Official’s financial trouble

I am writing in response to the April 11 article “Official, wife file for bankruptcy; Kansas health department secretary blames medical reasons for $600,000 in debts” (Local). I certainly have lost confidence in Roderick Bremby’s ability to manage the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. The secretary’s personal lack of fiscal responsibility does not speak well for his ability to spend $217 million of tax money in an appropriate manner.

Many job applicants today, especially those who will be handling money as well as executives and managers, are asked to sign a release form allowing the potential employer to request a credit report on the applicant. The inference here is that those who are not personally fiscally responsible cannot be expected to handle other people’s money any better.

Wake up, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. Do not go the route of Gov. Matt Blunt. Don’t deny the obvious. Quit supporting this man who has duped you, cut your losses and fire him before a public protest.

Patti Frank
Lenexa

Comments

[CRD]

an exercise in incoherence.

I sure wouldn't award custody to "nosheeple," based on his words here.

[nosheepleallowed]

Engineer. Could well be true??????
Right Angle trig does not lie.

[nosheepleallowed]

No. I am not emplying I am stating fact. The mothers typically are not well versed in finance according to national statistics.
No. Children are not entitled to live at the same standard as pre-divorce, the mother and the lawyers that decided on no-fault divorce laws should take that into consideration. If woman are so pverty stricken and so indegent, then the men shold get default custody. But the fact remains that of the men that do get custody (<3%)they very seldom go on welfare and the child support awards in their cases are typically 1/4 of what a man is forced to pay when he is the NCP. Bottom line is that debtors prisons are not allowed but being operated. You can try to spin it however you want. Courts DO NOT ALLOW fathers to PROVIDE. So providing (being repsonsible) and paying are different? Sounds like a money scheme to me.

[Engineer]

GYCL
Don't try to figure this out. You are dealing with a couple of guys who are xonvinced that in the division of the gold mine the Ex got the gold and they got the shaft. From what I know of Family Court this could well be true but there are all kinds of considerations.

[GCYL]

“nosheeple: Actually, you are only being court ordered to "keep the child in the same economic postion it would have been without the divorce".” - jack

I didn’t understand nosheeple’s post. I thought it was off topic and extremely vague. Which leaves me with no point of reference to your response jack. In a way it’s like your implying that nosheeple believes it’s the kids who are “those that are obvoiusly fiscally irresponsible and incompetent”. Which, by experience, most kids are.

[jack]

nosheeple: Actually, you are only being court ordered to "keep the child in the same economic postion it would have been without the divorce". The fact tht this makes you responsible to also keep the mother in the same condition is just a coincidence.

[nosheepleallowed]

Funny...Family Courts force you to give your money up to those that are obvoiusly fiscally irresponsible and incompetent.
I would imagine debtors prison would be an adequate answer?

[Engineer]

jack
Imo, you are entirely right. In any event we need to know a great feal more about the situation before making any conclusions.

[jack]

I'm confused. Many people, confronted with huge medical bills, are being forced into bankruptcy every day. What is their irresponsibility? Their unwillingness to lose everything they've spent a lifetime building (only to still be buried in debt)? Or, their irresponsible behaviour of needing medical care that they can't afford?