The Internal Revenue Services offers an online tool to track your federal tax refund status.

• Social Security number or TIN • Filing status • Exact refund amount

Click <a href="https://sa.www4.irs.gov/irfof/lang/en/irfofgetstatus.jsp">HERE</a> to track your refund.

<a href="https://jcpost.com/posts/5111ac96-78e8-40b9-bae8-47365bed8d87">RELATED: IRS will delay tax filing deadline.</a>

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/9/1599869632873.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>IRSThe Internal Revenue Services offers an online tool to track your federal tax refund status.To track a refund, taxpayers will need:• Social Security number or TIN • Filing status • Exact refund amountClick <a href="https://sa.www4.irs.gov/irfof/lang/en/irfofgetstatus.jsp">HERE</a> to track your refund.<a href="https://jcpost.com/posts/5111ac96-78e8-40b9-bae8-47365bed8d87">RELATED: IRS will delay tax filing deadline.</a>

IRS: Where's my tax refund? Here's how to find out

SHAWNEE COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities are investigating a suspect on multiple charges, including felony fleeing or attempting to elude, following a vehicle pursuit Friday.

Just after 3:00 a.m. an officer with the Topeka Police Department attempted to stop a white 1990 Cadillac Fleetwood for no tag at SW 37th Street and SW Topeka Boulevard, according to Deputy Shayna Anderson.

The driver later identified as Rico E.D.M. Taylor, 28, Topeka, failed to stop. A short time later, a deputy with the Shawnee County Sheriff’s Office observed the vehicle at SW 21st Street and SW Washburn Avenue. A short pursuit was initiated and quickly ended in the 1700 block of SW Quincy Street when the vehicle struck a residential fence. 

After Taylor exited the vehicle he resisted arrest and a deputy was forced to administer oleoresin capsicum, a pepper spray. Deputies recovered a loaded firearm from the scene, according to Anderson.

Deputies transported Taylor to the Shawnee County Department of Corrections after being medically cleared at the scene. He was booked on requested charges of&nbsp; felony flee or attempt to elude, criminal damage to property, transporting an open container and several traffic related charges as well as separate charges through the Topeka Police Department.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/5/1619881547507.png" alt="Taylor photo Shawnee County" />
 <figcaption>Taylor photo Shawnee County</figcaption>
 </figure>SHAWNEE COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities are investigating a suspect on multiple charges, including felony fleeing or attempting to elude, following a vehicle pursuit Friday.Just after 3:00 a.m. an officer with the Topeka Police Department attempted to stop a white 1990 Cadillac Fleetwood for no tag at SW 37th Street and SW Topeka Boulevard, according to Deputy Shayna Anderson.The driver later identified as Rico E.D.M. Taylor, 28, Topeka, failed to stop. A short time later, a deputy with the Shawnee County Sheriff’s Office observed the vehicle at SW 21st Street and SW Washburn Avenue. A short pursuit was initiated and quickly ended in the 1700 block of SW Quincy Street when the vehicle struck a residential fence. After Taylor exited the vehicle he resisted arrest and a deputy was forced to administer oleoresin capsicum, a pepper spray. Deputies recovered a loaded firearm from the scene, according to Anderson.Deputies transported Taylor to the Shawnee County Department of Corrections after being medically cleared at the scene. He was booked on requested charges of&nbsp; felony flee or attempt to elude, criminal damage to property, transporting an open container and several traffic related charges as well as separate charges through the Topeka Police Department.

Kan. deputy uses pepper spray to arrest suspect following chase

WASHINGTON (AP) — A wary Supreme Court on has weighed whether public schools can discipline students for things they say off campus, worrying about overly restricting speech on the one hand and leaving educators powerless to deal with bullying on the other.

The justices, hearing arguments in the case of a 14-year-old high school freshman’s Snapchat F-bombs, struggled to fit the need to protect students’ political and religious expression with the ability of schools to get at disruptive, even potentially dangerous, speech that occurs outside the school setting.

In one of many examples members of the court offered, Justice Elena Kagan described boys who keep a sexually charged online ranking of girls based on their looks. “You can’t put people in jail for commenting on people’s appearance, but shouldn’t a school be able to deal with it?” Kagan asked.

The court tested out possible outcomes in the case of the student’s profanity-laced social media rant , which Justice Brett Kavanaugh described as her blowing off steam just like “millions of kids” do.

Kavanaugh is one of several justices who have children in high school, or recently did. The court heard just under two hours of arguments by telephone because of the coronavirus pandemic, well beyond the allotted 60 minutes.

The current dispute stems from Tinker v. Des Moines, the Vietnam-era case of a high school in Des Moines, Iowa, that suspended students who wore armbands to protest the war. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the students, declaring students don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

The court also held then that schools retained the authority to restrict speech that would disrupt the school environment.

At the center of this case is Brandi Levy of Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania.

Levy and a friend were at a convenience store when she used Snapchat to express her frustration at being kept on her high school’s junior varsity cheerleading squad for another year.

“F——— school f——— softball f——— cheer f——— everything,” Levy wrote, in a post that also contained a photo in which she and a classmate raised their middle fingers. A second post questioned how an incoming freshman could have made the varsity.

The posts were brought to the attention of the team’s coaches, who suspended Levy from the cheerleading team for a year. Levy’s parents responded with a federal lawsuit, claiming the suspension violated their daughter’s constitutional rights to free speech.

The case’s potential importance grew when the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia also sided with Levy and held that schools can’t impose discipline for what students say when they’re off campus.

American Civil Liberties Union lawyer David Cole, representing Levy, urged the justices to affirm the clean line the appeals court drew, making clear educators have no authority over children when they are not under a school’s supervision, .

“Expanding Tinker would transform a limited exception into a 24/7 rule,” Cole said.

But several justices said the campus border is not so clear in the age of the internet and the remote learning that has come with the pandemic.

“How does that fit with modern technology?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked.

The school district and the Biden administration both argued that the justices should reject the appellate ruling because it draws an artificial line.

Suspending Levy from cheerleading was a reasonable response because she targeted her coaches and a teammate’s ability to compete, said Lisa Blatt, representing the district.

Levy is “not somebody you’d want at the bottom of the pyramid,” Blatt said, referring to a cheerleading formation.

But if the court didn’t appear ready to embrace Levy’s argument, some justices also were concerned that a ruling for the district could give schools too much power to shut down speech they just don’t like.

“Kids basically talk to their classmates. Most of their conversation is about school. Most of their exchanges have to do with their perceptions of the authoritarian nature of their teachers and others. And why isn’t this any different than just that the coach of this team took personal offense?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, noting that her law clerks told her that among teenagers “how much you curse is a badge of honor.”

Kavanaugh also said the coach maybe went too far by suspending Levy.

“But, as a judge and maybe as a coach and a parent, too, it seems like maybe a bit of overreaction by the coach,” Kavanaugh said.

By the end of the arguments, there was perhaps a sense among the justices that Levy’s case — a teenager venting her unhappiness about an extracurricular program — may not be the best one to use to write a sweeping rule about student speech in the digital age.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Fourteen-year-old Brandi Levy was having that kind of day where she just wanted to scream. So she did, in a profanity-laced posting on Snapchat that has, improbably, ended up before the Supreme Court in the most significant case on student speech in more than 50 years.

At issue is whether public schools can discipline students over something they say off-campus. The topic is especially meaningful in a time of remote learning because of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/coronavirus-pandemic">the coronavirus pandemic</a>&nbsp;and a rising awareness of the pernicious effects of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/f52ab056e47a4025ac8b10d67cca2949">online bullying</a>.

Arguments are on Wednesday,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/dc-wire-virus-outbreak-ap-top-news-courts-supreme-courts-19b82f029dcb760dc7f0c644472192fb">via telephone</a>&nbsp;because of the pandemic, before a court on which several justices have school-age children or recently did.

The case has its roots in the Vietnam-era case of a high school in Des Moines, Iowa, that suspended students who wore armbands to protest the war. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the students, declaring students don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Ever since, courts have wrestled with the contours of the decision in Tinker v. Des Moines in 1969.

Levy’s case has none of the lofty motives of Tinker and more than its share of teenage angst.

Levy and a friend were at a convenience store in her hometown of Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania, when she took to social media to express her frustration at being kept on her high school’s junior varsity cheerleading squad for another year.

“F——— school f——— softball f——— cheer f——— everything,” Levy wrote, in a post that also contained a photo in which she and a classmate raised their middle fingers.

The post was brought to the attention of the team’s coaches, who suspended Levy from the cheerleading team for a year.

Levy, now 18, is finishing her freshman year in college. “I was a 14-year-old kid. I was upset, I was angry. Everyone, every 14-year-old kid speaks like that at one point,” she said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Her parents knew nothing about the Snapchat post until she was suspended, she said. “My parents were more concerned on how I was feeling,” Levy said, adding she wasn’t grounded or otherwise punished for what she did.

Instead, her parents filed a federal lawsuit, claiming the suspension violated their daughter’s constitutional speech rights.

Lower courts agreed and restored her to the cheerleading team. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia held that “Tinker does not apply to off-campus speech.” The court said it was leaving for another day “the First Amendment implications of off-campus student speech that threatens violence or harasses others.”

But the school district, education groups, the Biden administration and anti-bullying organizations said in court filings that the appeals court went too far.

“The First Amendment does not categorically prohibit public schools from disciplining students for speech that occurs off campus,” acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote on behalf of the administration.

Philip Lee, a University of District of Columbia law professor who has written about regulation of cyberbullying, said it makes no sense to draw the line on policing students’ speech at the edge of campus.

“Most cyberbullying content is created off campus on computers, iPads, all kinds of electronic devices,” said Lee, who joined a legal brief with other education scholars that calls for a nuanced approach to regulating student speech in the Internet age.

“But at same time, you don’t want situation where schools are monitoring everyone’s speech at home,” he said.

The Mahanoy Area School District declined to comment on the case, its lawyer, Lisa Blatt, said.

But in her brief for the district, Blatt wrote, “This case is about how schools address the bad days.”

Schools should not be forced “to ignore speech that disrupts the school environment or invades other students’ rights just because students launched that speech from five feet outside the schoolhouse gate,” Blatt wrote.

The school’s approach would allow educators to police what students say round the clock, said Witold “Vic” Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Levy.

“And that is super dangerous. Not only would students like Brandi not be able to express non-threatening, non-harassing bursts of frustration, but it would give schools the possibility of regulating important political and religious speech,” Walczak said.

An unusual alliance of conservative and liberal interest groups has formed behind Levy, all pointing to the dangers of expanding school regulation of students speech.

The Alliance Defending Freedom and Christian Legal Society urged the court to affirm the appellate ruling because of “the perils of schools regulating off-campus speech. Religious speech, in particular, provokes debate and inflames passions.”

Mary Beth and John Tinker, the siblings at the center of the 1969 case, also are on Levy’s side. Their protest, updated for the digital age, would have included a social media component, perhaps a black armband digitally imposed on their school’s logo, they wrote in a high-court brief.

The outcome proposed by the school district would have left them subject to discipline, the Tinkers wrote.

Walczak, the ACLU lawyer, acknowledged that the “speech here is not the most important in the world. This isn’t political or religious speech.”

But Levy’s outburst has made her a potential successor to the Tinkers and their antiwar protest from the 1960s.

“I’m just trying to prove a point that young students and adults like me shouldn’t be punished for them expressing their own feelings and letting others know how they feel,” Levy said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/1/1578090484280.jpeg" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — A wary Supreme Court on has weighed whether public schools can discipline students for things they say off campus, worrying about overly restricting speech on the one hand and leaving educators powerless to deal with bullying on the other.The justices, hearing arguments in the case of a 14-year-old high school freshman’s Snapchat F-bombs, struggled to fit the need to protect students’ political and religious expression with the ability of schools to get at disruptive, even potentially dangerous, speech that occurs outside the school setting.In one of many examples members of the court offered, Justice Elena Kagan described boys who keep a sexually charged online ranking of girls based on their looks. “You can’t put people in jail for commenting on people’s appearance, but shouldn’t a school be able to deal with it?” Kagan asked.The court tested out possible outcomes in the case of the student’s profanity-laced social media rant , which Justice Brett Kavanaugh described as her blowing off steam just like “millions of kids” do.Kavanaugh is one of several justices who have children in high school, or recently did. The court heard just under two hours of arguments by telephone because of the coronavirus pandemic, well beyond the allotted 60 minutes.The current dispute stems from Tinker v. Des Moines, the Vietnam-era case of a high school in Des Moines, Iowa, that suspended students who wore armbands to protest the war. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the students, declaring students don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”The court also held then that schools retained the authority to restrict speech that would disrupt the school environment.At the center of this case is Brandi Levy of Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania.Levy and a friend were at a convenience store when she used Snapchat to express her frustration at being kept on her high school’s junior varsity cheerleading squad for another year.“F——— school f——— softball f——— cheer f——— everything,” Levy wrote, in a post that also contained a photo in which she and a classmate raised their middle fingers. A second post questioned how an incoming freshman could have made the varsity.The posts were brought to the attention of the team’s coaches, who suspended Levy from the cheerleading team for a year. Levy’s parents responded with a federal lawsuit, claiming the suspension violated their daughter’s constitutional rights to free speech.The case’s potential importance grew when the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia also sided with Levy and held that schools can’t impose discipline for what students say when they’re off campus.American Civil Liberties Union lawyer David Cole, representing Levy, urged the justices to affirm the clean line the appeals court drew, making clear educators have no authority over children when they are not under a school’s supervision, .“Expanding Tinker would transform a limited exception into a 24/7 rule,” Cole said.But several justices said the campus border is not so clear in the age of the internet and the remote learning that has come with the pandemic.“How does that fit with modern technology?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked.The school district and the Biden administration both argued that the justices should reject the appellate ruling because it draws an artificial line.Suspending Levy from cheerleading was a reasonable response because she targeted her coaches and a teammate’s ability to compete, said Lisa Blatt, representing the district.Levy is “not somebody you’d want at the bottom of the pyramid,” Blatt said, referring to a cheerleading formation.But if the court didn’t appear ready to embrace Levy’s argument, some justices also were concerned that a ruling for the district could give schools too much power to shut down speech they just don’t like.“Kids basically talk to their classmates. Most of their conversation is about school. Most of their exchanges have to do with their perceptions of the authoritarian nature of their teachers and others. And why isn’t this any different than just that the coach of this team took personal offense?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, noting that her law clerks told her that among teenagers “how much you curse is a badge of honor.”Kavanaugh also said the coach maybe went too far by suspending Levy.“But, as a judge and maybe as a coach and a parent, too, it seems like maybe a bit of overreaction by the coach,” Kavanaugh said.By the end of the arguments, there was perhaps a sense among the justices that Levy’s case — a teenager venting her unhappiness about an extracurricular program — may not be the best one to use to write a sweeping rule about student speech in the digital age.A decision is expected by late June.-----------WASHINGTON (AP) — Fourteen-year-old Brandi Levy was having that kind of day where she just wanted to scream. So she did, in a profanity-laced posting on Snapchat that has, improbably, ended up before the Supreme Court in the most significant case on student speech in more than 50 years.At issue is whether public schools can discipline students over something they say off-campus. The topic is especially meaningful in a time of remote learning because of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/coronavirus-pandemic">the coronavirus pandemic</a>&nbsp;and a rising awareness of the pernicious effects of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/f52ab056e47a4025ac8b10d67cca2949">online bullying</a>.Arguments are on Wednesday,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/dc-wire-virus-outbreak-ap-top-news-courts-supreme-courts-19b82f029dcb760dc7f0c644472192fb">via telephone</a>&nbsp;because of the pandemic, before a court on which several justices have school-age children or recently did.The case has its roots in the Vietnam-era case of a high school in Des Moines, Iowa, that suspended students who wore armbands to protest the war. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the students, declaring students don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”Ever since, courts have wrestled with the contours of the decision in Tinker v. Des Moines in 1969.Levy’s case has none of the lofty motives of Tinker and more than its share of teenage angst.Levy and a friend were at a convenience store in her hometown of Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania, when she took to social media to express her frustration at being kept on her high school’s junior varsity cheerleading squad for another year.“F——— school f——— softball f——— cheer f——— everything,” Levy wrote, in a post that also contained a photo in which she and a classmate raised their middle fingers.The post was brought to the attention of the team’s coaches, who suspended Levy from the cheerleading team for a year.Levy, now 18, is finishing her freshman year in college. “I was a 14-year-old kid. I was upset, I was angry. Everyone, every 14-year-old kid speaks like that at one point,” she said in an interview with The Associated Press.Her parents knew nothing about the Snapchat post until she was suspended, she said. “My parents were more concerned on how I was feeling,” Levy said, adding she wasn’t grounded or otherwise punished for what she did.Instead, her parents filed a federal lawsuit, claiming the suspension violated their daughter’s constitutional speech rights.Lower courts agreed and restored her to the cheerleading team. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia held that “Tinker does not apply to off-campus speech.” The court said it was leaving for another day “the First Amendment implications of off-campus student speech that threatens violence or harasses others.”But the school district, education groups, the Biden administration and anti-bullying organizations said in court filings that the appeals court went too far.“The First Amendment does not categorically prohibit public schools from disciplining students for speech that occurs off campus,” acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote on behalf of the administration.Philip Lee, a University of District of Columbia law professor who has written about regulation of cyberbullying, said it makes no sense to draw the line on policing students’ speech at the edge of campus.“Most cyberbullying content is created off campus on computers, iPads, all kinds of electronic devices,” said Lee, who joined a legal brief with other education scholars that calls for a nuanced approach to regulating student speech in the Internet age.“But at same time, you don’t want situation where schools are monitoring everyone’s speech at home,” he said.The Mahanoy Area School District declined to comment on the case, its lawyer, Lisa Blatt, said.But in her brief for the district, Blatt wrote, “This case is about how schools address the bad days.”Schools should not be forced “to ignore speech that disrupts the school environment or invades other students’ rights just because students launched that speech from five feet outside the schoolhouse gate,” Blatt wrote.The school’s approach would allow educators to police what students say round the clock, said Witold “Vic” Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Levy.“And that is super dangerous. Not only would students like Brandi not be able to express non-threatening, non-harassing bursts of frustration, but it would give schools the possibility of regulating important political and religious speech,” Walczak said.An unusual alliance of conservative and liberal interest groups has formed behind Levy, all pointing to the dangers of expanding school regulation of students speech.The Alliance Defending Freedom and Christian Legal Society urged the court to affirm the appellate ruling because of “the perils of schools regulating off-campus speech. Religious speech, in particular, provokes debate and inflames passions.”Mary Beth and John Tinker, the siblings at the center of the 1969 case, also are on Levy’s side. Their protest, updated for the digital age, would have included a social media component, perhaps a black armband digitally imposed on their school’s logo, they wrote in a high-court brief.The outcome proposed by the school district would have left them subject to discipline, the Tinkers wrote.Walczak, the ACLU lawyer, acknowledged that the “speech here is not the most important in the world. This isn’t political or religious speech.”But Levy’s outburst has made her a potential successor to the Tinkers and their antiwar protest from the 1960s.“I’m just trying to prove a point that young students and adults like me shouldn’t be punished for them expressing their own feelings and letting others know how they feel,” Levy said.

Supreme Court to decide student's Snapchat profanity case

Supply, demand imbalance means ‘overall market right now is crazy’

By TIM CARPENTER <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2021/04/30/kansas-housing-crisis-squashing-opportunity-for-lower-income-homebuyers/">Kansas Reflector</a>

TOPEKA — The entry point 
of $300,000 to $400,000 for a new house in Johnson County creates 
unyielding bottlenecks in the housing market for families looking to 
buy.

Demand for housing in the 
state’s most populous county has become intense enough $200,000 
properties have been bulldozed and replaced by houses valued at four or 
five times that amount.

To the north in Wyandotte 
County, hundreds of thousands of dollars in monthly housing vouchers go 
unclaimed because too few landlords participate in the program. 
Fixed-income elderly residents struggle to afford a place where they can
 age in place. And, as is the case elsewhere, there is anxiety about 
what happens to people when the COVID-19 moratorium on foreclosures and 
evictions in Kansas expires at the end of May.

These snapshot insights into housing issues in Wyandotte and Johnson counties were part of an <a href="https://governor.kansas.gov/governor-kelly-announces-first-statewide-housing-needs-assessment-in-27-years/#:~:text=Governor%20Kelly%20Announces%20First%20Statewide%20Housing%20Needs%20Assessment%20in%2027%20Years,-Dec%2028%2C%202020&amp;text=TOPEKA%E2%80%94Governor%20Laura%20Kelly%20today,assessment%20in%20nearly%2030%20years.">ongoing survey by the Kansas Housing Resources Corporation and the state’s Office of Rural Prosperity</a>,
 which are managing the first statewide housing need assessment in three
 decades with help from the consulting firm RDG Planning &amp; Design of
 Omaha, Nebraska.

Alissa Ice, director of 
housing development at KHRC, participated in the recent two-county town 
hall and boiled down sentiment of those in attendance to four words.

“We need more housing,” 
she said. “You cannot build a house in Johnson County for less than 
$300,000. That logjams current owners that can’t move from $200,000 to 
the next step up because there isn’t housing in the $275,000 range that 
would free up entry-level housing.”

Listening sessions to 
gather information on the status and future of housing in Kansas are 
scheduled for Dodge City on May 4, Sedgwick County on May 13, Manhattan 
on May 18 and Shawnee and Douglas counties on May 19. Public forums 
during April were conducted in Newton, Iola, Salina as well as Wyandotte
 and Johnson counties. An alternative to joining one of the meetings is 
to complete online the <a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001r8ysZtJtac9R7AYctS9kgPBfYSag88yDse_S9pcgNHXzRqfsrZzQyHam8R6A03Q7cx9gyMMNeM77AxFpnGHa_PliKkuIc2hOEOnBfEfYCN_LfVJ-xA7L4gg5au6ZDF52Xxd-ESalPTISeVn2zW1jHKlwEmCdGViCPLZXm2sjyks=&amp;c=q6UvpiKp-r7fnBqsnkDzH9YqxR53luUBykk9GZkGfPaikaCVGAHtPw==&amp;ch=9o8NHlxe5n4_R4_LM_hp-50beSbsaKRl0vr5r83khMwzrbH9AFmODA==" target="_blank">Kansas Statewide&nbsp;Housing Needs Assessment survey.</a>

When launching the study 
several months ago, Gov. Laura Kelly said the lack of affordable, 
quality housing was also a barrier to growth and development in rural 
communities. The quest is to figure out how to improve quality of life 
for Kansans regardless of zip code, she said.

The objective of the 
project is to assess housing opportunities, identify strategic goals and
 develop recommendations by December, said Ryan Vincent, executive 
director at KHRC. In the past, a shortage of comprehensive housing data 
limited the state’s ability to craft a precise path forward on providing
 affordable housing.

“It’s so important that we
 understand what your needs are so we can allocate resources,” he told 
participants in Johnson and Wyandotte counties. “The overall market 
right now is crazy.”

State Rep. Pam Curtis, a 
Democrat from Kansas City, Kansas, said she came away from the same 
meeting with appreciation for how some real-estate corporations were 
rapidly buying houses and renting them out. Corporate ownership has the 
potential of subjecting tenants to higher living costs, but also could 
inhibit the ability of local residents to buy homes.

“There are fewer 
individual mom-and-pop owners of rental property,” Curtis said. “There 
is more and more property owned by corporations. They are just so much 
less flexible and willing to rent, especially to high-risk renters.”

Emily Sharp, who also 
works with the KHRC, summarized insights of a small-group discussion by 
pointing to lack of options for people unable to take on a massive 
mortgage, especially the elderly who want to avoid living in a nursing 
facility.

She said there was a 
housing gap between people with incomes low enough to qualify for 
subsidized housing and the people of modest income who didn’t.

“We’re seeing a lot of 
that kind of missing middle where there’s not a lot of options for folks
 who aren’t served by affordable housing programs,” she said.

Westwood Mayor Paula 
Schwach said there was a lack of housing for people with disabilities 
and individuals who use wheelchairs. The majority of housing constructed
 in Johnson County tended to be in the luxury category priced as a level
 fewer and fewer people could afford. There is a swath of Kansans who 
don’t have credit scores necessary for a mortgage, she said.

“We need to help to 
establish quality credit, especially veterans who are leaving the 
service and coming back to civilian life,” Schwach said.

Matt Watkins, chairman of 
the Greater Kansas City Coalition to End Homelessness and the Kansas 
City, Kansas Housing Authority Board, said about $800,000 in housing 
vouchers were given away each month. If another 400 landlords 
participated in the program, he said, the amount of monthly vouchers 
could be expanded by $200,000. He said: “We’re leaving money on the 
table.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/4/1619806653417.png" alt="Kansas' first comprehensive study of housing issues in nearly 30 years includes community-input meetings May 4 in Dodge City, May 13 in Sedgwick County, May 18 in Manhattan and May 19 in Shawnee and Douglas counties. (Screen capture/Kansas Reflector)" />
 <figcaption>Kansas' first comprehensive study of housing issues in nearly 30 years includes community-input meetings May 4 in Dodge City, May 13 in Sedgwick County, May 18 in Manhattan and May 19 in Shawnee and Douglas counties. (Screen capture/Kansas Reflector)</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Supply, demand imbalance means ‘overall market right now is crazy’</h2>By TIM CARPENTER <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2021/04/30/kansas-housing-crisis-squashing-opportunity-for-lower-income-homebuyers/">Kansas Reflector</a>TOPEKA — The entry point 
of $300,000 to $400,000 for a new house in Johnson County creates 
unyielding bottlenecks in the housing market for families looking to 
buy.Demand for housing in the 
state’s most populous county has become intense enough $200,000 
properties have been bulldozed and replaced by houses valued at four or 
five times that amount.To the north in Wyandotte 
County, hundreds of thousands of dollars in monthly housing vouchers go 
unclaimed because too few landlords participate in the program. 
Fixed-income elderly residents struggle to afford a place where they can
 age in place. And, as is the case elsewhere, there is anxiety about 
what happens to people when the COVID-19 moratorium on foreclosures and 
evictions in Kansas expires at the end of May.These snapshot insights into housing issues in Wyandotte and Johnson counties were part of an <a href="https://governor.kansas.gov/governor-kelly-announces-first-statewide-housing-needs-assessment-in-27-years/#:~:text=Governor%20Kelly%20Announces%20First%20Statewide%20Housing%20Needs%20Assessment%20in%2027%20Years,-Dec%2028%2C%202020&amp;text=TOPEKA%E2%80%94Governor%20Laura%20Kelly%20today,assessment%20in%20nearly%2030%20years.">ongoing survey by the Kansas Housing Resources Corporation and the state’s Office of Rural Prosperity</a>,
 which are managing the first statewide housing need assessment in three
 decades with help from the consulting firm RDG Planning &amp; Design of
 Omaha, Nebraska.Alissa Ice, director of 
housing development at KHRC, participated in the recent two-county town 
hall and boiled down sentiment of those in attendance to four words.“We need more housing,” 
she said. “You cannot build a house in Johnson County for less than 
$300,000. That logjams current owners that can’t move from $200,000 to 
the next step up because there isn’t housing in the $275,000 range that 
would free up entry-level housing.”Listening sessions to 
gather information on the status and future of housing in Kansas are 
scheduled for Dodge City on May 4, Sedgwick County on May 13, Manhattan 
on May 18 and Shawnee and Douglas counties on May 19. Public forums 
during April were conducted in Newton, Iola, Salina as well as Wyandotte
 and Johnson counties. An alternative to joining one of the meetings is 
to complete online the <a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001r8ysZtJtac9R7AYctS9kgPBfYSag88yDse_S9pcgNHXzRqfsrZzQyHam8R6A03Q7cx9gyMMNeM77AxFpnGHa_PliKkuIc2hOEOnBfEfYCN_LfVJ-xA7L4gg5au6ZDF52Xxd-ESalPTISeVn2zW1jHKlwEmCdGViCPLZXm2sjyks=&amp;c=q6UvpiKp-r7fnBqsnkDzH9YqxR53luUBykk9GZkGfPaikaCVGAHtPw==&amp;ch=9o8NHlxe5n4_R4_LM_hp-50beSbsaKRl0vr5r83khMwzrbH9AFmODA==" target="_blank">Kansas Statewide&nbsp;Housing Needs Assessment survey.</a>When launching the study 
several months ago, Gov. Laura Kelly said the lack of affordable, 
quality housing was also a barrier to growth and development in rural 
communities. The quest is to figure out how to improve quality of life 
for Kansans regardless of zip code, she said.The objective of the 
project is to assess housing opportunities, identify strategic goals and
 develop recommendations by December, said Ryan Vincent, executive 
director at KHRC. In the past, a shortage of comprehensive housing data 
limited the state’s ability to craft a precise path forward on providing
 affordable housing.“It’s so important that we
 understand what your needs are so we can allocate resources,” he told 
participants in Johnson and Wyandotte counties. “The overall market 
right now is crazy.”State Rep. Pam Curtis, a 
Democrat from Kansas City, Kansas, said she came away from the same 
meeting with appreciation for how some real-estate corporations were 
rapidly buying houses and renting them out. Corporate ownership has the 
potential of subjecting tenants to higher living costs, but also could 
inhibit the ability of local residents to buy homes.“There are fewer 
individual mom-and-pop owners of rental property,” Curtis said. “There 
is more and more property owned by corporations. They are just so much 
less flexible and willing to rent, especially to high-risk renters.”Emily Sharp, who also 
works with the KHRC, summarized insights of a small-group discussion by 
pointing to lack of options for people unable to take on a massive 
mortgage, especially the elderly who want to avoid living in a nursing 
facility.She said there was a 
housing gap between people with incomes low enough to qualify for 
subsidized housing and the people of modest income who didn’t.“We’re seeing a lot of 
that kind of missing middle where there’s not a lot of options for folks
 who aren’t served by affordable housing programs,” she said.Westwood Mayor Paula 
Schwach said there was a lack of housing for people with disabilities 
and individuals who use wheelchairs. The majority of housing constructed
 in Johnson County tended to be in the luxury category priced as a level
 fewer and fewer people could afford. There is a swath of Kansans who 
don’t have credit scores necessary for a mortgage, she said.“We need to help to 
establish quality credit, especially veterans who are leaving the 
service and coming back to civilian life,” Schwach said.Matt Watkins, chairman of 
the Greater Kansas City Coalition to End Homelessness and the Kansas 
City, Kansas Housing Authority Board, said about $800,000 in housing 
vouchers were given away each month. If another 400 landlords 
participated in the program, he said, the amount of monthly vouchers 
could be expanded by $200,000. He said: “We’re leaving money on the 
table.”

Kan. housing crisis squashing opportunity for lower-income homebuyers

By CELIA LLOPIS-JEPSEN <a href="https://www.kcur.org/news/2021-04-29/kansas-suggested-schools-use-chemical-foggers-to-fight-covid-but-heres-why-they-shouldnt">Kansas News Service</a>

State officials told Kansas schools they could fill the air with chemical mist to fight COVID-19 in classrooms.

The suggested gadgets coat doorknobs, tables and other surfaces with disinfectant.

But when the Kansas News Service showed the <a href="https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/fe/06/e059e3d9494f9014820b6cd85774/fogger-guidance.pdf" target="_blank">state guidance</a>
 on electrostatic sprayers and foggers to scientists, one called it 
“surprising and disappointing.” Another classified it as “a huge error.”

The foggers and sprayers could actually make the air unhealthier, experts warned, without making people safer from COVID-19.

“It’s very unfortunate,” said <a href="https://twitter.com/jljcolorado?lang=en" target="_blank">Jose-Luis Jimenez</a>, an expert in air chemistry and disease transmission at the University of Colorado Boulder.

The
 state’s recommendation reflects, in part, lingering public confusion 
over how COVID-19 spreads, and reluctance at the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention to back off of the idea that germs on surfaces 
fuel the pandemic.

The CDC recently acknowledged that surfaces appear to pose <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/science-and-research/surface-transmission.html" target="_blank">little risk</a> compared to air. catching up to scientists who have argued that for many months.

That undercuts the already questionable case for using electrostatic sprayers and foggers in classrooms.

“The science is clear,” said <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/joseph-allen/" target="_blank">Joseph Allen</a>, a professor at Harvard University’s School of Public Health.

“The idea that you have to cover every surface in the room with a disinfectant every day doesn’t make sense,” he said.

The
 Kansas News Service took scientists’ concerns to the state education 
and health departments, both of which worked on the school guidance. A 
Kansas Department of Health and Environment spokeswoman said the advice 
on sprayers and foggers is outdated and not recommended.

An 
education department spokeswoman said the state commissioner would 
confirm the matter with health officials. He could then recommend that 
the State Board of Education make changes to the part of its 1,200-page <a href="https://www.ksde.org/Teaching-Learning/Resources/Navigating-Change-Kansas-Guide-to-Learning-and-School-Safety-Operations" target="_blank">pandemic guidelines</a> that discusses the disinfectants.

When
 the pandemic hit last year, panic over germy surfaces opened new 
markets for sellers of foggers, sprayers and (more below) electronic air
 cleaners.

School leaders bombarded experts like professor Jimenez
 with emails asking for help making sense of the parade of ads they 
received.

Manufacturers contacted Jimenez, too, seeking his 
blessing. He would ask to see details that verified the safety of their 
products, and especially the chemical side effects.

“Most people don’t write again,” he said. “Some people proceed to insult me.”

Electrostatic
 foggers and sprayers add a static charge to droplets of disinfectant to
 help the chemicals stick better to surfaces. The idea is to clean 
everything from walls and desks to nooks and crannies on a keyboard.

The chemical content varies, but chemistry professor <a href="https://sites.google.com/bucknell.edu/collins/professor-collins?authuser=0" target="_blank">Douglas Collins</a>
 of Bucknell University wouldn’t want to breathe it. Collins says 
studies of the content focus on short-term health effects, not long-term
 toll.

“Even if you’re emitting a small amount,” he said, “the 
cumulative exposure can be large because … teachers and students are in 
the building for six hours a day, every day, five days a week.”

Schools
 could avoid the respiratory risk by using the devices properly, he 
said, such as spraying overnight and letting hours pass before anyone 
enters the building again. But he offers two caveats.

First, 
trained professionals should operate them. Second, schools would do 
better to spend their time and money on methods that combat COVID’s 
spread through the air.

Experts agree that schools should stick to their normal cleaning practices, such as wiping tabletops by hand.

They should teach proper hand washing and use of hand sanitizers, too.

That’s enough to curb surface transmission of COVID-19, and helps with other communicable diseases, too.

So how to tackle <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00869-2/fulltext?dgcid=raven_jbs_etoc_email#coronavirus-linkback-header" target="_blank">the bigger risk</a> of catching COVID-19 from particles in the air?

Buy good air filters and bring in more fresh air from outdoors.

Those
 measures can also help against asthma attacks and chronic conditions, 
stop other airborne germs, and make people feel better and learn better 
at school.

Congress sent billions of dollars in <a href="https://www.chalkbeat.org/2021/3/10/22323283/congress-biden-stimulus-money-education-schools" target="_blank">stimulus funds to schools</a>
 during the pandemic, which Allen calls a “once-in-a-generation 
opportunity” to improve air quality after decades of underinvestment in 
what schoolkids breathe.

But he and other scientists fear 
companies selling fancy-sounding but unproven devices will cost 
communities their chance to make common sense improvements that would 
help children for many decades to come.

“We’re going to end up somehow with … worse air quality,” said building scientist<a href="https://twitter.com/marwa_zaatari" target="_blank"> Marwa Zaatari</a>, a board member for the U.S. Green Building Council. “And no one seems to sort of grasp the extent of the problem.”

Schools
 in Kansas and elsewhere ponied up for electronic air cleaners that 
claim to defeat the virus with chemistry, but that Zaatari said may do 
little more than generate <a href="https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-are-ionizers-and-other-ozone-generating-air-cleaners" target="_blank">ozone</a>, <a href="https://www.concordia.ca/cunews/main/releases/2015/07/15/researchers-find-dangerous-byproducts-in-pco-system-filters.html" target="_blank">formaldehyde</a>, <a href="https://medium.com/open-letter-to-address-the-use-of-electronic-air/no-to-ionizers-plasma-uvpco-bc1570b2fb9b" target="_blank">ultrafine particles</a> or other substances that cause cancer or other conditions.

“I call it the art of selling nothing,” Zaatari said. “They do nothing.”

Electronic air cleaners go by <a href="https://twitter.com/marwa_zaatari/status/1359285594363473923?s=20" target="_blank">a long list of names</a>,
 such as bipolar ionizers. Government agencies never recommended the 
devices, but neither did they stop schools from buying them.

Zaatari and Lawrence-based building scientist Marcel Harmon cowrote <a href="https://medium.com/open-letter-to-address-the-use-of-electronic-air/no-to-ionizers-plasma-uvpco-bc1570b2fb9b" target="_blank">an open letter</a> cautioning against the devices. Other prominent researchers signed on.

Zaatari also <a href="https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/parents-unite" target="_blank">raised funds</a>
 to have the Illinois Institute of Technology start testing the devices,
 which make dramatic and unproven claims about eliminating nearly 100% 
of COVID-19 virus from the air through chemical reactions with no health
 risks.

Scientists at Harvard recommend the air in a classroom should change out fully about <a href="https://schools.forhealth.org/risk-reduction-strategies-for-reopening-schools/healthy-buildings/" target="_blank">four to six times</a> every hour.

That means replacing it with outdoor air, properly filtered indoor air, or a combination of the two.

Most schools likely don’t hit that target, <a href="https://www.kcur.org/news/2021-03-11/kansas-schools-can-fight-covid-19-with-fresh-air-but-its-unclear-how-many-even-track-ventilation" target="_blank">or have any clue</a> how close they are. Harvard offers <a href="https://schools.forhealth.org/ventilation-guide/" target="_blank">a five-step guide</a> to help them measure ventilation.

Then they can supplement it by installing high-quality filters, such as <a href="https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-merv-rating-1" target="_blank">MERV-13s</a>, in their heating and cooling systems, or placing portable <a href="https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-hepa-filter-1" target="_blank">HEPA filter</a> units in classrooms.

Allen calls those the “tried and true” approaches. They’re backed by solid science.

With
 those, even schools hamstrung by less-than-ideal built-in ventilation 
systems and windows that don’t open can hit the target of changing their
 air several times an hour.

“There’s always something you can do,” he said.

Celia
 Llopis-Jepsen reports on consumer health for the Kansas News Service. 
You can follow her on Twitter @celia_LJ or email her at celia@kcur.org.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/4/1619793529013.png" alt="Celia Llopis-Jepsen / Kansas News Service" />
 <figcaption>Celia Llopis-Jepsen / Kansas News Service</figcaption>
 </figure>By CELIA LLOPIS-JEPSEN <a href="https://www.kcur.org/news/2021-04-29/kansas-suggested-schools-use-chemical-foggers-to-fight-covid-but-heres-why-they-shouldnt">Kansas News Service</a>State officials told Kansas schools they could fill the air with chemical mist to fight COVID-19 in classrooms.The suggested gadgets coat doorknobs, tables and other surfaces with disinfectant.But when the Kansas News Service showed the <a href="https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/fe/06/e059e3d9494f9014820b6cd85774/fogger-guidance.pdf" target="_blank">state guidance</a>
 on electrostatic sprayers and foggers to scientists, one called it 
“surprising and disappointing.” Another classified it as “a huge error.”The foggers and sprayers could actually make the air unhealthier, experts warned, without making people safer from COVID-19.“It’s very unfortunate,” said <a href="https://twitter.com/jljcolorado?lang=en" target="_blank">Jose-Luis Jimenez</a>, an expert in air chemistry and disease transmission at the University of Colorado Boulder.The
 state’s recommendation reflects, in part, lingering public confusion 
over how COVID-19 spreads, and reluctance at the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention to back off of the idea that germs on surfaces 
fuel the pandemic.The CDC recently acknowledged that surfaces appear to pose <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/science-and-research/surface-transmission.html" target="_blank">little risk</a> compared to air. catching up to scientists who have argued that for many months.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">1/ TEN SCIENTIFIC REASONS IN SUPPORT OF AIRBORNE TRANSMISSION OF SARS-CoV-2 Peer-reviewed publication in <a href="https://twitter.com/TheLancet?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TheLancet</a> An honor to have collaborated in multidisciplinary team across medicine, infectious diseases, epidemiology, aerosol science, sociology <a href="https://t.co/93NL6GhAPm">https://t.co/93NL6GhAPm</a>&mdash; Jose-Luis Jimenez (@jljcolorado) <a href="https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1383566908797059078?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 17, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </div>That undercuts the already questionable case for using electrostatic sprayers and foggers in classrooms.“The science is clear,” said <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/joseph-allen/" target="_blank">Joseph Allen</a>, a professor at Harvard University’s School of Public Health.“The idea that you have to cover every surface in the room with a disinfectant every day doesn’t make sense,” he said.The
 Kansas News Service took scientists’ concerns to the state education 
and health departments, both of which worked on the school guidance. A 
Kansas Department of Health and Environment spokeswoman said the advice 
on sprayers and foggers is outdated and not recommended.An 
education department spokeswoman said the state commissioner would 
confirm the matter with health officials. He could then recommend that 
the State Board of Education make changes to the part of its 1,200-page <a href="https://www.ksde.org/Teaching-Learning/Resources/Navigating-Change-Kansas-Guide-to-Learning-and-School-Safety-Operations" target="_blank">pandemic guidelines</a> that discusses the disinfectants.<h2>Trying to stay safe</h2>When
 the pandemic hit last year, panic over germy surfaces opened new 
markets for sellers of foggers, sprayers and (more below) electronic air
 cleaners.School leaders bombarded experts like professor Jimenez
 with emails asking for help making sense of the parade of ads they 
received.Manufacturers contacted Jimenez, too, seeking his 
blessing. He would ask to see details that verified the safety of their 
products, and especially the chemical side effects.“Most people don’t write again,” he said. “Some people proceed to insult me.”Electrostatic
 foggers and sprayers add a static charge to droplets of disinfectant to
 help the chemicals stick better to surfaces. The idea is to clean 
everything from walls and desks to nooks and crannies on a keyboard.The chemical content varies, but chemistry professor <a href="https://sites.google.com/bucknell.edu/collins/professor-collins?authuser=0" target="_blank">Douglas Collins</a>
 of Bucknell University wouldn’t want to breathe it. Collins says 
studies of the content focus on short-term health effects, not long-term
 toll.“Even if you’re emitting a small amount,” he said, “the 
cumulative exposure can be large because … teachers and students are in 
the building for six hours a day, every day, five days a week.”Schools
 could avoid the respiratory risk by using the devices properly, he 
said, such as spraying overnight and letting hours pass before anyone 
enters the building again. But he offers two caveats.First, 
trained professionals should operate them. Second, schools would do 
better to spend their time and money on methods that combat COVID’s 
spread through the air.<h2>Lost opportunity?</h2>Experts agree that schools should stick to their normal cleaning practices, such as wiping tabletops by hand.They should teach proper hand washing and use of hand sanitizers, too.That’s enough to curb surface transmission of COVID-19, and helps with other communicable diseases, too.So how to tackle <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00869-2/fulltext?dgcid=raven_jbs_etoc_email#coronavirus-linkback-header" target="_blank">the bigger risk</a> of catching COVID-19 from particles in the air?Buy good air filters and bring in more fresh air from outdoors.Those
 measures can also help against asthma attacks and chronic conditions, 
stop other airborne germs, and make people feel better and learn better 
at school.Congress sent billions of dollars in <a href="https://www.chalkbeat.org/2021/3/10/22323283/congress-biden-stimulus-money-education-schools" target="_blank">stimulus funds to schools</a>
 during the pandemic, which Allen calls a “once-in-a-generation 
opportunity” to improve air quality after decades of underinvestment in 
what schoolkids breathe.But he and other scientists fear 
companies selling fancy-sounding but unproven devices will cost 
communities their chance to make common sense improvements that would 
help children for many decades to come.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Check here for a Step-by-Step guidance how to choose an ionizer or a UV+catalyst device. Follow these simple 3 steps for proper selection! <a href="https://t.co/uPY3X4CVSI">pic.twitter.com/uPY3X4CVSI</a>&mdash; Marwa Zaatari (@marwa_zaatari) <a href="https://twitter.com/marwa_zaatari/status/1372135326802665478?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 17, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </div>“We’re going to end up somehow with … worse air quality,” said building scientist<a href="https://twitter.com/marwa_zaatari" target="_blank"> Marwa Zaatari</a>, a board member for the U.S. Green Building Council. “And no one seems to sort of grasp the extent of the problem.”Schools
 in Kansas and elsewhere ponied up for electronic air cleaners that 
claim to defeat the virus with chemistry, but that Zaatari said may do 
little more than generate <a href="https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-are-ionizers-and-other-ozone-generating-air-cleaners" target="_blank">ozone</a>, <a href="https://www.concordia.ca/cunews/main/releases/2015/07/15/researchers-find-dangerous-byproducts-in-pco-system-filters.html" target="_blank">formaldehyde</a>, <a href="https://medium.com/open-letter-to-address-the-use-of-electronic-air/no-to-ionizers-plasma-uvpco-bc1570b2fb9b" target="_blank">ultrafine particles</a> or other substances that cause cancer or other conditions.“I call it the art of selling nothing,” Zaatari said. “They do nothing.”Electronic air cleaners go by <a href="https://twitter.com/marwa_zaatari/status/1359285594363473923?s=20" target="_blank">a long list of names</a>,
 such as bipolar ionizers. Government agencies never recommended the 
devices, but neither did they stop schools from buying them.Zaatari and Lawrence-based building scientist Marcel Harmon cowrote <a href="https://medium.com/open-letter-to-address-the-use-of-electronic-air/no-to-ionizers-plasma-uvpco-bc1570b2fb9b" target="_blank">an open letter</a> cautioning against the devices. Other prominent researchers signed on.Zaatari also <a href="https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/parents-unite" target="_blank">raised funds</a>
 to have the Illinois Institute of Technology start testing the devices,
 which make dramatic and unproven claims about eliminating nearly 100% 
of COVID-19 virus from the air through chemical reactions with no health
 risks.<h2>Truly better air</h2>Scientists at Harvard recommend the air in a classroom should change out fully about <a href="https://schools.forhealth.org/risk-reduction-strategies-for-reopening-schools/healthy-buildings/" target="_blank">four to six times</a> every hour.That means replacing it with outdoor air, properly filtered indoor air, or a combination of the two.Most schools likely don’t hit that target, <a href="https://www.kcur.org/news/2021-03-11/kansas-schools-can-fight-covid-19-with-fresh-air-but-its-unclear-how-many-even-track-ventilation" target="_blank">or have any clue</a> how close they are. Harvard offers <a href="https://schools.forhealth.org/ventilation-guide/" target="_blank">a five-step guide</a> to help them measure ventilation.Then they can supplement it by installing high-quality filters, such as <a href="https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-merv-rating-1" target="_blank">MERV-13s</a>, in their heating and cooling systems, or placing portable <a href="https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-hepa-filter-1" target="_blank">HEPA filter</a> units in classrooms.Allen calls those the “tried and true” approaches. They’re backed by solid science.With
 those, even schools hamstrung by less-than-ideal built-in ventilation 
systems and windows that don’t open can hit the target of changing their
 air several times an hour.“There’s always something you can do,” he said.Celia
 Llopis-Jepsen reports on consumer health for the Kansas News Service. 
You can follow her on Twitter @celia_LJ or email her at celia@kcur.org.

The argument against using chemical foggers in schools to fight COVID

KANSAS CITY —The suspect wanted for the homicide of the teenage brothers killed on Friday night is dead after being shot by police, according to a report from the Missouri State Highway Patrol.

Just after 6p.m. Saturday, Kansas City Police&nbsp;located the homicide suspect&nbsp;25-year-old Hanad Abdiaziz of Kansas City near Missouri Avenue and Maple Blvd.

Officers attempted to make contact with him but he presented a short barreled rifle, according to the KCPD. An officer fired his service weapon, striking Abdiaziz.

Officers immediately performed life saving measures. EMS&nbsp; transported him to a local hospital where he was pronounced deceased.

KANSAS CITY — Two teens were found fatally shot outside their Kansas City apartment after leading a late night worship service during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan. Kansas City Police are asking the public for help to locate a suspect identified as 25-year-old Hanad A. Abdiaziz.&nbsp;

Capt. Dave Jackson, a police spokesman,&nbsp; said officers discovered the victim's bodies around 11:30 p.m. Friday while responding to a report of gunfire. The initial investigation indicates that a “domestic situation" led to the shooting.

The teen victims have been identified as 17-year-old Abdulwahid Abdulaziz and 15-year-0ld Abdirahman Abdulaziz, according to police.

Jackson said a large gathering of fellow worshipers who knew the family were “passionate and adamant that the victims were leading services and were really great kids.” He added that it was “a particularly sad scene.”

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas expressed outrage in a&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/QuintonLucasKC/status/1388401031474786305">tweet&nbsp;</a>Saturday, writing, “Our young people—and all people—should be safe coming back and forth from religious services."

Police said there is a $25,000 reward for information in the case.

KANSAS CITY (AP) — Two teens were found fatally shot outside their Kansas City apartment after leading a late night worship service during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan, authorities say.

Capt. Dave Jackson, a police spokesman, said in a news release that officers discovered their bodies around 11:30 p.m. Friday while responding to a report of gunfire. The release said the initial investigation indicates that a “domestic situation" led to the shooting.

The teens weren't immediately identified, and no suspect information was released.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/5/1619915415673.png" alt="Hanad A. Abdiaziz was wanted in connection with the death of two teens who were found fatally shot outside their Kansas City apartment after leading a late night worship service during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan. - photo Kansas City Police" />
 <figcaption>Hanad A. Abdiaziz was wanted in connection with the death of two teens who were found fatally shot outside their Kansas City apartment after leading a late night worship service during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan. - photo Kansas City Police</figcaption>
 </figure>KANSAS CITY —The suspect wanted for the homicide of the teenage brothers killed on Friday night is dead after being shot by police, according to a report from the Missouri State Highway Patrol.Just after 6p.m. Saturday, Kansas City Police&nbsp;located the homicide suspect&nbsp;25-year-old Hanad Abdiaziz of Kansas City near Missouri Avenue and Maple Blvd.Officers attempted to make contact with him but he presented a short barreled rifle, according to the KCPD. An officer fired his service weapon, striking Abdiaziz.Officers immediately performed life saving measures. EMS&nbsp; transported him to a local hospital where he was pronounced deceased.--------KANSAS CITY — Two teens were found fatally shot outside their Kansas City apartment after leading a late night worship service during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan. Kansas City Police are asking the public for help to locate a suspect identified as 25-year-old Hanad A. Abdiaziz.&nbsp;Capt. Dave Jackson, a police spokesman,&nbsp; said officers discovered the victim's bodies around 11:30 p.m. Friday while responding to a report of gunfire. The initial investigation indicates that a “domestic situation" led to the shooting.The teen victims have been identified as 17-year-old Abdulwahid Abdulaziz and 15-year-0ld Abdirahman Abdulaziz, according to police.Jackson said a large gathering of fellow worshipers who knew the family were “passionate and adamant that the victims were leading services and were really great kids.” He added that it was “a particularly sad scene.”Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas expressed outrage in a&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/QuintonLucasKC/status/1388401031474786305">tweet&nbsp;</a>Saturday, writing, “Our young people—and all people—should be safe coming back and forth from religious services."Police said there is a $25,000 reward for information in the case.-------KANSAS CITY (AP) — Two teens were found fatally shot outside their Kansas City apartment after leading a late night worship service during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan, authorities say.Capt. Dave Jackson, a police spokesman, said in a news release that officers discovered their bodies around 11:30 p.m. Friday while responding to a report of gunfire. The release said the initial investigation indicates that a “domestic situation" led to the shooting.The teens weren't immediately identified, and no suspect information was released.Jackson said a large gathering of fellow worshipers who knew the family were “passionate and adamant that the victims were leading services and were really great kids.” He added that it was “a particularly sad scene.”Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas expressed outrage in a&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/QuintonLucasKC/status/1388401031474786305">tweet&nbsp;</a>Saturday, writing, “Our young people—and all people—should be safe coming back and forth from religious services."Police said there is a $25,000 reward for information in the case.

Suspect in killing of 2 KC teens dead after pointing rifle at police 

When U.S. Catholic bishops hold their next national meeting in June, they’ll be deciding whether to send a tougher-than-ever message to President Joe Biden and other Catholic politicians: Don’t receive Communion if you persist in public advocacy of abortion rights.

At issue is a document that will be prepared for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops by its Committee on Doctrine, with the aim of clarifying the church’s stance on an issue that has repeatedly vexed the bishops in recent decades. It’s taken on new urgency now, in the eyes of many bishops, because Biden — only the second Catholic president — is the first to hold that office while espousing clear-cut support for abortion rights.

Such a stance, by a public figure, is “a grave moral evil,” according to Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, who chairs the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities and believes it’s necessary to publicly rebuke Biden on the issue.

“Because President Biden is Catholic, it presents a unique problem for us,” Naumann told The Associated Press. “It can create confusion. ... How can he say he’s a devout Catholic and he’s doing these things that are contrary to the church’s teaching?”

The document, if approved, would make clear the USCCB’s view that Biden and other Catholic public figures with similar viewpoints should not present themselves for Communion, Naumann said.

In accordance with existing USCCB policy, it would still leave decisions on withholding Communion up to individual bishops. In Biden’s case, the top prelates of the jurisdictions where he frequently worships — Bishop W. Francis Malooly of Wilmington, Delaware, and Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington, D.C. — have made clear that Biden is welcome to receive Communion at churches they oversee.

The document-in-the-works results from a decision in November by the USCCB’s president, Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles, to form a working group to address the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-joe-biden-elections-presidential-elections-ebeb54b08dc8fee544fd9bf74c9db730">“complex and difficult situation”</a>&nbsp;posed by Biden’s stances on abortion and other issues that differ from official church teaching. Before disbanding, the group proposed the drafting of a new document addressing the issue of Communion — a project assigned to the doctrine committee.

The committee has not released details about its work. Naumann said the matter will be discussed at the USCCB’s meeting in June and the bishops will vote on whether the committee should continue working on the document so it could be publicly released later.

A two-thirds majority would be needed for work to proceed, Naumann said. But even critics of the initiative, such as Bishop John Stowe of Lexington, Kentucky, predict the endeavor will win overwhelming approval.

Stowe is among a relatively small group of U.S. bishops who worry that the USCCB’s emphasis on abortion is undercutting Pope Francis’ exhortations for the church to also stress such issues as climate change, immigration and inequality. Stowe also worries that the U.S. bishops are missing a chance to find common ground with Biden on such issues.

“If a politician is targeted as a negative example by his own church, that sets a sad context in which the church can deal with this Catholic president,” Stowe said. “It contributes to the polarization of the church and of society.”

Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego has expressed similar concerns.

“I do not see how depriving the president or other political leaders of the Eucharist based on their public policy stance can be interpreted in our society as anything other than a weaponization of the Eucharist ... to pummel them into submission,” McElroy said during an online forum in February.

Nonetheless, the bishops wanting to send a tough message to Biden are determined to press ahead.

“There’s a growing sense of urgency,” said San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone. “Abortion is not just one among many important issues. ... It’s a direct attack on human life.”

Cordileone envisions a statement from the USCCB to Biden and others “that would move them in their conscience.”

“They need to understand the scandal that is caused when they say they are faithfully Catholic and yet oppose the church on such a basic concept,” he said.

American Cardinal Raymond Burke has broached the possibility of Catholicism’s ultimate sanction. He says politicians who “publicly and obstinately” support abortion are “apostates” who not only should be barred from receiving Communion but deserve excommunication.

Bishops already troubled by Biden’s stance on abortion grew more dismayed by three measures from his administration in mid-April.

It lifted restrictions on federal funding for research involving human fetal tissue. It rescinded a Trump administration policy barring organizations such as Planned Parenthood from receiving federal family planning grants if they also refer women for abortions. And it said women seeking an abortion pill will not be required to visit a doctor’s office or clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic, enabling women to get a prescription via telemedicine and receive the pill by mail.

Naumann, who issued strongly worded denunciations after each action, told AP he was frustrated that Biden could authorize those while identifying as a devout Catholic.

“He doesn’t have the authority to teach what it means to be Catholic — that’s our responsibility as bishops,” Naumann said, “Whether intentional or not, he’s trying to usurp our authority.”

&nbsp;The newly appointed bishop of President Joe Biden's home diocese in Delaware says he would gladly speak with the president about his stance on abortion but he's not saying whether he would allow Biden to keep receiving Communion, as his predecessor has. Monsignor William Koenig said Friday at a news conference that as a bishop, he is called to teach “the fullness and the beauty of the Catholic faith.”

The Vatican has not ruled on the specific matter of Communion and politicians supporting abortion in a major teaching document, though the church’s in-house canon law says people in a situation of persistent sin shouldn’t be allowed to receive Communion. It has also issued guidelines for the behavior of Catholics in political life exhorting them to uphold principles consistent with church doctrine.

The then-head of the Vatican’s doctrine office, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, told U.S. bishops in 2004 that priests “must” deny the sacrament if a politician goes to receive Communion despite an “obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin,” including the sin of consistently campaigning for permissive abortion laws.

Ratzinger wrote a confidential letter outlining the principles to U.S. bishops in response to their question about whether to deny Communion to John Kerry, who was the Democratic nominee for president. In the end the bishops ignored Ratzinger’s advice and voted instead for the policy currently in place allowing bishops to decide themselves whether to withhold it.

The document being drafted by the doctrine committee may contain some guidelines for bishops, Cordileone said, but it will not seek to strip their decision-making authority.

“This will put the burden of responsibility on Catholics who are prominent in public life,” he said.

Archbishop Samuel Aquila of Denver, who has sharply criticized Biden’s abortion stance, told the AP he favors creation of a national policy on Communion, as opposed to the current “patchwork approach.” He said bishops should first have a private conversation with an individual deemed to be in a state of sin, and deny Communion if they persist.

Edward Peters, who teaches canon law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, said the USCCB would have the option of seeking Vatican approval for a unified Communion policy applying to all bishops. But he doubted such a request would be made.

“The bishops’ conference does have broad responsibility to speak out on matters that impact the effectiveness and clarity of Church’s mission,” Peters said via email. “The bad example being given by some high-profile Catholics who consistently fail to protect innocent human life is surely one of those matters.”

Some Catholic academics are uneasy about the document.

“Are you really going to deny Communion for the president of the United States?” asked Margaret McGuinness, a religion professor at La Salle University in Philadelphia. “I don’t think this is going to shake his faith. ... I don’t see anything constructive coming out of it.”

She noted that a majority of U.S. Catholics, according to polls, say abortion should be legal in at least some cases.

Steven Millies, a professor of public theology at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, said the Catholic church received significant financial support in recent years from conservative philanthropists who are skeptical of Francis and favored Donald Trump over Biden in the 2020 election.

“What we’re seeing now is an effort to please donors who want a church which will wage a culture war,” Millies said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/4/1619629905595.png" alt="President Biden during the Inauguration Day Mass in Washington-image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>President Biden during the Inauguration Day Mass in Washington-image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>By DAVID CRARY, Associated&nbsp; PressWhen U.S. Catholic bishops hold their next national meeting in June, they’ll be deciding whether to send a tougher-than-ever message to President Joe Biden and other Catholic politicians: Don’t receive Communion if you persist in public advocacy of abortion rights.At issue is a document that will be prepared for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops by its Committee on Doctrine, with the aim of clarifying the church’s stance on an issue that has repeatedly vexed the bishops in recent decades. It’s taken on new urgency now, in the eyes of many bishops, because Biden — only the second Catholic president — is the first to hold that office while espousing clear-cut support for abortion rights.Such a stance, by a public figure, is “a grave moral evil,” according to Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, who chairs the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities and believes it’s necessary to publicly rebuke Biden on the issue.“Because President Biden is Catholic, it presents a unique problem for us,” Naumann told The Associated Press. “It can create confusion. ... How can he say he’s a devout Catholic and he’s doing these things that are contrary to the church’s teaching?”The document, if approved, would make clear the USCCB’s view that Biden and other Catholic public figures with similar viewpoints should not present themselves for Communion, Naumann said.In accordance with existing USCCB policy, it would still leave decisions on withholding Communion up to individual bishops. In Biden’s case, the top prelates of the jurisdictions where he frequently worships — Bishop W. Francis Malooly of Wilmington, Delaware, and Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington, D.C. — have made clear that Biden is welcome to receive Communion at churches they oversee.The document-in-the-works results from a decision in November by the USCCB’s president, Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles, to form a working group to address the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-joe-biden-elections-presidential-elections-ebeb54b08dc8fee544fd9bf74c9db730">“complex and difficult situation”</a>&nbsp;posed by Biden’s stances on abortion and other issues that differ from official church teaching. Before disbanding, the group proposed the drafting of a new document addressing the issue of Communion — a project assigned to the doctrine committee.The committee has not released details about its work. Naumann said the matter will be discussed at the USCCB’s meeting in June and the bishops will vote on whether the committee should continue working on the document so it could be publicly released later.A two-thirds majority would be needed for work to proceed, Naumann said. But even critics of the initiative, such as Bishop John Stowe of Lexington, Kentucky, predict the endeavor will win overwhelming approval.Stowe is among a relatively small group of U.S. bishops who worry that the USCCB’s emphasis on abortion is undercutting Pope Francis’ exhortations for the church to also stress such issues as climate change, immigration and inequality. Stowe also worries that the U.S. bishops are missing a chance to find common ground with Biden on such issues.“If a politician is targeted as a negative example by his own church, that sets a sad context in which the church can deal with this Catholic president,” Stowe said. “It contributes to the polarization of the church and of society.”Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego has expressed similar concerns.“I do not see how depriving the president or other political leaders of the Eucharist based on their public policy stance can be interpreted in our society as anything other than a weaponization of the Eucharist ... to pummel them into submission,” McElroy said during an online forum in February.Nonetheless, the bishops wanting to send a tough message to Biden are determined to press ahead.“There’s a growing sense of urgency,” said San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone. “Abortion is not just one among many important issues. ... It’s a direct attack on human life.”Cordileone envisions a statement from the USCCB to Biden and others “that would move them in their conscience.”“They need to understand the scandal that is caused when they say they are faithfully Catholic and yet oppose the church on such a basic concept,” he said.American Cardinal Raymond Burke has broached the possibility of Catholicism’s ultimate sanction. He says politicians who “publicly and obstinately” support abortion are “apostates” who not only should be barred from receiving Communion but deserve excommunication.Bishops already troubled by Biden’s stance on abortion grew more dismayed by three measures from his administration in mid-April.It lifted restrictions on federal funding for research involving human fetal tissue. It rescinded a Trump administration policy barring organizations such as Planned Parenthood from receiving federal family planning grants if they also refer women for abortions. And it said women seeking an abortion pill will not be required to visit a doctor’s office or clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic, enabling women to get a prescription via telemedicine and receive the pill by mail.Naumann, who issued strongly worded denunciations after each action, told AP he was frustrated that Biden could authorize those while identifying as a devout Catholic.“He doesn’t have the authority to teach what it means to be Catholic — that’s our responsibility as bishops,” Naumann said, “Whether intentional or not, he’s trying to usurp our authority.”&nbsp;The newly appointed bishop of President Joe Biden's home diocese in Delaware says he would gladly speak with the president about his stance on abortion but he's not saying whether he would allow Biden to keep receiving Communion, as his predecessor has. Monsignor William Koenig said Friday at a news conference that as a bishop, he is called to teach “the fullness and the beauty of the Catholic faith.”The Vatican has not ruled on the specific matter of Communion and politicians supporting abortion in a major teaching document, though the church’s in-house canon law says people in a situation of persistent sin shouldn’t be allowed to receive Communion. It has also issued guidelines for the behavior of Catholics in political life exhorting them to uphold principles consistent with church doctrine.The then-head of the Vatican’s doctrine office, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, told U.S. bishops in 2004 that priests “must” deny the sacrament if a politician goes to receive Communion despite an “obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin,” including the sin of consistently campaigning for permissive abortion laws.Ratzinger wrote a confidential letter outlining the principles to U.S. bishops in response to their question about whether to deny Communion to John Kerry, who was the Democratic nominee for president. In the end the bishops ignored Ratzinger’s advice and voted instead for the policy currently in place allowing bishops to decide themselves whether to withhold it.The document being drafted by the doctrine committee may contain some guidelines for bishops, Cordileone said, but it will not seek to strip their decision-making authority.“This will put the burden of responsibility on Catholics who are prominent in public life,” he said.Archbishop Samuel Aquila of Denver, who has sharply criticized Biden’s abortion stance, told the AP he favors creation of a national policy on Communion, as opposed to the current “patchwork approach.” He said bishops should first have a private conversation with an individual deemed to be in a state of sin, and deny Communion if they persist.Edward Peters, who teaches canon law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, said the USCCB would have the option of seeking Vatican approval for a unified Communion policy applying to all bishops. But he doubted such a request would be made.“The bishops’ conference does have broad responsibility to speak out on matters that impact the effectiveness and clarity of Church’s mission,” Peters said via email. “The bad example being given by some high-profile Catholics who consistently fail to protect innocent human life is surely one of those matters.”Some Catholic academics are uneasy about the document.“Are you really going to deny Communion for the president of the United States?” asked Margaret McGuinness, a religion professor at La Salle University in Philadelphia. “I don’t think this is going to shake his faith. ... I don’t see anything constructive coming out of it.”She noted that a majority of U.S. Catholics, according to polls, say abortion should be legal in at least some cases.Steven Millies, a professor of public theology at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, said the Catholic church received significant financial support in recent years from conservative philanthropists who are skeptical of Francis and favored Donald Trump over Biden in the 2020 election.“What we’re seeing now is an effort to please donors who want a church which will wage a culture war,” Millies said.

Kan. Catholic Archbishop may press Biden to stop taking Communion

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. – A soldier in the Army National Guard pleaded guilty in federal court Thursday to sexually abusing four minors over several years while he was director of the youth ministry at Fort Leonard Wood U.S. Army Base.

David J. McKay, 42, of Waynesville, Missouri, pleaded guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge David P. Rush to one count of transporting a minor to engage in criminal sexual activity and four counts of sexually abusing a minor.

McKay, an Army National Guard First Sergeant, was the youth ministry director for the Religious Services Office at Fort Leonard Wood. 

By pleading guilty, McKay admitted that he sexually abused four victims, ranging in age from 11 to 17 years old, on dozens of occasions from 2010 to 2017.

According to the plea agreement, the sexual abuse occurred at Fort Leonard Wood and various other locations within Pulaski County, Mo. The victims also reported being abused during the youth group’s ski trips to Colorado and on camping trips at Fort Leonard Wood.

Under federal statutes, McKay is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in federal prison without parole, up to a sentence of life in federal prison without parole. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes, as the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors. A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the completion of a presentence investigation by the United States Probation Office.

This case was investigated by the FBI, the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command at the Fort Leonard Wood Army Base, the Pulaski County, Mo., Prosecutor’s Office, and the Waynesville, Mo., Police Department.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/4/1619798496494.png" alt="McKay is jailed in St. Clair County, according to online jail records" />
 <figcaption>McKay is jailed in St. Clair County, according to online jail records</figcaption>
 </figure>SPRINGFIELD, Mo. – A soldier in the Army National Guard pleaded guilty in federal court Thursday to sexually abusing four minors over several years while he was director of the youth ministry at Fort Leonard Wood U.S. Army Base.David J. McKay, 42, of Waynesville, Missouri, pleaded guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge David P. Rush to one count of transporting a minor to engage in criminal sexual activity and four counts of sexually abusing a minor.McKay, an Army National Guard First Sergeant, was the youth ministry director for the Religious Services Office at Fort Leonard Wood. By pleading guilty, McKay admitted that he sexually abused four victims, ranging in age from 11 to 17 years old, on dozens of occasions from 2010 to 2017.According to the plea agreement, the sexual abuse occurred at Fort Leonard Wood and various other locations within Pulaski County, Mo. The victims also reported being abused during the youth group’s ski trips to Colorado and on camping trips at Fort Leonard Wood.Under federal statutes, McKay is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in federal prison without parole, up to a sentence of life in federal prison without parole. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes, as the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors. A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the completion of a presentence investigation by the United States Probation Office.This case was investigated by the FBI, the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command at the Fort Leonard Wood Army Base, the Pulaski County, Mo., Prosecutor’s Office, and the Waynesville, Mo., Police Department.

Former Army youth ministry director admits to sexual abuse

CLARK COUNTY —A Kansas man died in an accident just after 1p.m. Saturday in Clark County.

The Kansas Highway Patrol reported a 2005 Yamaha XV 1700 driven by Gregory A. Norton, 61, Protection, was&nbsp;eastbound on U.S. 160 six miles east of U.S. 283.

CLARK COUNTY —A Kansas man died in an accident just after 1p.m. Saturday in Clark County.The Kansas Highway Patrol reported a 2005 Yamaha XV 1700 driven by Gregory A. Norton, 61, Protection, was&nbsp;eastbound on U.S. 160 six miles east of U.S. 283.The motorcycle traveled left of center, entered the north ditch, struck an embankment at a field entrance and the driver was ejected. Norton and the motorcycle came to rest in the field north of the highway.EMS transported&nbsp;Norton to&nbsp;Ashland Health Center were he was pronounced dead. He was not wearing a helmet, according to the KHP.