Committee hears bill to extend whistleblower protections to municipal employees

At a hearing of the Kansas Senate Local Government Committee on Transparency and Ethics, lawmakers and witnesses discussed Senate Bill 120, a proposal to extend statutory whistleblower protections to employees of cities, counties and school districts in Kansas.

The bill, described by committee staff as a municipal version of existing state protections, would bar disciplinary action against municipal employees who report unlawful or dangerous conduct and would let aggrieved employees sue in district court within 90 days for damages, equitable relief, court costs and fees. If enacted the bill would take effect July 1, 2025.

Representative Carrie Barth, who introduced the legislation in the House as House Bill 2,160 and testified as a proponent, told the committee she drafted the measure using federal and state language because she has received requests from municipal employees who feared retaliation. "I wish there was no need for this bill," Representative Carrie Barth said. She cited multiple local incidents described in written testimony, including allegations in Neosho, Bourbon and Leavenworth counties and a Douglas County matter that she said involved a county employee named in litigation.

Charles, committee staff and the reviser who gave the bill brief, summarized the substance of the draft. "SB 120 ... provides legal protection to employees who would report or disclose unlawful or dangerous actions," he said, and noted the bill narrows the definition of "municipal" to cities, counties and school districts. The staff brief explained disciplinary action would include dismissal, demotion, transfer, reassignment, suspension, reprimand, warnings and withholding of work; protected disclosures would include reporting violations of state or federal law or rules and regulations and disclosing substantial, specific dangers to public health and safety. The bill would require each covered employer to post the act where employees could reasonably see it.

Supporters told the committee the measure is aimed at protecting local workers who report wrongdoing. Catherine Ellsworth, a private citizen of Douglas County who testified remotely, described a local example in which information from a whistleblower became the basis of litigation and said that without protections such disclosures may not occur.

Officials from county and municipal associations said they support whistleblower protections but expressed concerns about the bill's current draft. "KAC supports whistleblower protections," Jay Hall, deputy director and general counsel for the Kansas Association of Counties, told the committee, but said the association was neutral on this bill because its wording is not identical to state law and could be broader than intended. John Goodyear, general counsel for the League of Kansas Municipalities, likewise said the League was neutral and asked why some provisions depart from the state employee law.

County and municipal witnesses pointed to two areas of concern. First, several witnesses questioned provisions that expand protected conduct beyond reporting violations of law, singling out subsections described in testimony as "4 and 5," which mention malfeasance and misappropriation without statutory definitions. Goodyear said those subsections could be redundant with protections that already cover violations of law and could create ambiguity between a protected whistleblower and an employee who disagrees with policy but is not reporting illegal conduct.

Second, association counsel urged adding an administrative or internal process step before permitting court filings. Goodyear and Jay Hall suggested a nonlitigation path, similar to the state employee process described in testimony, could reduce costly litigation and give municipalities an opportunity to remedy reported problems. Committee staff noted the bill already allows an employer to require employees to inform supervisors about information provided to a legislative or auditing body; proponents and opponents discussed whether that requirement undermines protections.

Several senators asked technical questions about definitions and timing. Senator Clifford asked about the 90-day window to file suit and whether it could bar claims that evolve slowly; proponents responded that the committee could amend timelines. Senator Titus and others queried whether requiring an administrative reporting channel could expose employees to retaliation if their supervisors are the alleged wrongdoers; municipal counsel said the bill could be drafted to permit alternative reporting routes to the governing body or an outside entity if appropriate.

No formal committee action or vote was taken at the hearing. Members closed the hearing after the proponents, neutral witnesses and opponents exchanged questions and suggested possible amendments, including tightening language on malfeasance/misappropriation and adding an administrative review step.

The committee record shows House Bill 2,160 is a companion measure in the House. The proponent asked the committee to work with municipal groups to refine the draft before the legislature's turnaround deadlines.

For now, SB 120 remains under consideration; committee members said they would follow the House hearing and discuss possible revisions in subsequent meetings.