Kansas hearing considers bill to let wildlife commissioners submit proposed rules

Senators on the Kansas Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources heard testimony on Senate Bill 211 on whether individual members of the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks Commission should be able to submit proposed rules and regulations to the commission.

Supporters said the change would restore commissioners’ ability to put items on the commission agenda and make the process more representative. "This bill is just a small fix to what is actually a pretty big problem," Attorney General Kris Kobach told the committee, arguing that allowing commissioners to propose rules would prevent a single agency official from blocking issues from being considered.

The bill would amend KSA 32-805, which currently requires the secretary of Wildlife and Parks to submit proposed rules and regulations to the commission; the commission then may approve, modify and approve, or reject them. Tamara Lawrence of the Revisor's office explained the current statutory baseline and told the committee the statute and its notice requirements predate recent practice: "This particular statute was enacted in 1987 and the requirement that the Secretary submit proposed rules to the Commission was part of that original enactment in 1987." The bill contains a technical amendment and would take effect July 1 upon publication, the Revisor said.

Commissioner Bruce Bridal, who represents Region 4 (Southwest Kansas) on the commission, testified by WebEx that commissioners have at times been "sidelined" and said the change would allow commissioners to present agenda items directly and force formal consideration: "Commissioners are being sidelined," he said, adding that conversations about extending night-vision-assisted coyote hunting had been discussed at multiple meetings but not put to a vote.

Curtis Ward, chief counsel for the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, appeared on behalf of Acting Secretary Kennedy and provided neutral testimony. Ward said the department already treats commissioner requests seriously and runs proposed regulatory changes through the formal rules-and-regulations process before a commission vote. He warned, however, that the bill as drafted raises questions about who would prepare and submit a commissioner-originated proposal and identified an ethical and staffing question: if a commissioner formally proposes a regulation that conflicts with the secretary's position, Ward said his role as the agency's counsel could create a conflict of interest. He told senators: "Rules and regulations would still be subject to the rules and regulations filing act." Ward said that historically, a "proposal" for the commission has meant a fully drafted regulation that goes through Department of Administration, the Attorney General's office, the Division of Budget, notice in the Kansas Register, and review by JCAR (the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules).

Committee discussion focused on precise wording and practical effects. Several senators and witnesses noted an ambiguity in the bill language between "requires" and "allows" commissioners to submit proposals; the Revisor and others confirmed the intent is permissive—allowing commissioners to submit proposals rather than imposing a mandatory submission duty. Senators also questioned whether the bill would force the commission to vote on every suggested item (it would not) and whether it would change public-notice requirements (it would not: rules would remain subject to the Rules and Regulations Filing Act and existing notice periods).

The department's fiscal and legal staff and the Division of Budget told the committee that allowing commissioners to submit fully drafted regulations could create workload or ethical issues that might require adding staff or using outside counsel; Ward said an alternative would be drafting language that permitted commissioners to ask the secretary to draft regulations, which could mitigate ethical concerns.

The hearing included repeated references to a policy example: expanding year-round night-vision-assisted coyote hunting except on rifle hunting days. Testimony showed the item has been discussed multiple times and that commissioners and members of the public have sought a formal vote.

No formal committee vote was taken at the hearing. The committee recessed the hearing and noted SB 211 is exempt and will be the first item on the committee agenda after turnaround, with members encouraged to work on potential amendments that address filing-act language, separation of drafting responsibility, and fiscal impacts.