[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6362817,"mediaKeyId","2167262-a2b41fbd6367fd48c4738b6563d74ca2","parentId",2167262,"title","Ethics commission seeks two staff additions and new space as litigation draws committee scrutiny","audioSeconds",1417,"startMs",5883425,"endMs",7300895,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2167262-a2b41fbd6367fd48c4738b6563d74ca2&start=5883&end=7300","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2167262-a2b41fbd6367fd48c4738b6563d74ca2/thumbnail_5883425.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6362817/Kansas/Ethics-commission-seeks-two-staff-additions-and-new-space-as-litigation-draws-committee-scrutiny","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6362817-1ebb03e0e37eb3fdc6a8bf2b4353bc77/orig.mp4?Expires=1773643082&Signature=bSPNhR6552GR1bmSdyznhFkBNw3jwDr6NtQrezD8evL1rfrN25nOhN9gh9F4TUTSQRW-JvMN5x~NBGQiJS~AK6EzyqCLyugbjaUmm3TcHAcUlvP8X1~KuaDEgcEbxgOed16HxwyjiQacitYlnXJU1BDCJYQaVcG6BAP6y5UJqoFz4EQNEP~UPCTljwVhPVSiTU0b2mB9Vls7hS6M8pSdYp8j4fv6TDSS~TCdh4-SMJUiWo-DVqubA-Un~vuXf-xOsrExHY~pXSzG-tepuSXvDYVS93xrgII00y4Pk-M7-lDiUT-K4rf11ZIn2eN3CuhW2aDckP~RxG4XvW3BwYDTaA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Committee on General Government Budget , KS ","date","2025-01-29T00:00:00Z","article","The Governmental Ethics Commission presented its FY 2026–27 budget request, which includes a compliance attorney, a compliance auditor (a compliance desk position) and funding for building relocation and one‑time moving costs. Committee members raised concerns about active litigation that has generated attorney‑fee orders and about the commission’s ability to absorb legal costs.

Why it matters: the Ethics Commission enforces campaign finance, lobbying and conflict‑of‑interest laws. Staffing levels and office space affect the agency’s ability to provide advisory guidance to candidates and officials and to pursue enforcement work without conflicts.

Legislative Research staff summarized the request: the commission sought roughly $1.1 million in all funds for FY 2026, including about $788,000 in State General Fund and 10.5 FTEs. The enhancement package included a compliance attorney (base salary cited at $80,000 plus fringe) and an auditor (base salary cited at $57,000 plus fringe). The commission requested $40,000 annually for building space rental beginning in FY 2026 and a one‑time $10,000 moving expense for FY 2026 tied to the end of its current lease in November 2025.

General Counsel Caitlin Bull Stewart told the committee the compliance attorney would create a firewall between the office’s compliance guidance function and the enforcement attorney so that callers seeking guidance would speak to a different attorney than the one handling enforcement. She said the change would allow advisory opinions and more proactive training and guidance while preserving the office’s conflict rules in enforcement matters: \"This allows for the compliance attorney to also guide the commission in drafting advisory opinions, providing more guidance, and focusing on adding significantly more training,\" she said.

Committee members probed litigation exposure. Representative Turk noted that, based on materials he reviewed, attorney fees and litigation costs involving the commission have been substantial and raised a question about where any final fee orders would be paid from. Counsel said litigation remains active, appeals are pending in some matters, and some cases are being defended by the Attorney General’s Office; the commission has not treated the most recent orders as finalized budget obligations and said appeals remain pending.

A number of legislators said new FTEs are hard to authorize in the current fiscal environment and asked the commission to justify staffing increases. The commission said it is currently fully staffed at 8.5 FTE and that the requested positions would be additive to improve compliance desk throughput, reduce burdens on filers and permit more training and advisory work.

What’s next: The committee will take up the commission’s budget as part of the committee’s budget recommendations (the transcript indicates the commission’s budget will be considered the next day); members requested more detail about litigation exposure and the status of appeals before finalizing recommendations.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Committee on General Government Budget 01/29/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Governmental Ethics Commission requested a compliance attorney, an auditor and modest moving funds; committee members raised concerns about ongoing litigation and potential attorney‑fee exposure.","taxTitle","Committee on General Government Budget , Standing, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Kansas","taxId",18816,"location","Kansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6362822,"OITS outlines cybersecurity builds, ARPA projects and emergency fund; committee delays approval",2032,7322244,9355240,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2167262-a2b41fbd6367fd48c4738b6563d74ca2&start=7322&end=9355","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2167262-a2b41fbd6367fd48c4738b6563d74ca2/thumbnail_7322244.jpg","/articles/6362822/Kansas/OITS-outlines-cybersecurity-builds-ARPA-projects-and-emergency-fund-committee-delays-approval","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6362822-1b21e0f929c29ba717d297092d0a2f3e/orig.mp4?Expires=1773643082&Signature=It~NPV3Ueowxfv-6MfhX4DO7rR-hpiNNqr4E9LkNFyu~LyWctZlDQS11PiuKR5ejgpdF2CtUowmQpMJS4CdaDXqq5fb~jiuI5AD4CJP1tJghHMpQF-C1DxIKv9voyVmDXIL3NBpLzuCeyyvzI-ylv7u2lU8NCcmHJUC-7kEbRkhxUxAj01DVp8Pu~gmn4J6R-uIXHO2ndeUQlwq2tdm7x-NPAZc1G7aHjTL~5VqCUSmocSv9Md0~wKqHcZGXbGvEmlDmSQTalfHT2AmS2~8osJYMWmmxnjsaVpNA-XjOnbVa2eFFxX6QfeUnq9~JO49aNA0Ld-M8ZR3XhpJ8MRLL-w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Office of Information Technology Services presented its FY 2025–26 budget request and a summary of ongoing cybersecurity and infrastructure projects, including ARPA‑funded website modernization, phone‑system upgrades, enterprise cybersecurity tools and a 24/7 security operations center.

Why it matters: OITS provides networking, enterprise email, data center and cybersecurity services for nearly every state agency. The office’s investments and service models shape the security and reliability of state IT systems.

Key points presented by OITS and Legislative Research:

- On‑budget vs. off‑budget: OITS explained the distinction between on‑budget appropriations (rehabilitation/repair) and the fee‑funded, off‑budget services it bills to other agencies. The FY 2025 revised estimate contained a mix of on‑budget and off‑budget spending tied to infrastructure and licensing costs.

- ARPA projects: OITS reported using ARPA funds to modernize about 32 agency websites onto a unified platform, upgrade the state phone system, replace agency firewalls, and build an enterprise licensing/identity platform (work supporting the licensure verification effort referenced in Department of Administration testimony).

- Cybersecurity investments: The office has deployed enterprise endpoint detection and response, an enterprise privileged access management tool, and is staffing a 24/7 security operations center. OITS said it would use SGF investments to support enterprise security functions available to agencies at no additional cost.

- Data center and service‑delivery changes: OITS described a transition to vendor‑managed data center services and ongoing desktop as a service, enterprise service desk and other brokered services.

- Senate Bill 291 implementation: The office is executing new governance, cybersecurity and consolidation requirements created by SB 291, including a timetable to present an IT integration plan to the legislature in January 2026.

- ERP modernization support: OITS leaders expressed support for the Department of Administration’s ERP proposal and said OITS would be deeply involved in requirements, RFP design and vendor evaluation if the project moves forward.

The governor’s FY 2026 budget added a $2,000,000 “agency IT emergency fund” to OITS’s budget that would be used to address unforeseen agency IT expenses with oversight through OITS. The committee discussed the fund and how OITS would manage requests.

Action: Representative Turk moved a substitute motion to defer final action on OITS’ recommendations and related items until the following day so members could study materials and supporting documentation; the substitute motion passed by voice vote.

What’s next: Committee staff will circulate the materials and the committee will take up final budget recommendations the next day; OITS said it would provide more detailed FTE tracking, an ERP support plan and documentation of ARPA project scope and obligations.","The Office of Information Technology Services briefed the committee on ARPA‑funded website and phone upgrades, a 24/7 security operations center and other cybersecurity investments; the governor’s $2 million emergency IT fund was noted and the committee voted to postpone a final decision until the next day.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6362826,"Administration seeks $26M first‑year ERP investment, flags reappropriation and debt transfers",2518,2531835,5050110,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2167262-a2b41fbd6367fd48c4738b6563d74ca2&start=2531&end=5050","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2167262-a2b41fbd6367fd48c4738b6563d74ca2/thumbnail_2531835.jpg","/articles/6362826/Kansas/Administration-seeks-26M-firstyear-ERP-investment-flags-reappropriation-and-debt-transfers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6362826-bced05f04367971fc53155fd7320f81c/orig.mp4?Expires=1773643082&Signature=aBZ0sZWI3Cumo8SSH9Epyo76psnXr1UCEsoSKAK9frrGeYjEX-6AlQCeUQcwez5dZ9qKT08wF4VwGHMCOwQunfyhyuthhcbDrvutjNu0pfYZP4BqwcVIS3LffC5zokIWllflhFErya3CMhh~qwFsT4dLMrWEiev3RdBnxFSyh-nFi~JJPMfxq4oZI24NR1N8z5d5XE6snx5gId7zGq4CVXFkaXTCSuh6ziv-nXXRrreP4GIMPIPOGI10JyIZmRGRe2MwM7pCUfkZXdCSTo8sJDCiLXEK4Y47XYfmdeJCCwMZIeTEeDcCsHmAk0VFXXUmDz2zQk~bn4q2LGLWqDyM~A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Department of Administration presented its budgetary overview and outlined a request to begin a multiyear modernization of the state’s enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, as well as several reappropriation requests and debt‑service management proposals.

Why it matters: the Department of Administration provides core shared services—accounting, payroll, facilities, procurement and debt management—that affect every state agency. An ERP modernization and debt‑service reorganization would affect accounting, HR, payroll and statewide reporting.

Legislative Research walked the committee through the Department’s FY 2025 revised estimate and FY 2026 request. Among items discussed:

- Reappropriations lapsed by the Legislative Budget Committee: the department asked to reinstate several reappropriations lapsed by the LBC, including about $7 million for a centralized licensure verification system required under Senate Bill 66. Legislative Research said OITS and agencies are still implementing those projects and some obligations have already been encumbered.

- Mail scanning facility: the department repeated a $400,000 mail‑scanning (\"veil scanning\") request that had been approved previously but lapsed because reappropriation language was not included. Secretary Proffitt said the facility is now built and operating and he requested the funding to cover the cost.

- Docking State Office Building: Legislative Research presented a project schedule showing total project cost near $139 million and said construction would complete in spring (April/May) with an anticipated opening in May.

- Debt service transfer: the administration recommended transferring approximately $10.3 million in debt‑service payments to the Department of Administration’s budget. Roughly $7 million of that authority would be lapsed from other agencies and consolidated in Department of Administration for centralized debt management.

- ERP modernization: Secretary Adam Proffitt outlined a multiyear, cross‑agency ERP modernization to replace aging on‑premises systems for finance (SMART), HR (SHARP) and the IBARS budget system. The department’s preliminary estimate places a typical modernization in the $90–100 million range, with a $26 million year‑one request and an expected implementation window of three to five years. Proffitt said the ongoing annual cost after implementation would likely be in the $6–9 million range and that the Department consulted Gartner and a cross‑agency work group to evaluate options. \"We support a fully integrated cloud‑based solution,\" Proffitt said, adding that earlier adoption would avoid last‑minute vendor and consultant scarcities.

Proffitt also summarized the department’s role in managing statewide debt and central services. He asked for some reappropriated items to be restored because the department has already encumbered or spent portions of those funds and because some appropriations fund agencies that shifting them to the Department of Administration better centralizes debt management.

Committee members asked about oversight and potential proviso language; Representative Hubert suggested referral/opening to appropriations for deeper review when the bill drafting and fiscal language are available. No final committee vote was taken on the ERP request at this meeting; members asked staff for additional information and timeline detail.

","Secretary Adam Proffitt and Legislative Research staff briefed the committee on reappropriations lapsed by the LBC, Docking building costs, a repeated mail‑scanning request and a multiyear ERP modernization estimated at $90–100 million with a $26 million first‑year ask.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6362833,"Committee limits new spending for Board of Cosmetology, requests audits and statutory review",1137,1346165,2484030,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2167262-a2b41fbd6367fd48c4738b6563d74ca2&start=1346&end=2484","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2167262-a2b41fbd6367fd48c4738b6563d74ca2/thumbnail_1346165.jpg","/articles/6362833/Kansas/Committee-limits-new-spending-for-Board-of-Cosmetology-requests-audits-and-statutory-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6362833-482a34af6ca111a771f08593d410a285/orig.mp4?Expires=1773643082&Signature=Syc8DN9MUUrIZ~psYrvwma47CFDxqJ8QIGEw75GcC0hk4-8baK43QlqMUpcPNZh1td55PuXcfwEItmeoDyKvsBepoqql0MgB2wAhUTD7VlUWmba1-H1af98LS7nYwTEonWFO5eges3NDCjbTJt3577PlLdiOHWAPWpU8alo8Wu3OZHKzTvUF5FDQAdq5m4YMtRCEepfr9xg2pfefH83ez-xGLGhZRQ7E5AV4O7058iF3kq53qV~mgCDvmerCyw1vk~KVk6qYbUVX7WZ9XyMY31G4xtjQxfDTUyRyshak0H9rwQyOfBgUdeJjVVM~NMhxQpetyg6yfiopdgf9pOJlNg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Committee on General Government Budget on Oct. 12 voted to accept the Legislative Budget Committee’s recommendations for much of the Board of Cosmetology’s budget and declined to authorize several enhancement requests, saying the agency needs internal reform and auditing rather than larger appropriations.

Why it matters: the Board of Cosmetology oversees licensing and training for cosmetology professions statewide. Committee members said the board’s current spending and staffing levels need review before adding new recurring funds. The question affects licensing fees, agency operations and potential future statutory changes.

The committee’s initial motion, offered by a committee member, was to concur with the LBC on items 1 through 16 in the budget summary and to not approve items 17 through 22. That motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Committee members repeatedly urged audit and management reviews rather than additional funding. The chair said, “I feel like an audit is overkill. I think they need to get their house in order,” and later: “Giving them more money will just allow them to continue to spend what they want.” Representative Turk and others argued for a targeted review of staffing and budget structure and suggested Legislative Post Audit or a private audit could help the board identify reforms. Representative Turk then moved to delete all enhancement requests not statutorily required for 2026 and to request a Legislative Post Audit; Representative Riley seconded that motion and it passed by voice vote.

Agency staff and Legislative Research presented numbers to the committee and clarified that some enhancement requests are net‑zero across line items and that the fee fund revenue varies with election cycles. KLRD staff confirmed the board’s request for additional FTEs and increased rent and noted a fiscal‑year‑by‑year line‑item breakdown in the written budget summary.

For 2027 the committee considered, and then approved, a substitute motion to reset the board’s authorizations to the level approved for fiscal year 2025 and to not authorize additional funding for enhancements that are not statutorily required. The substitute motion passed by voice vote.

What’s next: Committee staff will reflect the LBC concurrence and the committee’s deletions in the draft budget report. Members asked Legislative Research and LBC staff to prepare audit language or scope options so the committee can consider a post‑audit or targeted review in the interim.

","The committee concurred with Legislative Budget Committee (LBC) deletions and declined enhancement requests for the Board of Cosmetology, ordered an internal review path and discussed seeking a legislative post‑audit.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6362838,"Committee approves fee‑fund spending and vehicle allowance for Board of Barbering",1366,30581,1396775,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2167262-a2b41fbd6367fd48c4738b6563d74ca2&start=30&end=1396","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2167262-a2b41fbd6367fd48c4738b6563d74ca2/thumbnail_30581.jpg","/articles/6362838/Kansas/Committee-approves-feefund-spending-and-vehicle-allowance-for-Board-of-Barbering","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6362838-bd65fa80c7f892a264b410b303094311/orig.mp4?Expires=1773643082&Signature=ly2IaCUS6Eki2OevvZ3upxcWFjRUNSHmoaa9YTW9WJ9XUeIAbu-Vq-ypM7kSHX2y4ziPWaCyA4NUlMk6a2Mkn8FL~ScODyU6Q1P8dI8aU0LfwkWTG-2cZv839sk8c-Pdmybv9cwxpUmUs1SQIlOEkBICGxAtBakcw005Pe0xY6SYo5SDM3m04jcEMUxxDZ52COEy87RhjkQAq9b5by9akAtWvbGEmzrrkmGBm1cm4cPznSQ6cZQwBCJJfgtDVH5spOS~8iKI3B2Q9G~UYbiiTh9yE38RNLFOissiEDKNfJKWnOllOyAm3Yb7WXxkclM7ccXKNH8N6Jg7ElbXt8DOfA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Committee on General Government Budget on Oct. 12 approved use of the Board of Barbering’s fee fund for several identified line items and added a direction to produce a five‑year vehicle and operations plan.

The committee’s action authorized the board to draw from its fee fund rather than the State General Fund for a set of line items discussed during the hearing, and it passed a separate amendment allowing up to roughly $5,000 for vehicle repairs and requesting the board submit a five‑year vehicle‑replacement plan to the Division of the Budget and this committee.

Why it matters: the Board of Barbering is funded primarily by fees; authorizing spending out of the fee fund and clarifying carryover and vehicle allowances affects how that small licensing board manages cash flow and basic operations.

The committee voted first to permit use of fee‑fund balances for specified Barbering expenses. The chair described a package of line items the committee would authorize from the board’s fee fund: computer‑based testing fees ($5,200, as discussed), practical examination travel costs (listed in the discussion as 14.8), a $500 national‑conference fee, $500 for service fees, $1,000 for vehicle tires, and the addition of a 0.1 FTE or similar position adjustment tied to increasing the executive director’s weekly hours from 35 to 40. The chair said, “I will make that a motion.” A representative of the Board of Barbering seconded; the motion passed on a voice vote.

Budget staff and the Division of the Budget cautioned the committee about the difference between budget authority (expenditure authority) and cash flow. Adam Proffitt, identified as the budget director, told the panel he expects some fee‑funded agencies will need carryover because not all fees arrive on the first day of the fiscal year: “I don't think all their fees come in on day 1 of the new fiscal year, so there should be a level of carryover from year to year to ensure that we can make the payments,” he said. Proffitt also described past cash‑flow problems at small agencies and reminded the committee there is a state requirement for an ending balance on the State General Fund.

Separately, Representative Turk moved to add language allowing the Board of Barbering to budget roughly $5,000 for vehicle repairs and requested the board prepare a five‑year replacement plan and submit it to the Division of the Budget and this committee; that motion was seconded and passed. Committee members said the plan should be shared with appropriations if it becomes part of a longer budget conversation.

The committee also took routine concurrence votes on the board’s FY 2026 and FY 2027 budget summaries; the record shows the motions to concur passed by voice vote.

What’s next: The committee instructed staff to draft proviso language reflecting the vehicle repair permission and the request for a five‑year plan. Committee members also discussed longer‑term statutory updates for both the Board of Barbering and the Board of Cosmetology.

","The Committee on General Government Budget approved the Board of Barbering’s use of fee funds for testing, travel and small equipment items and added limited vehicle repair language and a request that the board supply a five‑year plan for vehicle replacement and operations.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Ethics commission seeks two staff additions and new space as litigation draws committee scrutiny

OITS outlines cybersecurity builds, ARPA projects and emergency fund; committee delays approval

Administration seeks $26M first‑year ERP investment, flags reappropriation and debt transfers

Committee limits new spending for Board of Cosmetology, requests audits and statutory review

Committee approves fee‑fund spending and vehicle allowance for Board of Barbering