Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents tell commission of Social Security errors, raise concerns about CoreCivic project

3091080 · April 23, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Two members of the public addressed the commission: a combat veteran described Social Security record errors that led to benefit interruptions and urged community outreach; another resident criticized CoreCivic’s facility plans and contractor practices and urged neighbors to seek documentation.

Two members of the public used the commission’s public‑comment period to raise separate concerns about federal benefits access and a proposed private detention facility.

Harold Peterson, who identified himself as a combat veteran and Leavenworth resident, said his Social Security record was incorrectly marked as deceased and his date of birth was changed to 1758, which interrupted benefits and threatened his VA disability payments. Peterson described traveling to local Social Security offices in Lawrence and Lenexa and said delays at the offices stemmed from staffing problems. He asked churches and community outreach groups to assist people affected by similar errors and warned of housing instability if benefit interruptions continue.

William Rogers of Kansas City, Kansas, addressed the commission about CoreCivic and the Midwest Regional Reception Center proposal. Rogers said opponents are not only outsiders and that CoreCivic and the facility’s warden had suggested critics did not live locally. He urged residents to hold the company to local ordinances and said an open‑records review showed a roof project budgeted at $1,145,600 used contractors from Texas and, he said, that a team observed undocumented workers on the site. Rogers encouraged neighborhood and faith groups to contact him for documentation.

Neither public comment item led to immediate action by the commission; staff noted the mayor may direct follow‑up with individuals after the meeting. The record of public comment was acknowledged by the mayor and staff during the meeting.