the realization the closed sessions could not have violated the law because the meetings did not include a quorum of the state board's ten members, an editorial in Tuesday's Topeka Capital-Journal titled "Phill's follies" stated Kline "certainly bruised" the open meetings law.

The big argument was Kline was a hypocrite because two weeks earlier he and other legislators proposed legislation including a constitutional amendment that would mirror the Kansas Open Records Act.

Another paragraph of the Tuesday editorial in the Capital-Journal said comments from Whitney Watson, Kline's communications director, that the four moderate members of the state board were not invited to Kline's office because they could receive legal counsel from other sources was "almost as disturbing."

Watson said this morning in a phone conversation that most of Kline's meetings with the conservative state school board members were used to discuss school finance legislation, while the moderates met with Senate Vice President John Vratil, R-Leawood, a well-known moderate. The evolution discussion was minimal in Kline's meetings, Watson said.

Kline, as a conservative, also boldly stands behind his decisions and political stances. When he supports a policy or does not agree with a court decision or piece of legislation, he will one way or another give reporters juicy quotes for the next few days.

As a politician, he must make the decisions and form opinions with what he believes to be the right policy.

Like all other elected officials, he is allowed to meet in a closed session with legislative leaders and other elected officials to discuss political strategy or negotiation as long as the meeting does not contain a quorum.

Obviously Kline has indicated he would support a change in school science standards by requiring some other life science theory in addition to evolution be taught. In that case, the attorney general would side with the six conservative board members who are wanting to make the change.

This scares opponents to death because they are more worried about Kansas gaining criticism from national media as it did in 1999.

Instead opponents should come up with a good argument on why teaching only the evolution theory does not violate the state education science mission statement to make all students lifelong learners who can use science to make reasoned decisions.

Presenting only one life science theory in classes without alternatives breeds ignorance and violates the mission statement.