REAP Executive Committee Meeting Agenda Wichita Workforce Center Zoom Conference Call Meeting September 10, 2020 ~ 11:30 am

1. Welcome and Introductions: Mayor Tom Brown, Chair

2. Approval of Minutes from Executive Committee Meeting from July 16, 2020: Mayor Tom Brown, Chair (pp.2-10) Recommended Action: Approve the Minutes from the July 16, 2020, Executive Committee meeting.

3. Legislative Update: Senator Carolyn McGinn Recommended Action: Receive and file

4. The Appointments Project & Ready to Run Kansas Women’s Leadership Series: Wendy Doyle, President & CEO, Women's Foundation (pg. 11) Recommended Action: Receive and file

5. Workforce Economic Impact Update: Keith Lawing, President & CEO, Workforce Alliance of South Central Kansas (pp. 12-13) Recommended Action: Receive and file

7. Other Business: A. Cooperative purchasing and incorporating REAP update B. 2020 Kansas State Legislative Elections (pp. 14-24) C. Community updates

Recommended Action: Receive and file.

8. Adjourn (1:00)

NEXT MEETING: Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 11:30 a.m. via Zoom Guest: Secretary , Kansas Dept. of Commerce

1 REAP Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Zoom Meeting Wichita Workforce Center July 16, 2020 ~ 11:30 a.m.

1. Welcome and Introductions: Mayor Tom Brown, Chair REAP Chair, Mayor Brown called the meeting to order at 11:33 a.m.

2. Approval of Minutes Approval of Minutes from Executive Committee Meeting from June 11, 2020.

ACTION TAKEN: Council Member Tom Jones (Park City) moved to APPROVE the minutes from June 11, 2020 Executive Committee meeting. Seconded by Mayor Terry Somers (Mount Hope). Motion carried 12-0.

3. Cooperative Purchasing: Laura Rainwater Staff presented a report on the costs and benefits of incorporating REAP as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Feedback from Executive Committee members include:  Could build a broader membership base  Possibility of reducing assessments to cities with possible new revenue stream  Opens up many grant opportunities  Would lower the assessments to counties if more cities would join  We are disseminating information and educating more than we are lobbying  We have the League of Kansas Municipalities and Kansas Association of Counties lobbying for issues that impact our cities and counties  Would provide a possible be a revenue stream for REAP  The costs (mainly accounting) could be offset by revenue stream  Now may not be a good time due to focus on economic recovery (Covid)  Does not think it will be a benefit for their city (Maize and Lindsborg)  Staff should receive other bids from legal counsel to file organizational paperwork and recurring accounting

Action Taken: Motion made by Ty Lasher (Bel Aire) to approve the expenditure, not to exceed $6,000, to incorporate REAP as a 501(c)(3) non-profit. Seconded by May Rex Satterthwaite (Bentley). MOTION PASSED 10-2.

4. Wichita State University Covid-19 Research Lab: Tonya Witherspoon, Associate Vice President, Industry Engagement and Applied Learning, Wichita State University  Up to 10,000 test per day potential  Low cost - -approximately $50 and could be less based on volume  Fast results – 24 hours  Will help schools and businesses stay open and back to work faster after exposure  Purchase order for lab equipment has already been submitted by WSU  Use CARES funding to sustain  Hope to have lab operational by end of October 2  It is not just limited to Sedgwick County use  By creating our own FDA-approved tests, we are in control  PCR tests (saliva) not a nasal swab – more reliable and does not require medical professional to administer  Will be able to do antibody testing, but right now the focus is on live virus testing

5. Covid-19 Updates:

A. Federal: Andrew Wiens, Wichita Regional Chamber of Commerce  Senate is working through Covid-19 response stimulus package now . Unemployment – don’t want to incentivize not going back to work . funding for testing . schools  House has passed another stimulus package

B. State  School start-up delayed to after Labor Day  Mask mandate  Motor carrier exemption

C. County: Commissioner Chip Westfall, Harvey County  Kansas Association of Counties (KAC) Zoom meetings on Fridays with guidance on spending CARES money  Each County needs to appoint one contact person to receive SPARK updates  14 Counties have not yet filed paperwork to receive CARES funding  School plans must be reviewed and approved by local health department

D. City: Mayor Tom Brown (McPherson)  Mask mandate is becoming more widely adopted at city and county level  No wide-spread use until it is mandated  Since masks will be mandated in schools, we should model the behavior for our kids  Referenced article (attached below) that puts local communities at risk levels based on data. All counties that have required masks be worn are in the Risk Level Orange https://globalepidemics.org/key-metrics-for-covid-suppression/  Many industrial firms and retail establishments are voluntarily mandating masks

E. Workforce and Employment: Keith Lawing, President & CEO of the Workforce Alliance of South Central Kansas  Not good news – Continuing to see layoffs in aircraft and manufacturing . 800 WARN layoffs from Textron Aviation . 133 layoffs from GKN Aerospace . As of June 27, there were 29,096 unemployment in the REAP region  South Central Kansas is being heavily impacted  Airlines are delaying or canceling orders for new aircraft  Going to be a slow recovery – fewer jobs will be opening

3  Wichita Workforce Center is providing virtual and online services only. Hope to re-open to provide in-person services on August 3rd  Kansas Framework For Growth – Priorities are being identified across state. Broadband access and expansion and talent development/workforce retention continue to be the top two priorities

7. Other Business

A. Regional Convening: September 21, 11:30-2:00, with WSU President, Dr. Jay Golden. Meeting will be in-person on the WSU campus. The meeting will also be available via Zoom

B. Executive Committee Meetings: Will continue to use Zoom for virtual meetings until f further notice

C. Community Updates:  Mayor Tom Brown (McPherson): Sales tax and property tax revenue look pretty normal. Unemployment rate is about 5%

8. Meeting adjourned at 12:54 p.m.

Attendees:

Mayor Tom Brown, Chair Rep. Council Member Tom Jones, Treasurer Bruce Pinkall, Pratt Council Member Troy Tabor, Andover John Waltner, Harvey County Mayor Terry Somers, Mount Hope Anthony Swartzendruber, Harvey County Mayor Rex Satterthwaite, Bentley Andrew Wiens, Wichita Regional Chamber Mayor Donna Clasen, Maize Valerie Wise, Eisenhower Airport Mayor Jade Piros de Carvalho, Hutchinson Kevin Coccetella Mayor Gary Schmidt, Pratt Tonya Witherspoon, WSU Commissioner Chip Westfall, Harvey County Marla Canfield, Dept. of Commerce Kelly McElroy, Newton Keith Lawing, Workforce Alliance & REAP Ty Lasher, Bel Aire Laura Rainwater, REAP Lucas Neece, Lindsborg

4

Key Metrics for COVID Suppression

A Framework for policy makers and the public July 1, 2020

The Harvard Global Health Institute and Harvard’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics have been working with a network of research and policy organizations to achieve convergence around recommendations for core metrics to be used to evaluate the status of COVID response and key performance indicators to evaluate how well particular tools of response are being deployed. Convergence metrics and indicators have been sought for the following areas:

1. Epidemiology 2. Response capacity a. TTSI- testing, tracing, and supported isolation b. Use of other non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g. social distancing, masking) c. Therapeutic capacity d. Protection capacity (capacity to identify and meet the needs of vulnerable populations) e. Infection control f. Disease surveillance capacity

Participants in these convergence conversations have included TTSI Collaborative members (Harvard Global Health Institute; Harvard’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Partners in Health); CovidActNow.org; Covid-local.org; Resolve to Save Lives; the Nuclear Threat Initiative; Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security; Rockefeller Foundation; Bloomberg Philanthropies; and faculty and researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, University of Washington, University of Minnesota, University of Louisville, Center for Communicable Disease at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health, Microsoft Research, Microsoft AI for Health, and Apple University. CovidActNow.org provided foundational analytic work.

This memo focuses only on key epidemiological metrics and key performance indicators for TTSI response capacity. No COVID response is complete without attention to the other areas of capacity and performance. Implementers may find resources for metrics in the other areas at www.cdc.gov, https://www.who.int/, and non-profit organizations such as those supporting https://covid-local.org/, which provides tools for local decision-makers to link metrics with decisions and policies for expanding and contracting social distancing. Epidemiology

Case incidence can be best measured and communicated with three measures: new confirmed case trend, case trend as an estimate from the new deaths trend, and new COVID hospitalizations, in each case with a seven day rolling average. All three should be used, and they should be used and communicated to the public together.

Metric 1: New confirmed case trend: New daily cases per 100k pop (seven day rolling average); + trend direction and rate

Metric 2: Case trend as an estimate from new deaths trend: New daily deaths per 100k pop * 100 (assuming 1% IFR) (seven day rolling average); + trend direction and rate

5 Metric 3: New daily hospitalizations per 100k pop (seven day rolling average); + trend direction and rate

Because case incidence numbers are affected by testing levels and deaths are a lagging indicator, it is important to track and compare both numbers and the information about cases that each provides. Whichever of metric 1 or metric 2 results in a higher estimate for the number of new cases per 100,000 people, should be used to determine the incidence level on the green, yellow, orange, red scale.

The daily case incidence number will determine whether a jurisdiction is green, yellow, orange, or red with the following cut-offs:

Covid Risk Level Case Incidence

Red >25 daily new cases per 100,000 people

Orange 10<25 daily new cases per 100,000 people

Yellow 1<10 daily new cases per 100,000 people

Green <1 daily new case per 100,000 people

The incidence numbers can be used both at county or MSA level, or other local health district jurisdiction level, and at the state level. Policy decisions about which strategies of disease response are best for a jurisdiction should be made by looking at both the local level and the state picture and considering the dynamic relationship between them.

These COVID levels provide a map that helps decision-makers and community members know where they are. The green level aligns with the CDC’s low incidence plateau threshold. The levels do not in themselves provide information about how to respond, given where a community is. The levels do, however, communicate the intensity of effort needed for control of COVID at varying levels of community spread. In addition to paying attention to the levels, decision-makers should pay close attention to direction of trend and rate of change. While jurisdictions may plateau in yellow, in the orange level spread tends to have more velocity.

At the green level, jurisdictions are on track for containment so long as they maintain maintenance levels of viral testing (i.e. this is not a reference to antibody testing) and contact tracing, sufficient to control spikes and outbreaks. Viral testing should be used both for symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, with the latter need for testing flowing from exposure, role in a congregate setting or other critical context (e.g. elective surgery), or requirements of disease surveillance programs. It is not enough to get to green; one also has to plan to stay green.

At the red level, jurisdictions have reached a tipping point for uncontrolled spread and will require the use of stay-at-home orders and/or advisories to mitigate the disease.

At yellow levels, there may be some initial community spread. At orange levels, community spread has accelerated and is at dangerous levels. At both yellow and orange levels, jurisdictions can make strategic choices about which package of non- pharmaceutical interventions to use to suppress the disease. One jurisdiction may choose stay-at-home orders; another may choose more intensive use of viral testing and tracing programs. All jurisdictions will want some combination of social distancing strategies and infection control.

6 Epidemiology continued

In order to understand optionality at yellow and orange levels, decision-makers should review the different “phasing plans” that policy-makers have developed as guidance. They should be equipped to evaluate whether the “phasing plans” will help them meet their goals, having clearly in mind whether their goals are mitigation or suppression.

Covid Risk Level Case Incidence Intensity of Control Effort Needed

Red >25 daily new cases per 100,000 people Stay-at-home orders necessary

Strategic choices must be made about which package of non-pharmaceutical interventions to use for control. Stay-at-home orders are advised, unless viral Orange 10<25 daily new cases per 100,000 people testing and contact tracing capacity are implementable at levels meeting surge indicator standards (see KPIs below).

Strategic choices must be made about which Yellow 1<10 daily new cases per 100,000 people package of non-pharmaceutical interventions to use for control.

On track for containment, conditional on continuing Green <1 daily new case per 100,000 people use of viral testing and contact tracing for surveillance and to contain spikes and outbreaks.

TTSI Key Performance Indicators

Step 1: Make a strategic choice: Mitigation or Suppression The goal of a TTSI program used for purposes of suppression is to get to green (<1 new daily case/100,000) and stay green.

To achieve this epidemiologically defined goal, the relevant jurisdiction will need capabilities for (1) testing, tracing, and supporting isolation; (2) protecting the vulnerable; and (3) treating the ill.

While the green, yellow, orange, red color levels help us keep our eye on the target of where we want to be with regard to epidemiologically defined goals, these three categories of capability are best measured via key performance indicators that support grading the jurisdiction along each of these three dimensions.

If you are at the green level, you can operate a steady-state TTSI infrastructure that delivers maintenance by being prepared to handle and suppress outbreaks fast, should they arise. You should also expect to deliver disease surveillance.

If your jurisdictions are yellow, orange, or red, you will need to surge TTSI infrastructure and you have to make a strategic choice about whether to pursue mitigation or suppression.

Mitigation = some reduction in the rate of R (the reproduction number of the virus) through diagnostic testing and contact tracing.

Suppression = an effort to get to zero or near zero case incidence.

Both mitigation and suppression require a suite of activities ranging from stay-at-home advisories to 6-foot social distancing to mask wearing to TTSI implementation. TTSI is a tool that can be deployed at either mitigation or suppression levels. However, we strongly recommend jurisdictions that have the capacity to deliver suppression-level surge resources for TTSI to pursue a suppression strategy as they will be on the most efficient path toward a restored economy without future lockdowns.

7 TTSI Key Performance Indicators continued

Maintenance levels of TTSI resources are used in jurisdictions that are green to contain spikes and outbreaks. For jurisdictions at the green level, the goal is to have adequate TTSI resources to stop community spread. It continues to be important to measure communities along all capability measures: TTSI capability, other NPI capability, protection capability, treatment capability, and surveillance capability.

Surge levels of TTSI resources are needed once there is community spread. Jurisdictions at the yellow level have spikes that may also indicate community spread. Jurisdictions at Orange and Red levels are contexts with dangerous community spread. These jurisdictions at orange or red need “surge” levels of TTSI resources to drive the disease back close to near zero case incidence. Once a community has progressed along the path to zero and returned to green level status, the levels of testing capacity and contact tracing it needed should dramatically decline. Jurisdictions at the red level also need stay-at-home orders.

A mitigation surge targets broad and accessible testing, a test positivity rate of 10%, and for 60% of positives not coming from critical context testing to have come from contact tracing.

A suppression surge targets broad and accessible testing, a test positivity rate of <3%, and for 80% of positives not coming from critical context testing to have come from contact tracing.

Successful suppression efforts can work relatively fast to restore jurisdictions to near-zero case incidence in a matter of 1-2 months. In other words, a surge of testing and tracing resources is a temporary need; only maintenance levels are permanent until vaccines become widely available, presuming effective and durable immunity.

Key Performance Indicators for Contact Tracing are as follows:

Suppression/ Yellow, Orange, Mitigation/ Yellow, Orange, Maintenance/ Green Level or Red Levels Red Levels Contact Tracing Capacity

Planning: 30 tracers per 100k (or 1 per

30 tracers per 100k population 4000 in sparsely populated areas) 30 tracers per 100k Number of Tracers (or 1 per 4000 in sparsely Activation: Whichever is higher, 30 per population populated areas) 100k or 5 tracers per every confirmed new daily case

Performance Percent of Positives from Tracing vs. >80% >80% >50% Symptomatics

Percent of Index Cases Who Give Contacts >75% >75% >75%

Percent of Identified Contacts Traced >90% >90% >80%

Trace Time 24 hours 24 hours 24 hours

Percent of Identified Contacts Traced >90% >90% >80%

Percentage of Contacts with close to zero close to zero close to zero Symptoms at Time of Trace % traced contacts in quarantine, 90% 90% 90% isolation, or active monitoring varies with context; locales varies with context; locales should set varies with context; locales % traced contacts receiving supports should set targets targets should set targets % traced contacts assigned to quarantine, isolation, or active monitoring who are 90% 90% 90% fully compliant with program

% of traced contacts tested 90% 90% 0%

Time from Contact Tracing Program to 24 hours 24 hours 24 hours Test of Contact

8 TTSI Key Performance Indicators continued

Key Performance Indicators for Viral Testing are as follows:

Suppression/ Yellow, Orange, Mitigation/ Yellow, Orange, Maintenance/ Green Level or Red Levels Red Levels Viral Testing Capacity

Anyone should be able to access a test Anyone should be able to access a test Anyone should be able to access a Access regardless of symptoms regardless of symptoms test regardless of symptoms

Sufficient to test for therapeutic Sufficient to test for therapeutic purposes, Sufficient to test for therapeutic purposes; hot spot testing purposes; hot spot testing purposes, contact tracing purposes, hot spot testing purposes, contact tracing purposes for several purposes for several links of the chain, surveillance purposes, and critical Supply links of the chain following from an surveillance purposes, and critical context context purposes. index case to further positives to their purposes. contacts, and so on; surveillance pur- poses; and critical context purposes.

Performance Time from Symptom Onset to 24 hours 24 hours 24 hours Test Positivity

Turnaround Time 24 hours 24 hours 24 hours

Positive Test Ratio <1% <3% Less than 10%

Breaking the Chain: The Temporal Dynamics of Testing and Contact Tracing

Endorsement List

9 REAP Executive Committee August 13, 2020 Submitted by Laura Rainwater Item #2

Endorsement: Institutional Institution Name & Title or Personal

Institutional

CovidActNow Max Henderson, Founder/CEO

Beth Cameron and Jessica Bell (Nuclear Threat Initiative) Ellie Graeden (Talus Analytics) COVID-local.org Rebecca Katz (Georgetown Center for Global Health Science & Security) Jeremy Konyndyk (Center for Global Development)

Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Danielle Allen, Director, Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics Harvard University

Georgetown University Center for Rebecca Katz, Professor and Director Global Health Science and Security

Ashish K. Jha, Director, HGHI Harvard Global Health Institute Stefanie Friedhoff, Director of Content & Strategy, HGHI Thomas Tsai, Affiliated Faculty

Beth Cameron, Vice President for Global Biological Policy and Programs Nuclear Threat Initiative Jessica Bell, Senior Program Officer, Global Biological Policy and Programs

Jonathan D.Quick, MD, MPH, Managing Director, Pandemic Response The Rockefeller Foundation and Prevention

Talus Analytics Ellie Graeden, Founder, CEO

The Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, University of Michael T. Osterholm, Director, CIDRAP Minnesota

Personal

Joshua Cohen, Faculty, Apple University; Distinguished Senior Fellow, UC Apple University Berkeley Tod Woolf, Ph.D., Executive Director, Technology Ventures Office, Beth Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Israel Deaconess Medical Center

Google Research Ofir Reich, Google Research

Johns Hopkins Center for Health Crystal Watson, Dr PH, Senior Scholar, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Security Assistant Professor, JHSPH

John Langford, Partner Research Manager, Microsoft Research Microsoft Research Divya Siddarth, Research Fellow, Microsoft Research

Ben Linville-Engler, Industry and Certificate Director, MIT System Design MIT System Design and Management and Management Regulatory and Testing Lead, MA Manufacturing Regulatory and Testing Lead Emergency Response Team

Dean Foster, Marie and Joseph Melone Professor Emeritus of Statistics, University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Sham Kakade, Washington Research Foundation Data Science Chair, University of Washington University of Washington

10 Wendy D. Doyle President & CEO | Women's Foundation

Wendy advances all women’s economic and civic leadership using evidenced-based research and policy solutions to make meaningful change in the Midwest. Wendy’s nonprofit career began as a national major gifts officer with the National Kidney Foundation, Inc. She worked as a nonprofit consultant who focused on board development and strategic planning. She later served as the Executive Vice President of Catholic Charities of Northeast Kansas.

Wendy earned a B.A. from Rockhurst University in Kansas City, Missouri, and she serves on the Missouri Women’s Health Council, the Missouri Foundation for Health’s Missouri Opportunity Incubator, a Junior League of Kansas City Missouri’s C3KC Advisor, the University of Missouri – Kansas City Starr Education Committee, and Park University Civic Advisory Council.

APPOINTMENTS PROJECT® WORKS TO EMPOWER WOMEN AND STRENGTHEN COMMUNITIES BY REACHING GENDER PARITY ON CIVIC BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

In 2014, the Women’s Foundation commissioned research in partnership with the that identified barriers preventing women from taking on civic leadership roles. The research showed that women tend to undervalue their talent and experiences compared to their male counterparts and that many women would serve, if only they were asked. The Appointments Project is a data solution to call more women to serve and to assure them that their unique knowledge and experiences qualify them for these positions.

The Appointments Project empowers women to navigate the board and commission application process and engages elected officials in making appointments that reflect their communities. The Appointments Project provides cities, counties and states the road map to improve the diversity and effectiveness of civic boards and commissions, which leads to better representation for all in the community. Since the inauguration of this project, the Appointments Project has facilitated over 130 appointments (including 28% women of color) in urban, suburban and rural communities, including two states, 30 cities and 11 four counties.

Serving Employers and Job Seekers in Butler, Cowley, Harper, Kingman, Sedgwick & Sumner Counties

Workforce Alliance of South Central Kansas Employment/Workforce Economic Impact Update 9-1-2020

Beginning in January of 2020, the Wichita region started to experience a significant economic impact due to the pause on production by Boeing of the 737 Max. There are dozens of companies in this area on the Boeing 737 Max supply chain, including Spirit AeroSystems, the largest employer in the state of Kansas.

As the effect of the 737 Max was settling in, the crisis from COVID-19 started to hit the region in March. Due to the mix of industry sectors, it is likely the spread of COVID-19 in the United State and around the world will have a long-lasting impact on the economy in South Central Kansas.

This report is designed to capture the data related to layoffs from both the 737 Max and COVID-19. It also tracks the activity of the Workforce Alliance (WA) in terms of Rapid Response services to employers, job fairs, and job seeker assistance.

The report will be updated on a regular basis and shared with WA Board members, Workforce Center partners and community stakeholders. If there are any questions, please contact Keith Lawing ([email protected]), or Amanda Duncan ([email protected]).

1. Rapid Response for Layoffs/Furloughs • 737 layoffs through August 2020 o 510 Layoffs from Spirit AeroSystems, announced in 7/31/20 WARN o 3 additional companies conducted layoffs impacting 50 or fewer employees per layoff, totaling 109 employees • COVID-19 Related Layoffs/Furloughs o 36 additional companies across multiple industries conducted layoffs impacting 50 or fewer employees per layoff, totaling 1,718 employees

Layoff/Furlough Totals 12/1/2019 – 9/1/2020

Industry Reason Companies Individuals Aviation Manufacturing 737 Production 19 8,803 Non-Aviation 737 Production 5 934 Service/Retail (pre-COVID-19) Economic 4 184 Healthcare (pre-COVID-19) Economic 2 103 All Industries COVID-19 959 48,561 Total 989 58,585

300 W. Douglas Avenue, Suite 850 • Wichita, KS 67202 • Phone 316 -771-6600 • Fax 316-771-6690 • www.workforce-ks.com

Equal Opportunity Employer/Program - Auxiliary aids and services are available upon request to individuals with disabilities.

In partnership with 12

2. Unemployment Statewide for the week of August 22, 2020, the most recent data available, 21,175 initial unemployment insurance claims were received and there were 66,371 continued claims; 50,990 individuals received payments averaging $332.28 in state benefits. The full report and previous weeks are available online at: https://klic.dol.ks.gov/gsipub/index.asp?docid=756

3. Job Fairs and Workshops • Most in person events are currently cancelled. • Online workshops are available on the Workforce Center YouTube channel • Some in person services are resuming, with self-service access available on Tuesdays and Thursday beginning September 14, 2020. • Multiple essential employers are hiring with jobs posted at https://www.kansascommerce.gov/covid-19-response/covid-19-jobs-and-hiring- portal/

Upcoming Job Fairs include: • Get Hired Virtual Job Fair o September 8-10, 2020 • Statewide Virtual Job Fairs o September 20-24, 2020 o October 27-29, 2020 o December 8-10, 2020

4. Workforce Services • 2990+ Unemployed workers have received Career Services o 502 dislocated workers have requested upskill/reskill training scholarships from the Workforce Center ▪ 314 participants have enrolled in Workforce Programs ▪ 176 participants have begun training ▪ WA has obligated $453,131.52 for dislocated worker training, $350,633.37 has been paid to multiple schools for dislocated worker training to date. o 335 Individuals have been enrolled in the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program. ▪ 135 have begun training through TAA

13 2020 Kansas House General Election

Yellow highlighted districts are in South Central Kansas Incumbents are marked with an (i) after their name

Office Democratic Republican Other District 1 Michael Houser (i)

District 2 Lynn Grant Kenneth Collins (i)

District 3 (i) Chuck Smith

District 4 Bill Meyer Trevor Jacobs (i)

District 5 Roger Sims (i)

District 6 Samantha Poetter

District 7 (i)

District 8 (i)

District 9 Alana Cloutier (i)

District 10

District 11 Jim Kelly (i)

District 12 (i)

District 13 Mark Pringle (i) Angela Justus District 14 (i) Schweller District 15 Cole Fine John Toplikar (i)

District 16 Linda Featherston Rashard Young Michael District 17 Jo Ella Hoye Kristine Sapp Kerner (Libertarian District 18 (i) Cathy Gordon Stephanie District 19 Clayton (i)

14 2020 Kansas House General Election District 20 Mari-Lynn Poskin Jane Dirks

District 21 (i) Bob Reese

District 22 Matthew District 23 (i) Jeff Shull Clark (Libertarian Party) District 24 (i)

District 25 (i) W. Michael District 26 Adam Thomas (i) Shimeall District 27 Sona Patel Sr. (i)

District 28 Sally Jercha Carl Turner

District 29 (i) Jerry Clinton Brandon District 30 Laura Williams Woodard (i) District 31 (i) Landon Griffith

District 32 (i) Greg Conchola Jordan Michael Rick District 33 (i) Mackey Parsons (Libertarian District 34 (i) Broderick District 35 Mark David Snelson Henderson (i) Kathy Wolfe District 36 Mark Gilstrap Moore (i) District 37

District 38 Sherri Grogan Timothy Johnson

District 39 Les Lampe (i)

District 40 Joana Scholtz David French (i)

District 41 Pat Proctor

15 2020 Kansas House General Election District 42 Lance Neelly

District 43 Pamela Finley Bill Sutton (i)

District 44 (i)

District 45 (i) Dennis Dante District 46 Highberger (i) Javaheri (Libertarian District 47 Michael Caddell Ronald Ellis (i)

District 48 Jennifer Day (i) Terry Frederick

District 49 Katie Dixon (i)

District 50 Timothy Reed (i)

District 51 (i)

District 52 Mary Lou Davis

District 53 Jim Gartner (i) Jeff Coen

District 54 John Brosz (i)

District 55 (i) Janlyn Nesbett Tucker

District 56 (i) Tim Clothier

District 57 (i) Michael Martin

District 58 Geoffrey Gawdun

District 59 Caren Rugg (i)

District 60 Todd Maddox Mark Schreiber (i)

District 61 (i)

District 62 Randy Garber (i)

District 63 (i)

16 2020 Kansas House General Election District 64 Jim Vathauer Susan Carlson (i)

District 65 (i)

District 66 (i)

District 67 Cheryl Arthur

District 68 Scott Dawson Dave Baker (i)

District 69 Ryan Holmquist Clarke Sanders

District 70 Jo Schwartz John E. Barker (i)

District 71 Jeffrey Zamrzla Steven Howe

District 72 (i)

District 73 (i)

District 74 Stephen Owens (i)

District 75 Ethan Caylor Will Carpenter (i)

District 76 Eric Smith (i)

District 77 (i)

District 78 Kathy Meyer Ron Ryckman (i)

District 79 Ken White Cheryl Helmer (i)

District 80 (i)

District 81 Matthew Joyce (i)

District 82 Edward Hackerott (i)

District 83 (i) Crystal Dozier

District 84 (i) Janet Sue Rine

District 85 Marcey Gregory

17 2020 Kansas House General Election District 86 Cyndi Howerton

District 87 Matt Fox Susan Estes

District 88 Elizabeth Bishop (i)

District 89 KC Ohaebosim (i) Robert Herrick Jr.

District 90 (i)

District 91 Emil Bergquist (i)

District 92 John Carmichael (i) Patrick McCormack

District 93 Brian Bergkamp

District 94 Derek Milligan (i)

District 95 Tom Sawyer (i) Christopher Parisho

District 96 (i) Tom Kessler

District 97 Kim Webb Nick Hoheisel (i)

District 98 Steven Crum Ron Howard (i)

District 99 Phil Hodson (i)

District 100 Chad Smith Daniel Hawkins (i)

District 101 Elliott Adams (i)

District 102 (i) John Whitesel Ponka-We Loren John District 103 Susanne Haynes Victors (i) Hermreck (Libertarian) District 104 Garth Strand Paul Waggoner (i)

District 105 Michelle Snyder (i)

District 106 James Swim Lisa Moser Susan L. District 107 Concannon (i)

18 2020 Kansas House General Election District 108 Steven C. Johnson (i)

District 109 Troy L. Waymaster (i)

District 110 (i)

District 111 (i)

District 112 Tory Arnberger (i)

District 113 Brett Fairchild

District 114 Jeff Stroberg Michael Murphy

District 115 (i)

District 116 Rick Roitman (i)

District 117 Leonard Mastroni (i)

District 118 Jim Minnix

District 119 Jan Scoggins Bradley Ralph (i)

District 120 Adam Smith (i)

District 121 James Rexford (i)

District 122 Russ Jennings (i)

District 123 John Wheeler Jr. (i)

District 124 Martin Long (i)

District 125 (i)

Defeated Incumbants District 20 District 37 District 42 Jim Karleskint

19 2020 Kansas House General Election District 71 District 85 Michael Capps District 93 JC Moore

Retiring Incumbants District 6 Jene Vickery District 10 District 16 District 17 Tom Cox District 22 District 28 District 38 District 41 District 48 David Benson District 52 District 58 Freda Warfield District 67 Tom Phillips District 69 JR Claeys District 86 Jim Ward District 87 Renee Erickson District 106 Bill Pannbacker District 113 District 114

20 2020 Kansas House General Election District 118

21 2020 General Election

Yellow highlighted districts are in South Central Kansas Incumbents are marked with an (i) after their name Office Democratic Republican

District 1 Kirk Miller (i)

District 2 (i)

District 3 (i) Willie Dove

District 4 (i) Sam Stillwell

District 5 Jeff Pittman (i)

District 6 (i) Diana Whittington

District 7 Laura McConwell

District 8 Cindy Holscher James Todd

District 9 Stacey Knoell Julia Lynn (i)

District 10 Lindsey Constance Mike Thompson (i)

District 11 Joy Koesten Kellie Warren

District 12 Mike Bruner (i)

District 13 Nancy Ingle Richard Hilderbrand (i)

District 14 Michael Fagg

District 15 *The race is too close to call as of 8/27/2020 Virgil Peck, Jr

District 16 Timothy Fry II (i)

22 2020 Kansas Senate General Election District 17 Stephen Vecchione (i)

District 18 Tobias Schlingensiepen Kristen O'Shea

District 19 (i)

District 20 Rachel Willis Brenda Dietrich

District 21 (i) Tom Bickimer

District 22 (i) Craig Bowser

District 23 Wendy Budetti Robert Olson (i)

District 24 J.R. Claeys

District 25 (i) Vail Fruechting

District 26 (i)

District 27 Mike McCorkle (i)

District 28 Jim Ward Mike Petersen (i)

District 29 Oletha Faust-Goudeau (i) Myron Ackerman

District 30 Melissa Gregory Renee Erickson

District 31 Carolyn McGinn (i)

District 32 (i)

District 33 Alicia Straub

District 34 Shanna Henry Mark Steffen

23 2020 Kansas Senate General Election District 35 (i)

District 36 (i)

District 37 Becca Peck (i)

District 38 Edgar Pando Bud Estes (i)

District 39 John Doll (i)

District 40 Larry Dreiling (i)

Defeated Incumbants

District 11

District 14

District 20

District 24

District 33

District 34

Retiring Incumbants

District 7

District 8

District 18 Vic Miller

District 30

24