News

News

5 LESSONS FROM ARCHIVISTS AT THE SMITHSONIAN

Managing Paper Files

Paper files can quickly get out of hand. In a matter of months, your office could be full of overflowing file cabinets and a mess of documents. Where should paper files be stored? If files are used by multiple staff members, you should create a central file solution that's physically accessible to all of the necessary parties. The Smithsonian Institution Archives (SIA) website recommends using "out" cards when removing any file from central files to record the name of the file, the date it was removed and the person who removed it. The card should be placed in the space from which the file was removed. This way, files stay organized, no matter who has access to them. The quality and integrity of each step in the records management life cycle is fundamental to success.

Digitization Matters

Today's enterprises are overloaded with information. If separate departments create their own assets, your organization may have fragmented records that are generated with different standards. Furthermore, this process may put your retention periods at risk. This mess might get even worse if your organization has not put a thorough digitization procedure in place.

Transferring or Destroying Records

The SIA facilitate the transfer of permanent records to the archives and temporary records to the records center. Temporary records are held in the records center for a scheduled period of time before they are destroyed. When transferring permanent records to the archives, the museum and other units must follow a series of instructions, including consulting the Smithsonian-wide or appropriate unit-specific records disposition schedule. By establishing an efficient workflow and a clear step-by-step process, enterprise leaders can protect their valuable information.

Establish a Collection Policy

Not every piece of information needs to be preserved forever. The Smithsonian archivists are tasked with the responsibility of creating a collection policy. These policies generally include a limiting factor that identifies the scope of materials that will remain stored and collected.

Within the Institution, there are 11 archives and each one has its own collection policy. Staff members are required to consult with the SIA before they dispose of any records. In an effort to establish a seamless process, the Institution creates schedules that inform staff members how long they need to keep certain types of records, and what to do once those records are no longer needed.

Preserving Electronic Records

In accordance with best practices, the Smithsonian Institution Archives prefers to preserve electronic records in specific formats, such as PDF, TIFF and WARC. Formats should be open, standard, non-proprietary and well-established.

For more information, check out the Smithsonian Institution Archives website.

Mary Shultz
Wichita State University to host Court of Appeals hearings marking Constitution Day

A three-judge panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals will hear five cases September 20, 2018, at Wichita State University in Wichita as part of the court's observance of Constitution Day. The court will hear cases in two sessions beginning at 9 a.m. and at 1:30 p.m. in the Campus Activity Center Theatre, 1845 Fairmount. Judges David Bruns, Patrick McAnany, and James Burgess will hear the cases. Bruns is the presiding judge, and Burgess is a senior judge joining the court for the hearings.

These hearings are part of Constitution Day observance activities this year at Fort Hays State University, the University of Kansas, and Wichita State University. Congress directed federally funded educational institutions to host educational events about the U.S. Constitution on or about September 17 each year. The Constitution was signed September 17, 1787, by a majority of delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

Following are summaries of the cases to be heard by the Court of Appeals panel in Wichita:

9 a.m. ♦ Thursday, September 20, 2018:

Appeal No. 117,409: State of Kansas v. Shawn R. Collins, Sedgwick County: Collins admits he shot and killed Daniel Thompson while he was sitting in a chair but claims it was self-defense. The two apparently had a confrontation the previous day over a woman with whom both had a relationship. Although the State charged Collins with second-degree murder, the jury convicted him of voluntary manslaughter and criminal possession of a firearm. Issues on appeal are whether the district court: 1) erred by determining Collins was not immune from prosecution; 2) failed to properly instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter; and 3) did not instruct the jury on self-defense. Also, whether: 1) the State committed prosecutorial error during closing argument; and 2) Collins is entitled to a new trial due to cumulative error.

Appeal No. 118,591: City of Wellington v. Kansas Department of Health and Environment, et al., Sumner County: The City of Wellington seeks a declaratory judgment that it has no obligation to continue to furnish water service to several Sumner County landowners living outside the city limits. The city had been providing untreated water to these landowners. In 2016, the city and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment entered a consent order in which the city agreed to cease providing untreated water to customers because the practice violated a state safe drinking water regulation. The landowners appeal the district court's ruling that the city may terminate the water service without providing a substitute. Issues on appeal are whether the district court erred in ruling: 1) the city did not have a legal duty to provide water service; 2) the city's obligation to provide water service was terminable either at will or for cause; and 3) any obligation the city had to provide water service was excused under the doctrine of impracticability.

Appeal No. 118,563: In the Interest of K.L.B. and A.S.B., Minor Children, Sedgwick County: The natural mother of two minor children appeals after the district court terminated her parental rights. The court found she was unfit to properly care for the children, the unfitness was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, and the termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of the children. Issues on appeal, the natural mother, who resides in Kentucky, contends that: 1) the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act; and 2) there is not substantial competent evidence in the record to support the district court's findings and conclusions.

1:30 p.m. ♦ Thursday, September 20, 2018:

Appeal No. 118,095: State of Kansas v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co., Chase County: Burlington Northern Santa Fe was convicted of violating K.S.A. 66-273 for blocking a roadway in Chase County for nearly four hours. The statute prohibits trains from standing on a public road in or near a city or town for more than 10 minutes. Issues on appeal are whether: 1) the Kansas statute is preempted by the federal Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act and the Federal Railroad Safety Act; and 2) there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the conviction.

Appeal No. 118,286: Glenn W. Smith v. Ruskin Manufacturing, et al. Workers Compensation: Smith was injured on two occasions in 2011 while working at Ruskin Manufacturing. Although he suffered a third injury in 2012, he is not appealing the decision relating to that injury. The Workers Compensation Board found Smith's injuries stemmed from the first accident. Issues on appeal are whether the board erred: 1) in calculating Smith's disability award; 2) in finding all Smith's injuries stemmed from the first accident; and 3) by not finding that Smith met the required threshold to receive a disability award for his second injury.

Mary Shultz
University of Kansas to host Court of Appeals hearings marking Constitution Day

A three-judge panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals will hear six cases September 20 at the University of Kansas in Lawrence as part of the court's observance of Constitution Day. The court will hear cases in two sessions beginning at 9 a.m. and at 1:30 p.m. in Burge Union, 1565 Irving Hill Road. Judges Steve Leben, Henry Green Jr., and Thomas Malone will hear the cases. Leben is the presiding judge.

These hearings are part of Constitution Day observance activities this year at Fort Hays State University, the University of Kansas, and Wichita State University. Congress directed federally funded educational institutions to host educational events about the U.S. Constitution on or about September 17 each year. The Constitution was signed September 17, 1787, by a majority of delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

Following are summaries of the cases to be heard by the Court of Appeals panel in Lawrence:

9 a.m. ♦ Thursday, September 20, 2018:

Appeal No. 118,809: In the Matter of the Estate of Chad Allan Fechner, Geary County: When Fechner died in 2014, he had no will and no living parents or siblings. His maternal aunt, Rita Young, thought she was his only living heir and opened an estate. But a Colorado resident, Gary Fechner, later filed papers claiming he was Chad Fechner’s half-uncle. If so, the aunt and the half-uncle would share in the estate. Young asked that Gary Fechner submit to DNA testing, but the district court concluded it didn’t have authority to order that testing. Young appealed. Issues on appeal are whether the district court: 1) had the authority to order DNA testing; and 2) abused its discretion by failing to order DNA testing.

Appeal No. 117,802: State of Kansas v. Nicholas W. Metcalf, Jackson County: A hotel security officer responding to a noise complaint found a woman who appeared to have been strangled. Police arrived and asked the woman about the man was who had been with her. She walked back into the hotel room, and officers followed. They found Metcalf and some drug paraphernalia and marijuana in clothing he had left in the room. While normally a warrant is required to conduct a search, there are several recognized exceptions. The district court found two of them applied here: 1) the woman consented to the officers’ entry into the room, and 2) the officers had probable cause to believe domestic battery had been committed and the circumstances required a prompt response. Metcalf appealed, claiming the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Issue on appeal is whether the district court erred when it denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence found in the search of the hotel room.

Appeal No. 119,070: State of Kansas v. Estefania Salazar, Montgomery County: Salazar was involved in a fatal traffic accident. She told officers they could look for her driver’s license in her van. A sheriff’s deputy saw a cell phone in the van, picked it up, and looked at text messages on the screen. The district court found this was an illegal search of the phone, found a later search warrant would not have been obtained but for the deputy’s observation of the text messages, and ruled no evidence from the phone could be used in the case brought against Salazar for her role in the accident. The State appealed, arguing any impropriety in the initial look at the phone's text messages should be set aside because the officer properly sought a search warrant later. Issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in concluding the events occurring after a deputy initially looked at the cell phone without a warrant did not eliminate any taint from the deputy’s initial warrantless search.

1:30 p.m. ♦ Thursday, September 20, 2018:

Appeal No. 118,905: State of Kansas v. Linda Faye Ritchey, Shawnee County: Ritchey was arrested on an outstanding warrant while she was sitting in the passenger seat of a parked van. After her arrest, police found drug paraphernalia and a baggie with methamphetamine residue in her purse. The district court found the search of her purse without a warrant violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The State appealed, arguing that two exceptions to the warrant requirement applied here: 1) the search was legal because they had arrested the woman, and 2) her purse would have been searched later. Issue on appeal is whether the district court erred when it granted the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found in the search of the purse.

Appeal No. 118,982: Franklin James Osborn, as Heir at Law of A.O., deceased, vs. Anthony Michael Anderson, et al., Bourbon County: Osborn claimed paternity of the child A.O., even though he was not the biological father, and married the child’s mother. The marriage was later annulled. After the child's death, Osborn sued the parties he blamed for the death: the child’s mother, her boyfriend, and the Kansas Department for Children and Families. The district court concluded the annulment overrode Osborn's earlier paternity acknowledgement and ruled Osborn could not sue the parties he blamed for the child’s death. Issue on appeal is whether the district court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants even though Osborn signed and filed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity.

Appeal No. 119,087: Gary L. Woessner, deceased, vs. Labor Max Staffing and XL Specialty Insurance Co. Workers Compensation: Woessner died after a fall at work. When his widow sought workers compensation death benefits, the employer and its insurance company denied the claim under an alcohol and drug use exclusion in the Kansas Workers Compensation Act. A toxicology test ordered during Woessner's hospitalization showed THC, the active chemical in marijuana, in his system. However, the Kansas Workers Compensation Appeals Board concluded the test samples were improperly handled and inadmissible and held the employer and its insurance company liable for death benefits. Issues on appeal are whether: 1) the appeals board erred in finding the drug test results inadmissible; 2) the appeals board should have sent the case back for rehearing at which additional evidence about the testing could have been presented; and 3) the widow presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that her husband was impaired by drugs at the time of the accident.

Mary Shultz
Fort Hays State University to host Court of Appeals hearings marking Constitution Day

A three-judge panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals will hear five cases September 20 and 21, 2018, at Fort Hays State University in Hays as part of the court's observance of Constitution Day. The court will hear cases in two sessions beginning at 9 a.m. both days in the Black and Gold Room, 2nd Floor, Memorial Union, 700 College Drive. Judges Stephen Hill, G. Joseph Pierron Jr., and Anthony Powell will hear the cases. Hill is the presiding judge.

These hearings are part of Constitution Day observance activities this year at Fort Hays State University, the University of Kansas, and Wichita State University. Congress directed federally funded educational institutions to host educational events about the U.S. Constitution on or about September 17 each year. The Constitution was signed September 17, 1787, by a majority of delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

Following are summaries of the cases to be heard by the Court of Appeals panel in Hays:

9 a.m. ♦ Thursday, September 20, 2018:

Appeal No. 117,515: Mario Perez v. Lorraine Ramos, Finney County: While Perez was stopped at a red light, Ramos' car rammed into the rear end of Perez' car. At trial, after Ramos admitted 100 percent fault, the district court limited the issue to damages from the collision, including the nature and extent of those damages and whether Ramos' admitted negligence caused the damages Perez alleged. The jury returned an award of medical expenses and noneconomic damages. Perez appealed. Issues on appeal are whether the district court: 1) erred in allowing Ramos to stipulate she was 100 percent at fault; 2) abused its discretion in prohibiting Perez from presenting proof of Ramos' negligence; and 3) abused its discretion in limiting inquiries of possible jurors to issues only affecting damages.

Appeal No. 117,783: State of Kansas v. Robert Joe Barnes, Finney County: In 2011, Barnes pleaded no contest to distribution of methamphetamine and possession of a controlled substance without a drug tax stamp. His criminal history was based in part on a 1978 Texas conviction for burglary of a habitat scored as a person felony. The court sentenced Barnes to 44 months' imprisonment and 24 months' post-release supervision. In 2014, Barnes asked the court to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the court erred in scoring his Texas conviction as a person felony. The court denied the motion, and Barnes appealed. In 2016, a Court of Appeals panel remanded the case to district court to determine how Barnes' Texas conviction should be scored in compliance with Kansas Supreme Court precedent, State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018 (2015). The district court determined the Texas conviction was correctly scored. Barnes appealed. Issues on appeal include whether: 1) the appeal is moot because Barnes served the prison portion of his sentence; 2) the doctrines of res judicata or law of the case preclude Barnes' arguments; and 3) Barnes' Texas conviction should have been scored as a nonperson felony.

Appeal No. 117,781: State of Kansas v. Christopher Soto, Saline County: Based on an outstanding municipal court warrant, Salina police officers apprehended Soto. As officers were handcuffing him, Soto told them he had been arrested on the warrant and posted bond, so the warrant was not outstanding. Without confirming the warrant's validity, officers searched Soto and discovered cocaine. Soto moved to suppress the evidence, alleging his arrest was illegal. The court denied Soto's motion and convicted him of possession of cocaine, possession of tetrahydrocannabinol, and possession of drug paraphernalia. He appealed. Issue on appeal is whether the district court should have suppressed evidence obtained after Soto's arrest because he was arrested based on an inactive warrant.

9 a.m. ♦ Friday, September 21, 2018:

Appeal No. 118,195: State of Kansas v. Michael Dean Haynes, Ellis County: Based on stipulated facts at trial, Haynes was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and transporting an open container of alcohol. Haynes contends his two drug convictions should be overturned because his statements to law enforcement officers and the subsequent search of his vehicle were illegal and violated his constitutional rights. Issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements and the physical evidence found during the search of his vehicle.

Appeal No. 118,751: State of Kansas v. Daniel James Boutin, Lincoln County: In October 2017, a Kansas Highway Patrol trooper tried to stop a vehicle driven by Boutin. This led to a high-speed chase that ended in Boutin's arrest and damage to the patrol car. Boutin was charged with several crimes and entered into a plea agreement that did not address restitution. At his plea hearing, Boutin's attorney told the court the patrol planned to accept a bid to repair the damage to the patrol car for $3,977.25. After accepting Boutin's no contest pleas, the court convicted him of possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, failure to provide proof of liability insurance, and driving on a suspended license. At sentencing, the court ordered Boutin to pay $3,977.25 in restitution. Boutin appealed. Issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in ordering Boutin to pay restitution because no evidence was admitted that would establish the restitution amount.

Mary Shultz
Longtime court reporter named honorary bailiff for Supreme Court's special session in Manhattan

For 30 years, Molly Kujawa has focused on every word during court proceedings. But as honorary bailiff for the Kansas Supreme Court's special session Monday (9/24/18) in Manhattan, she finally will have a chance to relax. Kujawa (pronounced kee-AH-vah) has been a court reporter for Riley County District Court since 1988.

The Supreme Court will be in session from 6:30 p.m. to about 8 p.m. Monday, September 24 in the auditorium of Manhattan High School, 2100 Poyntz Ave. The court will hear arguments in two cases. Details are available online by following the Manhattan Special Session link under What’s New on the Kansas judicial branch website at www.kscourts.org.

Mary Shultz
Kansas Supreme Court announces amendments to Rule 712

The Kansas Supreme Court announced on September 6, 2018, it has amended Rule 712 to allow attorneys who perform legal services for a single employer under a restricted license to provide pro bono legal services through organizations the Supreme Court approves for that purpose.

Pro bono services are professional services provided by attorneys without payment. "The Supreme Court gave careful consideration to the amendments and to the public comments we received about them," said Chief Justice Lawton Nuss. "By amending this rule, we have enabled attorneys licensed to work for one employer to donate what could be thousands of hours of professional services to individuals and entities who cannot afford to hire an attorney, which improves their access to justice."

Rule 712 already allowed an attorney who passed another state's bar exam to work for a single employer under a restricted license without taking a Kansas examination. The amendments approved allow attorneys with Rule 712 licenses to perform pro bono services through either a not-for-profit civil legal services provider, or an accredited law school clinic, as long as the provider or clinic has been approved by the Supreme Court for that purpose.

The Supreme Court regulates the practice of law in Kansas through its authority to admit persons to practice as attorneys in the courts of Kansas, to prescribe rules to supervise attorney conduct, and to discipline attorneys. It also approves rules of procedure and practice used throughout state courts in Kansas.

Mary Shultz
Chief Judge Oliver Kent Lynch and Chief Judge Thomas Kelly Ryan to sit with Kansas Supreme Court September 13, 2018

Chief Judge Oliver Kent Lynch of the 11th Judicial District and Chief Judge Thomas Kelly Ryan of the 10th Judicial District have been appointed to sit with the Kansas Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in one case on the court's September 13 docket. After hearing oral arguments, Lynch and Ryan will join Supreme Court justices in their deliberations and decision drafting.

The case Lynch and Ryan will hear is the fourth one scheduled on the court's 9 a.m. docket September 13, 2018: Appeal No. 119,012: In the Matter of Jeffrey A. Mason, Respondent Original Proceeding Related to Attorney Discipline:

Mason's ethical issues in this case involve his representation and other corporate matters for the Northwest Kansas Area Medical Foundation, later changed to the Goodland Medical Foundation. Mason failed to file corporate tax returns. The hearing panel recommended Mason be indefinitely suspended retroactive to December 23, 2016, the date of the Supreme Court's previous suspension order.

The panel was particularly concerned Mason knew he had engaged in the conduct at issue at the time of the earlier hearing but affirmatively stated during the hearing there were no additional issues in his practice. The disciplinary administrator also recommended indefinite suspension retroactive to December 23, 2016. Mason requests public censure and probation.

Mary Shultz
District Judge Jeff Goering to sit with Kansas Supreme Court September 14, 2018

District Judge Jeff Goering of the 18th Judicial District has been appointed to sit with the Kansas Supreme Court to review a case on the court's September 14, 2018, docket. Goering will join Supreme Court justices in reviewing a case on the court's summary calendar and in the court's deliberations and decision drafting. Cases on the summary calendar do not present new questions of law, and oral argument is deemed neither helpful to the court nor essential to a fair hearing of the appeal. These cases are deemed submitted without oral argument.

The case Goering will review and deliberate with the Supreme Court is: Appeal No. 114,292:Edina Harsay v. University of Kansas, Douglas County: (Petition for Review).

Harsay, a former assistant professor in the Department of Molecular Biosciences at the University of Kansas, appealed the district court ruling that no legal impropriety existed in the university's decision to deny her promotion to associate professor with tenure. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded for further consideration by the university's various tenure committees, starting with the departmental committee, based on Harsay's correct history of research productivity and scholarly works.

The University of Kansas filed a petition for review. Issues on review are whether: 1) the 30-day time period limiting the court's jurisdiction under the Kansas Judicial Review Act is extended by the statute of limitations savings statute for civil actions under K.S.A. 60-518; 2) the Court of Appeals engaged in judicial review of conflicting evidence; 3) the Court of Appeals should have remanded for the university to fully explain the basis for the decision denying tenure; and 4) the Supreme Court should consider two arguments not addressed by the Court of Appeals—whether substantial competent evidence supported the university's decision and whether it was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.

Mary Shultz
Topeka attorney joins Kansas Lawyers Assistance Program board

Chief Justice Lawton Nuss of the Kansas Supreme Court appointed James Benfer III to the Kansas Lawyers Assistance Program board on September 10, 2018. Benfer, an attorney in private practice in Topeka, will serve a six-year term ending June 30, 2024.

The Kansas Supreme Court created the Kansas Lawyers Assistance Program to help lawyers seek treatment for physical or mental illness, substance abuse, or emotional distress.

A lawyer seeking help can be paired with a volunteer attorney for peer counseling; directed to a treatment center or medical professional; or pointed to KALAP's Resiliency Support Group, which offers weekly sessions run by a psychologist who also is a lawyer.

Mary Shultz