Question 1: What are your legislative priorities in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, both if it continues to persist through the next session and in terms of follow-up actions?

As it pertains to COVID, initially when we had a lot of unknowns, when there were potentially millions of people going to die, I actually supported the circuit breaker effect of a shutdown. However, right now we have a plethora of information and data from worldwide studies that shows it’s a manageable virus. So as far as legislative priorities we have to allow people an opportunity to provide for their families and get back to their educational opportunities. I think the response we need now is rapid testing, so you can identify where the risk is and manage that so our families can get back to their lives, their educational opportunities, their careers, their businesses.

I think from a legislative perspective, all that needs to be handled now is potentially a confiscation of the limits on power, the government’s power and the ability of a government to tell somebody they cannot provide for their family or strip them of that ability or strip a child of an educational opportunity.

With the knowledge we have now about the virus and the manageability of it and the ability to rapidly test we can get back to our normal lives.

Question 2: What are your thoughts on “Roy’ale’s Law,” a bill that was a result of the case of Roy’ale Spencer, a 9-year-old Wichita boy who was accidentally killed by a friend playing with a weapon they got out of a safe with a broken lock? The law would require loaded firearms, not secured by a trigger lock mechanism, to be placed in a securely locked box or container. What do you think should be or should not be done with current gun laws?

Obviously that was a terrible tragedy with Roy’Ale. Those types of situations though, trip us down a path that says laws can solve those types of tragedies and they simply can’t, and that’s been proven.

Laws only apply to law-abiding citizens. I do not support additional gun restrictions. I’m actually a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and people’s constitutional right to protect themselves and their families, and I do not see that we need it changed to Kansas law.

Question 3: What is your position and approach on funding of schools? Do you feel the State has met its responsibility in funding Kansas schools and how or how not?

Just for an approach to educational funding, I think the mix that we have of local and state dollars is the correct approach to funding our schools. I do think the taxpayers have met their obligation. I think there’s some confusion over what we mean by “the state.” If you mean by “the state” the government, that’s a different question than “the state” being the people. I do believe the taxpayers have met their obligation.

I’d like to see those decisions primarily local. I’d also like to see more choice in education. There needs to be more educational opportunities for parents, and that’s never been clearer than it has been during this COVID crisis.

Question 4: What makes you the best man for the job and what advantages or benefits do you offer over your opponent?

I think this is the simplest question you’ve asked me, and that’s because I am the district – I represent the district. I’m a family man, a father, a taxpayer, a contributor to the district I’ve lived in. My opponent is a young, socialist, activist and admittedly so. I’m the best candidate because I represent this district.


(0) comments

Comment on this story.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.