Committee advances HB2270 to expand CTO/CISO authorities, add cloud services and telecom controls; judicial branch seeks carve‑outs

House Bill 2,270, which would authorize the chief information security officer to receive audit reports and modernize multiple IT statutes, was heard and advanced by the Committee on Legislative Modernization.

What the bill does: the reviser summarized that HB2270 would amend several Kansas statutes (KSA 46‑11‑35; KSA 75‑47‑04; KSA 75‑47‑05; KSA 75‑47‑09; KSA 75‑47‑10; KSA 75‑72‑05) to add cloud services to the Office of Information Technology Services’ responsibilities, require infrastructure/platform-as-a-service to be performed through OITS, register software‑as‑a‑service applications, and require executive branch CTO approval for purchases of central processing units or distributed computing equipment costing $75,000 or more. The bill would also state that the executive branch CTO controls acquisition, retention and use of telecommunications equipment and software, with a limited carve‑out allowing agencies to procure their own compatible equipment; cell phones were explicitly excluded from that section. The bill also adds duties for the executive branch CTO on enterprise IT strategy and expenditure analysis.

Proponents: Jeff Maddox, Executive Branch Chief Information Technology Officer, testified in favor, saying the bill modernizes statutes that reference legacy mainframe technology and better captures cloud and telecom changes. Maddox said OITS provides extensive connectivity across all 105 counties and that the changes reflect current technology.

Neutral / branch concerns: Stephanie Smith, Judicial Administrator for the Judicial Branch, testified neutrally and asked for targeted clarifying amendments to sections 3 and 4. Smith said the Judicial Branch historically has controlled its own cloud computing and telecommunications decisions as a separate branch and requested explicit clarification that sections in question not apply to Regents universities and that the Judicial Branch be carved out where appropriate. The committee and proponents discussed whether the bill’s language already supported judicial autonomy; the reviser noted the text limits some services to executive branch agencies in certain sections but that other telecom language applied to all state divisions.

Fiscal note and timing: committee staff initially did not have a fiscal note available; later the fiscal note file showed a fiscal impact of approximately $60,000 in FY2026 and FY2027 from the State General Fund for cybersecurity software required to comply with the bill’s provisions. Committee members asked whether that amount was recurring; discussion indicated FY26 and FY27 were the years noted.

Committee action: members debated an amendment that would have explicitly excluded the Judicial Branch from sections 3 and 4; that amendment failed on a committee vote. The committee then moved to work the bill and voted to report HB2270 favorably for passage. Two members asked to have “no” votes recorded on the committee motion to report the bill (Representative Simmons and Representative Carr); the committee chair announced the motion carried.

Why it matters: backers say the bill updates decades‑old statutory language to recognize cloud computing, modern procurement and telecom practices and centralize some IT governance for efficiency and security. The Judicial Branch requested explicit statutory language clarifying the extent to which judicial systems remain under judicial control for procurement and cloud decisions and sought inclusion of Regents universities in carve‑out language.

Ending: the committee reported HB2270 favorably for passage after debate; proponents said they would continue to work with the reviser and Judicial Branch staff on language if needed in subsequent steps.