‘A lie’: Kansas City officials say KCPD ballot measure wrongly says it won’t cost city

Kansas City officials this week criticized Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s office for publishing what they called “inaccurate, insufficient, and unfair” information about an upcoming ballot question’s financial impact on the city.

In a letter sent to Ashcroft Thursday, Andrew Dulberg, an attorney for the city, wrote that a constitutional amendment that would allow Missouri to force Kansas City to spend more on police would hurt the city financially. The letter rebuts a financial summary note attached to the ballot question that states that it would have no impact on the city.

The letter illustrates the strained relationship between Kansas City and Missouri officials over a push by the GOP-controlled Missouri General Assembly to assert more control over how the city funds its police.

“It is one thing for the State to propose a constitutional amendment designated to take away from City officials the authority to control the City’s budget,” the letter said. “But it is another thing entirely to put that amendment before voters with a radical mischaracterization of the impact of that amendment on the City.”

Missouri voters will decide on Nov. 8 whether to pass an amendment to the state constitution that would give lawmakers the power for the next three years to increase the minimum level of funding Kansas City must devote to its state-controlled police force.

If approved by voters, a law that increases the minimum funding threshold of the Kansas City Police Department to 25% of the city’s general revenue would be allowed to take effect. Republican Gov. Mike Parson signed the law in June.

A fiscal summary attached to the proposed constitutional amendment states that “local governmental entities estimate no additional costs or savings related to this proposal.”

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas said in a phone call with The Star that the fiscal summary note is important because it will be included as part of the question that voters will see in November.

He called the summary “a lie.”

“I think it is also important for us to recognize that this is just kind of another sign of the bureaucratic disrespect that Kansas City is receiving from Jefferson City,” he said.

Kansas City letter on KCPD ... by The Kansas City Star

Response from Missouri Secretary of State

Dulberg said in the letter to Ashcroft that requiring Kansas City to spend more on police would force the city to decrease the amount of money it spends on other services by more than $38.7 million.

He called on Ashcroft’s office to fix the financial summary and threatened legal action if it’s not amended.

“It would be unfortunate—and needlessly wasteful—if your office had to administer a second election on the ballot question as a result of its refusal to accurately characterize the City’s position on a constitutional amendment that is squarely directed at the City,” the letter said.

In response to Dulberg’s letter, Jesus Osete, Ashcroft’s general counsel, wrote on Thursday that the city’s complaint was directed at the wrong agency. He said the state auditor’s office prepared the fiscal note, not the secretary of state’s office.

“We are, frankly, perplexed that your letter makes approximately six references to the State Auditor, but fails to even copy the State Auditor, much less address the letter to that office,” Osete’s letter said.

“Before writing letters threatening litigation, we would strongly suggest that you acquaint yourself with the applicable laws in this area. It would be unfortunate—and needlessly wasteful—for the taxpayers of this State to underwrite litigation that is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Missouri law.”

In a response on Friday, Dulberg wrote that the secretary of state’s office received the letter because it certified the ballot language. He also sent a similar request to Democratic state Auditor Nicole Galloway’s office.

“Finally, we note that your email makes no effort to deny that the fiscal note summary is insufficient and unfair,” the letter said. “We reiterate our hope that the Secretary will fulfill his obligation to Missouri voters to cure the legal concern rather than necessitate a court-imposed second election on the proposed constitutional amendment.”

Eric Slusher, a spokesperson for Galloway’s office, said in an email to The Star Friday that Kansas City officials had “indicated to our office that they would offset the budget impact of the percentage change by reducing spending on other services rather than passing on the cost of the requirement to taxpayers. The city did not quantify either an additional cost or savings related to the proposal.”

He continued, “Missouri law limits challenges to fiscal note summary language to those brought within a ten-day period after the Secretary of State certifies the measure for the ballot. The window to bring such a challenge to the fiscal note summary language has likely already closed.”

KCPD funding

The amendment that voters will decide in November is the culmination of a backlash by conservative legislators against a failed 2021 attempt by Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas and the city council to assert more control over the police budget.

Under a 1939 law, Kansas City funds a police department that is controlled by a board of commissioners appointed almost entirely by the governor.

Lawmakers passed a bill in May that raises the percentage of Kansas City’s general revenue that must be spent on police from the current minimum of 20% to 25%. To make the change constitutional, however, they need voters across the state to approve the amendment.

The proposed amendment would create an exception to the provision in Missouri’s constitution that restricts the General Assembly from passing unfunded mandates to local governments.

Lucas said that he will go to court to oppose the legislation.

“It was unconstitutional on the day it was introduced, it’s unconstitutional the day it was passed and this election doesn’t actually ring the bell back and make it newly constitutional,” he said. “We’re going through a lot of effort, which I think will lead to probably multiple lawsuits that will mean that this actually never goes into effect.

“But, more than that, actually just completely detracts from our efforts to actually make Kansas City safer, which should be the primary goal of everyone.”