Kansas committee hears polarized testimony on bill to clear some nursing discipline records

The Committee on House Health and Human Services on Feb. 20, 2026, heard testimony on House Bill 2528, a package of changes to the Kansas State Board of Nursing that would void certain disciplinary actions dating to 2005, change renewal and notification procedures, and revise disciplinary procedures and remedies.

Jenna Moyer of the Revisor of Statutes Office opened the hearing with a technical summary of the bill. "This is House Bill 25 28, which is a bill concerning the Board of Nursing related to their powers, duties, responsibilities," Moyer said, explaining the measure would "void any board ... action that occurred between January 2005 and 07/02/2026 that arises from disciplinary action related to certain statutes and rules and regulations." She added the bill would require digital renewal notices at 90, 60, 30 and seven days before renewal and would make certain voided records confidential and exempt from open‑records disclosure.

Proponents framed HB 2528 as a corrective for what they called overly punitive treatment of nurses for administrative or clerical errors. Representative Sandy Pickert, who introduced the bill, said it "separates licensure from disciplinary actions and mandates removal from databases for nurses with a licensure related unprofessional conduct charge." Multiple nurses who testified described long, emotionally and financially damaging investigations. "I was pressured in designing a consent agreement that required me to accept a false narrative," Lacey Grogan, an RN from St. Francis, told the committee, describing a suspension she said exceeded its stated length and permanent listing on disciplinary databases. Joshua Connor, an LPN, said he was "coerced to sign a consent agreement that labeled me with unprofessional conduct" after failing to renew while taking a non‑nursing job and later lost an out‑of‑state license because of the label.

Supporters also cited process reforms in the bill: investigators’ cases would be closed after one calendar year, the board would be required to send certain reinstatement reports directly to legislative health committees, and the bill would add a late‑renewal fee (a maximum of $300 was noted in Revisor comments) while providing a 90‑day grace period before a license is canceled.

Board officials and many opponents warned the bill as written is too broad. Carol Moreland, testifying for the Kansas State Board of Nursing, said the measure could remove records of serious misconduct from public view, listing cases she said involved sexual misconduct with students, theft, physical altercations, solicitation and missing controlled‑substance vials. "Those are things that could be voided and they would go off the record," Moreland said, asking how employers and the compact data exchanges would be protected.

Current board member Dr. Ruth Burkhart said the bill would "remove or weaken KSBN's delegated authority" and urged caution. Several nursing organizations and practicing nurses opposed the measure, arguing it was drafted without broad stakeholder collaboration and that it could reinstate people with convictions or serious misconduct, a concern repeated by other witnesses.

Committee members pressed both sides for specifics. Lawmakers asked which disciplinary categories would be eligible to be voided, whether a 'void' meant the same thing as expungement, how reporting to the National Practitioner Data Bank would be affected, and what standards governors would use to remove board members if Senate confirmation were added. Proponents repeatedly said the intent was to target non‑practice clerical matters, not clinical misconduct; opponents said the statutory language as written could reach a broader set of offenses.

The committee did not take a vote. Chair (addressed in testimony as Chairman Carpenter) directed parties to submit amendments and said the panel would continue work next week, requesting unified technical changes to clarify distinctions between clerical renewal matters and practice‑related offenses.

The hearing highlighted a central policy tradeoff for lawmakers: provide relief and faster resolution for nurses harmed by long administrative investigations, or preserve the board’s authority and public access to records of serious misconduct. The committee will accept amendments and reconvene to deliberate revisions.