Senate committee reviews bill to set electronic copy fees, require livestreaming of public comments and add five‑minute executive‑session grace

Senate Judiciary Committee members on Thursday heard hours of testimony on Senate Bill 70, which would change how Kansas agencies handle public records and meetings, set a presumptive fee for electronic copies and require public bodies that livestream to make all aspects of meetings—including public comment—available for observation.

The measure, described by the reviser during the hearing as touching multiple statutes, would deem certain electronic copy fees reasonable, exempt records from formally closed investigations where no violation was found, move a county and district attorney reporting deadline from Jan. 15 to Dec. 15, clarify how subordinate groups count toward Open Meetings Act thresholds, require livestreams to allow public observation of all meeting aspects, and allow a five‑minute deviation for concluding closed sessions.

The bill matters to municipalities, school districts and advocacy groups because it changes how records are provided and how meetings are made publicly available. Supporters said the changes balance transparency with administrative realities; opponents raised concerns about adding statutory per‑page fees for electronic records and about agencies charging both per‑page fees and staff time.

Natalie Scott, the reviser who briefed the committee, summarized the bill’s changes and the statutes it would amend. Scott said the bill’s first section would amend the statute governing fees for copies of records and "provide that a fee for electronic copies that's 12 and half cents per page or less shall be deemed a reasonable fee." She also described provisions that would exempt certain closed investigations from disclosure and would require public bodies that voluntarily livestream to ensure "all aspects of the open meeting are available through that live streaming medium for the people to observe."

John Goodyear, general counsel for the League of Kansas Municipalities, told the committee the league supports transparency but asked that agencies retain the ability to recoup actual costs when filling complex records requests. "Many of our cities ... feel thousands [of requests]," Goodyear said. "This bill preserves that, so we are in support of that provision." He also said the five‑minute executive‑session grace was "a common sense recognition" of practical delays when reconvening in public.

Jay Hall, deputy director and general counsel for the Kansas Association of Counties, said a presumptive electronic copy price could standardize handling of electronic and physical copies and noted the five‑minute grace could reduce confusion about exact end times for executive sessions.

Several private citizens described local experiences that supporters said justify the livestreaming and access provisions. Jill O’Connor of Overland Park urged the committee to "require public bodies... to stream the entire meeting start to finish to include all public comments." Charlotte O’Hara, a former Johnson County commissioner, described a change in her county in which public comment was moved off the broadcast and said volunteers recorded meetings so the public could later view comments. Gary Morgan of Shawnee said volunteers were spending personal time recording meetings and asked the committee to "ensure we the people hold the power of government oversight of public meetings and ensure their transparency." Debbie Detmer, testifying by WebEx, said "livestream meetings must include all parts of the meeting."

Neutral witnesses and agency representatives offered technical suggestions. Matt Bingser, administrative counsel in the Office of the Attorney General, called the bill "a good step in modernizing and enhancing" the Open Records and Open Meetings acts but offered edits to clarify language for enforcement, confidentiality for certain victim services records, and the records exceptions for closed investigations. Angela Stahlbaumer, deputy director and general counsel for the Kansas Association of School Boards, said school districts support transparency but asked that local boards retain discretion about fees and sought clarifications about how subordinate groups are counted under the Open Meetings Act.

Opponents and others focused on the proposed per‑page fee for electronic copies. Dave Trabert, CEO of the Kansas Policy Institute, said the incremental cost of attaching an electronic record to an email is essentially zero and argued the statute should not allow both per‑page fees and staff‑time charges. Several witnesses suggested statutory language should require agencies to select the lower cost option where both approaches are possible.

Committee members asked technical questions about existing case law and how the proposed changes would interact with current practice, including whether the subordinate‑group language merely codifies established attorney‑general opinions and how the presumptive fee would interact with staff time charges. The reviser and neutral conferees responded that some clarifying edits would aid enforcement and reduce ambiguity.

The hearing closed without formal action. Several proponents and neutral conferees left written testimony with the committee. The committee chair said possible final action on previously heard bills would be considered on later agenda days.

Details and next steps: the bill as presented would (1) deem an electronic copy fee of 12.5 cents per page reasonable, (2) exempt records of formally closed investigations with no finding of violation, (3) move a reporting deadline to Dec. 15, (4) clarify counting rules for subordinate groups under the Open Meetings Act, (5) require livestreams to allow observation of all meeting aspects if a body elects to stream, and (6) allow a five‑minute deviation when concluding closed sessions. Committee members signaled interest in technical amendments aimed at clarifying enforcement and avoiding duplicate charges for electronic copies.