Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas Judiciary committee hears multifaceted open‑government bill changing electronic fees, disclosures and livestream rules
Summary
A multiprong bill to amend the Open Records Act and Open Meetings Act — prohibiting fees for electronic copies of records, narrowing disclosure of formally closed investigations, shifting a reporting deadline and setting livestream and executive‑session rules — drew mixed testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Judiciary.
A broad open‑government bill that would bar fees for electronic copies of public records, narrow disclosure of some formally closed investigations and add requirements for livestreamed public meetings was heard Wednesday by the House Committee on Judiciary.
Jason Thompson of the Revisor's Office summarized Senate Bill 70 as amended in the Senate, telling the committee the measure "prohibits fees for electronic copies of records under the Open Records Act" and also changes multiple Open Meetings Act provisions.
The bill would: (1) treat fees for printed copies equal to or less than 25 cents per page as reasonable and prohibit per‑page or per‑copy fees for electronic copies; (2) add an exception to disclosure for agency investigations that were formally closed with a finding of no violation; (3) move the reporting date for county and district attorney Open Records and Open Meetings complaints to Oct. 15; (4) clarify when subordinate groups are subject to the Open Meetings Act; (5) require that if a public body elects to livestream a meeting, the public must be able to observe the open meeting through that medium; and (6) provide a five‑minute grace period for resuming an open meeting after executive session.
Proponent witnesses said parts of the bill should be preserved while others needed technical fixes. Dave Trabert, CEO of the Kansas Policy Institute, supported the change eliminating fees for electronic copies but told the committee he and other stakeholders had reached an accommodation on cost language in House Bill 2134 and would be comfortable adopting that text instead of the Senate language. "Just the costing is what we're concerned about," Trabert said.
John Goodyear, general counsel for the League of Kansas Municipalities, urged the committee to replace section 1 with the compromise language in House Bill 2134 and sought clarification to avoid inadvertent violations of streaming requirements. "With the language being as specific as it is, it says all aspects of the meeting must be streamed," Goodyear said, adding that literal reading could create inadvertent violations when, for example, a presenter's PowerPoint appears without a camera view of the presenter.
A private citizen, Missy Levitt, described a separate experience seeking election‑related public records and the costs she received in response to a broad CORA request; she told the committee the bill's digital‑copy fee prohibition would address the large bills she reported and asked whether county attorneys would face accountability if they failed to file reports required under the bill.
Committee members asked the Revisor and witnesses detailed questions about implementation: who would enforce open‑meetings return times after executive session; whether streaming is currently mandated (it is not); and how local agencies without streaming capacity would be affected.
The bill was heard; the committee did not take final action on SB 70 Wednesday. Written neutral and proponent testimony was filed by the attorney general's office, the Kansas Association of Counties, the City of Overland Park, the Kansas Association of School Boards and others, the chair noted.
