Kansas Senate committee hears debate on ‘Back to Work’ bill requiring most state employees to work on-site

At a hearing of the Senate Committee on Government Efficiency, legislators heard competing testimony for and against Senate Bill 256, the Back to Work Act, which would require full‑time employees of state agencies to perform their duties at an assigned office, facility or field location unless an agency head grants an exception.

The bill, as described to the committee, includes exceptions for employees with nonstandard work hours (evenings, weekends or holidays), positions where in‑office work would be “deemed unreasonable,” and situations in which providing office space would require additional expenditures by an agency. Agencies would be required to submit the number of exceptions granted and other information to the Department of Administration by Aug. 1, 2025; the Department would then file a report to the committee by Oct. 1, 2025. The bill’s effective date would be upon publication in the state register.

Supporters said bringing more state workers back downtown would aid local businesses. Seth Wagner, chief executive officer of AIM Strategies LLC, told the committee that downtown Topeka’s restaurants and hotels have not fully recovered since the COVID‑19 pandemic and that fewer state workers downtown has reduced lunchtime and weekday business. “If we could recover the workers who were downtown before the pandemic, the downtown core would be set to take off once again,” Wagner said, citing AIM’s private investments downtown.

Department of Administration Secretary Adam Proffitt testified in a neutral capacity and clarified how the administration distinguishes “remote work” (fully off‑site) from “telework” (hybrid work with structured in‑office requirements). Proffitt said the governor’s position is generally that employees should be in the office but acknowledged instances where telework is appropriate and useful as a recruiting tool. He told senators that agencies use templates and safeguards for telework, and he cited a 2023 legislative post audit finding that agencies did not show diminished service delivery after telework became more common.

Proffitt also warned of separation‑of‑powers and operational concerns, including how the bill would handle employees who must be out of state for work or during inclement weather. He said agencies have different operational needs — for example, state driver’s license stations and other customer‑facing offices — and noted the bill’s exception for agency heads to grant relief where bringing employees back would require additional expenditures.

State employees and service providers opposed the bill, saying it would undermine recruitment and retention and could impair delivery of services to Kansans, especially in rural areas. Frances DuWell (testifying on her own behalf but speaking about the Kansas Protection Report Center’s operations) said the Protection Report Center employs 76 specialists who handle reports of child and adult abuse and neglect and that the center processes roughly 7,600 reports per month. DuWell said SB 256 could force out as many as 25% of those specialists and would jeopardize timely handling of reports.

Tandy Walters, an HR manager and state employee, and other opponents urged the committee to consider research showing flexible work options improve retention and productivity, and they argued performance issues should be handled through standard performance management rather than a broad prohibition on telework. Amber Schmidt, a state employee who testified as a private citizen, said forcing more days in the office would raise her commuting costs and reduce her discretionary spending downtown. Crystal Carr, a rural employee from Hoxie, said reduced telework would strain services in northwest Kansas, where staff cover large geographic areas and virtual lobbies have helped serve clients at local offices.

Disability advocates also raised concerns about the bill’s reporting requirement. Mike Burgess, director of policy and outreach at the Disability Rights Center of Kansas, told senators that public reporting of exceptions by job description could risk accidental disclosure of disability‑related accommodations in smaller agencies and that confidentiality protections would need careful review.

Committee members pressed agency officials on several practical questions: whether the state has more full‑time employees since the pandemic (Proffitt said there is not a significant statewide uptick in FTEs), how agencies measure productivity for teleworking staff (Proffitt referenced the 2023 post audit finding that agencies generally did not see diminished outputs), and how much additional office space would be required if teleworking staff returned full time. Senators also noted a KDHE fiscal note estimating roughly $842,000 in costs tied to bringing some remote workers back into offices and asked whether that amount could be mitigated by agency‑granted exceptions; committee counsel confirmed the bill’s exception for office‑space constraints would apply.

No committee vote was taken at the hearing. The committee chair closed the hearing and announced no meeting would be held the following day.

Proponents: Seth Wagner, chief executive officer, AIM Strategies LLC (business). Neutral: Adam Proffitt, Secretary of Administration (state government). Opponents: Frances DuWell (state employee/Kansas Protection Report Center); Tandy Walters (state agency HR manager); Crystal Carr (state employee, Hoxie, rural Kansan); Amber Schmidt (state employee); Mike Burgess (Disability Rights Center of Kansas). Senators asking questions included Senator Thompson, Senator Holscher, Senator Shane and Senator Alley.

The committee’s next steps were not announced at the close of the hearing. If enacted as written, the bill would require agencies to file exception tallies with the Department of Administration by Aug. 1, 2025, and the department to report to the committee by Oct. 1, 2025.