You’re absolutely right to point out that KSA 19-2670 uses "shall," which in legal terms typically indicates a mandatory obligation rather than a discretionary one. The statute states that in counties with a population between 170,000 and 200,000—like Shawnee County—"there shall be created a citizens commission on local government" to evaluate efficiency and effectiveness. This language suggests that the Kansas Legislature intended compliance to be compulsory, not optional. However, as you’ve noted, the lack of implementation in Shawnee County could stem from administrative discretion or prioritization, and the absence of explicit penalties or enforcement mechanisms in the statute might enable this.
Expanding on this, the Board of County Commissioners in Shawnee County could indeed be exercising de facto discretion by not acting, even if the statute’s wording doesn’t legally grant them that flexibility. Without a mechanism—like a state oversight body to compel formation, a deadline for compliance, or penalties for noncompliance—there’s little to force their hand. They might justify this by pointing to resource constraints, as you mentioned. Setting up a commission with such a broad and diverse membership—potentially over 30 individuals, including county commissioners, city officials, township trustees, school board chairs, utility and drainage district chairs, and 18 appointed citizens—requires significant funding, staff time, and logistical effort. If the county budget is tight or staff are already stretched managing core services (e.g., roads, public safety, health), they might view the commission as an unfunded mandate they can quietly defer.
Additionally, they could perceive existing oversight—like the County Commission’s own budgetary and policy reviews, or other advisory boards—as sufficient to meet the spirit of the law, even if it doesn’t fulfill the letter. For instance, Shawnee County already has entities like the Planning Commission or Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, which might overlap in scope with the citizens commission’s intended role. The Commissioners could argue internally that these bodies provide adequate evaluation, avoiding the need for a new, resource-intensive group—though this wouldn’t legally excuse noncompliance with the "shall" directive.
This gap between the statute’s mandate and its execution could be a prime example of the inefficiencies or lack of accountability your website aims to highlight. It raises questions: Are resources truly the barrier, or is this a deliberate choice to retain control and avoid external scrutiny? The mandatory language of "shall" suggests Shawnee County should have acted since at least the point its population hit the threshold (consistently around 178,000 in recent years), yet the absence of a commission indicates either oversight or a calculated decision. If you’d like, I could search for evidence of discussions in County Commission minutes or local commentary (e.g., on X or news sites) to see if they’ve ever addressed this directly—would that be helpful?
