THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL NEWS FRIDAY, DECEMBER 7, 20128A www.cjonline.com

Legislator: Has $54K in Senate war chestContinued from Page 1A

ity, his state political party or the state general fund. There was one other legal option — pay himself back for expenses related to House service.

According to campaign finance reports, Merrick reimbursed some donors, then wrote himself a $14,464.46 check on the last day of 2011 for “Reimbursement for cell, telephone, fax and Internet lines from 1-1-2000 to 12-31-2010 used for state of-fice work.”

Merrick didn’t respond to multiple in-terview requests, except for a Nov. 26 email that said, “I am out of town fulfilling my duties as State Chair and National Board Member of ALEC,” the American Legisla-tive Exchange Council.

Barring a full audit by the cash-strapped Kansas Governmental Ethics Commis-sion, it is nearly impossible to determine the legality of Merrick's reimbursement.

"That sounds like one that if the public looks at it just doesn't seem right," Kansas Republican Party chairman Clay Barker said. "But I know having worked with eth-ics quite a bit, that there are some areas with a very 'bright line' rule. As long as you stay on the correct side, you can come up with a result that is legal, and the Legisla-ture's candidates all know what those rules are."

Carol Williams, executive director of the ethics commission, said Merrick's re-imbursements could be OK, “if he has

documentation for that.”But she stressed that Merrick and other

legislators are only allowed to reimburse themselves for the portion of the telecom-munications costs that correlate to state business.

“When you pay yourself for a landline or cellphone, there’s always an assump-tion by the commission that’s a prorated amount for the campaign,” Williams said. “Some have cellphones specifically for the campaign. For the person who doesn’t want to carry two cells, they have to make a decision, how much is being used for

personal use.”Merrick’s documentation, attached to

the finance report filed Jan. 9, 2012, con-sists of two pages listing the total paid on his landline, cellphone, Internet and fax each month from 2001-2010.

“The question that begs to be answered was this a landline specifically for constit-uent assistance and campaign-related use?” Williams said.

According to Merrick's attachments, his Internet costs remained steady the en-tire decade at $26.95 per month. His fax costs rose from about $31 a month to $58 a month over the years, and his landline fees were about $31 a month for many years, before jumping to $102 a month in 2010.

His cellphone reimbursements were more than $100 each month after Febru-ary 2007, with one outlier being July 2009, when he reimbursed himself for a $435.38 cell bill.

Lynn Hellebust, executive director of the governmental ethics commission when it was formed in the 1970s, said vet-ting Merrick’s expense reports would re-quire a formal audit.

“He would have to, if he was audited, back that up with receipts and other docu-mentation,” Hellebust said. “But if they’re not doing any audits, that’s just hanging out there.”

The ethics commission has two audi-tors, and Williams said in September the organization would have to cut one of

them if hit by 10 percent budget cuts that Gov. Sam Brownback’s administration has told all state agencies to prepare for.

Even when audits are performed, it of-ten is difficult to uncover actionable of-fenses. Bob Beatty, a Washburn University political science professor and Kansas First News political analyst, said loopholes abound in state campaign finance laws.

"Most things involving these sort of campaign finance maneuvers, they can be relatively easily resolved by legislation," Beatty said. "The key is the will of the legis-lators to do it. And for the most part, they don't seem to have a great will to stop these money hijinks. The whole idea of writing a check to yourself probably shouldn't happen."

Several of Merrick’s listed donors said they had no problem with his $14,000 re-imbursement.

Overland Park resident Niels Hansen said “it costs a lot of money to be an elect-ed official” and said it would be OK with him if he paid for a phone that Merrick oc-casionally used for personal calls.

“If I was handed the phone I wouldn’t worry about what phone it was,” Hansen said. “I’d say 99.9 percent is probably used for his campaign. I don’t have any com-plaints about Ray. He’s an honest guy. He works at what he was elected to do.”

Rachelle Colombo, director of govern-ment affairs for the Kansas Medical Soci-ety political action committee, said her group gives to candidates who “have been

friends of medicine."“We don’t spend a lot of time research-

ing, I suppose, the way candidates spend the funds we appropriate for their cam-paigns,” Colombo said. “I will leave that to government ethics.”

Lobbyist Whitney Damron said what Merrick does with his donation isn’t his concern.

“When you give a campaign contribu-tion, you don’t tell them what to do with it,” Damron said. “I write a lot of checks to legislators based on whether I think they’re good legislators.”

Hellebust said the responses aren’t sur-prising.

“Donors are part of the better-off peo-ple who can afford to give money,” Helle-bust said. “They’re part of the ruling class. Lobbyists? They’re not going to rock the boat. They’re buying their way in, to the extent they can.”

Merrick decided not to seek re-election this year in his redrawn Senate district, which also included Republican incum-bent Pat Apple. Instead, he ran for the House, and Hansen, Damron, and the Kansas Medical Society PAC all gave to Merrick in June and July to help replenish his House account.

Merrick's colleagues elected him House speaker Monday by a narrow margin over Rep. Arlen Siegfreid, R-Olathe. Merrick left behind a Senate war chest that as of Jan. 10 had $54,665.21 in it. He hasn’t commented on his plans for those funds.

thad allton/the capital-journal

Rep. Ray Merrick, a Stilwell Republican and the incoming speaker of the Kansas House, raised red flags by writing a $14,000 check from a campaign account to retroactively reimburse himself for telephone expenditures.

Downtown: DTI official says large retail store has expressed interest

ect in the amount of $8,448,032.Mayor Bill Bunten and council

members Karen Hiller, Larry Wol-gast, Andrew Gray and Chad Manspeaker were among those attending Thursday’s meeting. Manspeaker used the Twitter so-cial network to send out tweets critical of the project during the meeting, including saying the cur-rent downtown plan does nothing to resolve waste water issues.

The council voted 5-4 in July 2011 to carry out the $1 million first phase of the downtown proj-ect. About $208,000 of that has been spent, all on design work.

The city hired Omaha, Neb.-based firm RDG to do the design.

The council deferred action in May and again in July on a pro-posed second-phase budget for the project, with council mem-bers suggesting the plan needed revision.

Scott Gales, vice president of Topeka-based Architect One, P.A., said he then amended the plan to try to provide more local flavor and more of a “wow” factor.

Gales and city manager Jim Colson were among speakers at the meeting, which was broadcast on City4, the city’s cable TV sta-tion.

The meeting began with a

roughly 20-minute open house in which people were able to look at architect’s renderings of the pro-posed project.

Suzie Gilbert, the city’s com-munications and marketing di-rector, conducted live interviews over City4 of Colson and Vince Frye, president and chief execu-tive officer of Downtown Topeka Inc.

Supporters of the project then gave a presentation. Frye said a large retail department store, which he didn’t name, was inter-ested in locating downtown if the project became a reality.

Fourteen people then offered public comments.

Sandra Dickinson was the only one who took a clear stance against the project. She said if businesses wanted the project, they should fund it themselves in-stead of putting the burden on middle-income taxpayers.

Those speaking in favor includ-ed Michelle De La Isla, who said the project’s $8.4 million budget was negligible in comparison to what the returns on that invest-ment would be.

John Hunter, co-chairman with Anita Wolgast of the NOTO Arts District, drew applause when he stressed that city infrastructure in-vestment set the stage for devel-opment of NOTO.

He said the arts district has pos-itively changed the image of downtown North Topeka, includ-ing bringing in 24 businesses.

Some speakers expressed a de-sire to see improvements in down-town but voiced concerns about such factors as the project’s tim-ing or there being no assurance it would succeed.

Colson responded to the latter, “I’m not saying ‘Build it, they will come’ but I am saying if you don’t build it, for sure they won’t come.”

Colson said the proposed bud-get calls for second-phase project costs to include:

n $5.57 million to carry out in-

frastructure work, which the city would pay for. Colson said the city would finance only infrastructure work it needs to do anyway.

n $1.8 million in private pedes-trian enhancements, which would be financed solely using private-sector donations. Colson said that so far, the private sector has pledged slightly less than $1 mil-lion for that purpose. He said that if the private sector fails to come through, the city won’t put in the private pedestrian enhance-ments.

n $888,032 for other pedestrian enhancements. The city is looking at potential funding sources for them.

Continued from Page 1A