Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensure Military Spouses topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to expand occupational licensure eligibility for service members and spouses, debate on fee waiver scope
Summary
House Bill 2274 would remove the word “active” from statutory language that affects occupational licensure eligibility, widening eligibility to National Guard and reservists; the committee advanced the bill but heard concerns from the Board of Technical Professions about an overly broad fee waiver for spouses.
The Committee on Veterans and Military voted to move House Bill 2274 out of committee after proponents said the measure would broaden expedited licensure and fee waivers to include National Guard and Reserve families. The committee also heard neutral testimony urging a narrow reading of a fee-waiver provision to avoid unintended statewide licensing loopholes.
Carly, the committee adviser, summarized the bill as removing the word “active” from references to service members in KSA 48-3406 (as cited in committee materials). She said the change is intended to make clear that part‑time active-duty service members, National Guard members and reservists are eligible under the statute.
Lieutenant Colonel Keith Marshall of the Kansas National Guard told the committee: “The word active, small word that can have a big meaning, can be interpreted very narrowly to mean only active duty service members. And when it is that way, then it excludes National Guardsmen and Reservists.” He said the change would make the measure explicitly available to National Guard families as well.
Larry Carnes, executive director of the Board of Technical Professions, testified in a neutral capacity and raised a written concern: as drafted, a separate subsection (section u) would waive licensing fees “notwithstanding any other provision of law” for military spouses. Carnes said that phrasing could be read too broadly and unintentionally exempt out‑of‑state practitioners who never reside in Kansas from licensure fees when they perform work tied to Kansas projects. He recommended clarifying language tying the waiver to spouses who “reside or plan to reside in this state due to the assigned military station,” a definition that appears earlier in the bill.
Rob Lai and other witnesses suggested the bill’s applicant definition (military spouse or service member who resides or plans to reside in Kansas due to assignment) should control the scope of the waiver; committee staff noted the two sections could be read inconsistently and recommended an insertion that links the subsection to the applicant definition.
The committee discussed possible drafting fixes; members noted the powerful reach of the statutory word “notwithstanding.” Representative Carlin and others asked staff to ensure the waiver would not create a competitive advantage for non‑resident practitioners working on Kansas projects. The committee adopted a motion to report the bill to the House on a voice vote; Chair signaled members may bring committee amendments if they choose during the next steps.
Supporters said the change would reduce barriers for military families who move frequently and help spouses obtain work quickly after a change of station. Neutral testimony urged careful statutory language so the waiver applies only to spouses who will reside in Kansas because of a military assignment.
