KCKCC signs 6-1 guard from Aurora, Colo.

Flanked by his parents, Carla and Kevin Wyatt, Tim Wyatt signed a letter of intent to play basketball for Kansas City Kansas Community College and coach Kelley Newton, standing. (KCKCC photo by Alan Hoskins)
Flanked by his parents, Carla and Kevin Wyatt, Tim Wyatt signed a letter of intent to play basketball for Kansas City Kansas Community College and coach Kelley Newton, standing. (KCKCC photo by Alan Hoskins)

by Alan Hoskins, KCKCC

For 6-1 guard Tim Wyatt, Kansas City Kansas Community College was a perfect fit for continuing his basketball career at the collegiate level – a ready-made fan club.

Residing in Aurora, Colo., Wyatt played both the point guard and shooting guard positions while averaging eight points a game for Rangeview High School.

“I’m originally from Kansas City and he has grandmothers, aunts and uncles living in the Lee’s Summit area,” said Wyatt’s father, Kevin Wyatt.

“My AAU coach told me this would be a school I might be interested in,” said Wyatt after signing a letter of intent with KCKCC.

“We feel real fortunate to have him,” said KCKCC coach Kelley Newton. “He’s a great young man, great player and can do a little of everything including handling and shooting the ball. And most important he’s a great character young man.”

No consolidation for CVB, WEDC and Chamber of Commerce

After a lengthy discussion Thursday evening, the Unified Government Commission voted not to consolidate the Convention and Visitors Bureau with the Wyandotte Economic Development Council and the Kansas City, Kan., Area Chamber of Commerce.

It was an 8-1 vote on a motion by Commissioner Mike Kane to leave the agencies the way they are. Commissioner Hal Walker voted no. Commissioner Ann Murguia abstained, after asking for clarification if the UG really had the authority to order these agencies to change.

The chamber and the WEDC had been in favor of a consolidation, while the CVB had been against it. The CVB and chamber shared office space and employees before 2009, when the CVB became an independent agency. The chamber and WEDC currently share some administrative tasks.

During the meeting, CVB executive director Bridgette Jobe voiced her board’s opposition to the plans to merge.

The CVB had the feeling that other agencies might be in favor of the consolidation in order to get control of the Kansas City, Kan., transient guest tax funds that are given to the CVB. The CVB distribution totaled $669,769 in 2014 and is expected to total $703,257 in 2015, growing to $738,420 in 2016, according to an analysis quoted in the study.

Representatives of the chamber and WEDC stated at the meeting that they were in favor of consolidation, talking about the benefits of a unified and shared vision.

A study had been underway since last October, when the UG Commission sent a notice of termination to the CVB and the Wyandotte Economic Development Council pending the study results.

David Unmacht of Springsted Inc. presented the findings of a consolidation analysis. These findings are printed on page 345 of the UG Commission agenda for April 9, which is online at www.wycokck.org.

Unmacht’s report noted that board members strongly supported their own organizations, and at the same time, there was some mistrust of the other organizations. He noted there were philosophical differences of opinion among those in the various agencies about consolidation and the work done by the agencies.

According to Unmacht, a chart was prepared showing possible operational savings of about $233,000 if the agencies consolidated, but that was disputed by the CVB. The CVB stated spending would increase if it consolidated.

Unmacht presented several policy options for the UG to consider on Thursday.

The move to consolidate the WEDC and CVB agencies was supported Thursday evening by Mayor Mark Holland, who made a motion for consolidation. The motion died for lack of a second. The mayor talked about common tasks performed by the agencies and said there was a need for one unified brand for the county.

Then, Commissioner Brian McKiernan made a motion to adopt a strong collaborative model that would require them to work together more. Commissioner Murguia questioned whether the UG could place any directives on the agencies, wondering if all it could do was to fund or not fund them if they meet the UG’s criteria.

Commissioner Mike Kane said the commission owed the employees of these agencies an answer, as it had been discussing changes for a year or so. He talked about the effect on employees of the uncertainty of the future of these agencies.

Commissioner McKiernan withdrew his motion, and Kane made a motion to leave the agencies the way they are and let them do their job. Walker voted no, while Murguia abstained. As stated earlier by the UG attorney, abstentions were being counted as “yes” votes.

The lengthy UG discussion on the consolidation idea, with more of the comments from the meeting, is being replayed on the UGTV station, and also is available for viewing on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV6xI0X9mSs.

Kansas medical panels to discuss implications of antitrust ruling

Supreme Court case involved North Carolina dental board membership, oversight

by Ashley Booker, KHI News Service

Kansas medical regulatory boards and the state Attorney General’s Office are examining whether a recent U.S. Supreme Court antitrust ruling will have any effects on the boards’ memberships.

In a Feb. 25 opinion related to a North Carolina dentistry board, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that if a “controlling number” of a board’s members are active participants in the industry it regulates, they could be sued as antitrust law violators if they aren’t being actively supervised by the state.

Erica Landsberg, who has taught antitrust law at the University of Kansas School of Law for nine years, said Kansas regulatory boards could be affected, but it would depend on how many active participants the board has, what the board statutes say and if the state provides active supervision.

The makeup and regularly territory for each Kansas regulatory board is different, Landsberg said, but anticompetitive practices — such as price fixing or exclusionary deals — must take place before antitrust immunity is an issue.

Regulatory boards have been immune from federal antitrust laws since a 1943 Supreme Court ruling, which said that if a state sanctions anticompetitive conduct, the state is immune from investigation and prosecution by the Federal Trade Commission.

In 1980, the Supreme Court held that in order for a state to be immune it “must clearly articulate a policy to regulate the particular commerce at issue, and must actively supervise,” Landsberg said.

In context of antitrust law, she said, that means active supervision of the anticompetitive practices.

Teeth whitening as dentistry?

In the recent case of North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, the North Carolina dental board mainly consisted of practicing dentists who are charged with regulating dentistry in the state.

The board sent 47 cease-and-desist letters to non-dentists who were providing teeth whitening services, although the statute that created the board didn’t indicate the board could regulate teeth whitening as a part of “dentistry.”

The Supreme Court also found the state of North Carolina didn’t actively supervise the board, which made it subject to federal antitrust laws.

The Kansas Attorney General’s Office is reviewing the ruling, according to Jennifer Rapp, public information officer at the office.

A few Kansas medical regulatory boards, which license and regulate medical professionals within their industries, also will review the ruling this month.

The Kansas Dental Board planned an informational conversation on the topic at its Friday meeting that is open to the public.

During the meeting, board members were to discuss the ruling and get their attorney’s point of view on the matter, said Lane Hemsley, executive director of the dental board.

Later in April, the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts also will review and analyze the decision, according to Kelli Stevens, general counsel for the healing arts board, which regulates the state’s doctors.

Diane Glynn, practice specialist at the Kansas State Board of Nursing, said her board plans to wait for the attorney general’s assessment and possible opinion, and may discuss it at an upcoming meeting.

Rapp said no one has formally requested an attorney general opinion on the matter.

Hemsley, who is also a state legislator, said he doesn’t think the Kansas Dental Board has much to worry about because of the ruling, but said that it will comply with any recommendations that come along.

“The KDB is not currently aware of any changes that might need to be made to its structure ([such as] active market participants) or that of any other state regulatory agency,” Hemsley said in an email.

The Kansas Dental Board is dissimilar from its North Carolina counterpart, Hemsley said, in that the Kansas governor appoints board members while the North Carolina board members are elected by their dental peers.

The governor also appoints members of other Kansas medical boards, as well as members of other types of regulatory boards across the state.

Members as regulators

Medical regulatory boards in Kansas typically have a voting majority of their membership working in the business they regulate.

According to its statutes, the nine-member state dental board is composed of six dentists, two dental hygienists and one public member. The board of healing arts has 15 members, 12 of whom are doctors. The other three are public members. The state board of nursing has 11 members, with eight nurses and three public members.

If the structure of Kansas’ regulatory boards comes into question, the Legislature will have to review those statutes, Hemsley said. He doesn’t believe the ruling has been brought to his colleagues’ attention yet. Legislators are on break but will return April 29 to wrap up the 2015 session.

While all three boards are appointed by the governor, subject to review according to the Kansas Judicial Review Act, and each has a board structure created by the Legislature, Landsberg isn’t sure if that would qualify as “active supervision.”

During the time that North Carolina’s dental board was cracking down on non-dentists providing teeth whitening services, Kansas was too.

Hemsley said to regulate teeth whitening, the Kansas Dental Board asked for an attorney general’s opinion — which was to seek legislative approval for a law that would bar non-licensed people, unless supervised by a doctor or obtaining a license, from providing teeth whitening services.

After the law was adopted in August 2009, Hemsley said the dental board successfully filed suit in Shawnee County District Court against One Hour Smile, a teeth whitening service.

Other medical regulatory boards also take this type of court action, according to Stevens, the lawyer for the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts.

While the Supreme Court’s decision was based upon the North Carolina cease-and-desist letters, the original opinion of the Federal Trade Commission said the North Carolina dental board wasn’t prohibited from investigating and prosecuting violations of the state’s Dental Practice Act, taking action against non-licensees and letting the defendant, licensed or not, know that the board is seeking court action, Stevens said.

She added that the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts does all of these things through its own legislation, the Healing Arts Act.

The nonprofit KHI News Service is an editorially independent initiative of the Kansas Health Institute and a partner in the Heartland Health Monitor reporting collaboration. All stories and photos may be republished at no cost with proper attribution and a link back to KHI.org when a story is reposted online.
– See more at http://www.khi.org/news/article/kansas-medical-panels-to-discuss-implications-of-antitrust-ruling#sthash.dbX94I9c.dpuf