Find Bill
Find Your Legislator
Legislative Deadlines
Dec. 13, 2022
RSS Feed Permanent URL -A +A

Minutes for HB2219 - Committee on Judiciary

Short Title

Requiring bodies subject to the Kansas open meetings act to record proceedings and make the recordings available to the public.

Minutes Content for Mon, Feb 18, 2019

Natalie Scott, Assistant Revisor, provided an overview of HB2219.  There were no questions from the membership. (Attachment 3)

Robert Cooper testified in support of HB2219, with ASL interpreters, that KCDHH considers this bill as an opportunity to raise awareness for the need of accessibility on all live-stream sessions and their recordings, which Kansas could easily make them accessible. Accessibility would involve at least captioning, and there are several options which involve several different considerations to each. He is not too concerned about the need to include sign language interpreters in this consideration, as he wants to focus on the primary consideration of how to resolve the accessibility issue for all recordings, which captioning could be the best tool to enable what they would call universal access for everyone. This would not only be applicable to recordings themselves, but possibly include the accessibility needs of the meeting onsite. It would work for both needs at the same time. (Attachment 4)

Representative John Alcala testified in support of HB2219 indicating transparency in government is a key feature of every free society. US law encourages agencies to make information in records available to the public whenever possible. If a meeting is supported in whole or in part by public funds it shall be open to the public. He believes this bill will move Kansas another step forward to an all-in transparency State. It is vitally important that people who cannot attend public meetings for reasons of disability, work hours, single parents with small children or for any number of other reasons, have access to those meetings through recorded audio or video. (Attachment 5)

Both proponent presenters stood for questions from the membership.

Written testimony in support of HB2219 was submitted by:

Alexandra Blasi offered neutral testimony for HB2219 explaining the State Pharmacy Board understands the need for transparency in government and supports the tenants of the Kansas Open Meetings Act; however, HB2219 creates some challenges for their agency that could ultimately result in increased costs and inefficiencies. In fact, their board believes so strongly in public involvement at their meetings that they have increased accessibility by making them available via phone and video conference for all members of the public. Their board would likely need to budget for additional staff time and resources, upgraded recording equipment, and costs associated with web storage. It currently operates with the minimum staff and financial resources required to timely and accurately complete our statutory duties, so there is no cushion to absorb this additional work and they would need additional legislative expenditure authority before they were able to implement these changes. (Attachment 10)

Kathy Seizler Lippert, JD, offered neutral testimony for HB2219 because Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (KSBHA) does have strong concerns about fiscal impact and ability to comply with this mandate due to limited resources. The State of Kansas has a broad cross section of public agencies. Some agencies are large and have media or communication staff along with technological abilities to implement this type of requirement. Many agencies have limited staff and technological resources that will make implementation challenging. (Attachment 11)

Both neutral presenters stood for questions from the membership.

Doug Mays testified in opposition of HB2219 stating the rural water districts of Kansas, like other rural and small community boards, generally do not have the staff, the funds, the time, or the expertise to comply with this bill if passed. Nor is there any apparent need. (Attachment 12)

Rob Gilligan testified in opposition stated HB2219, as drafted, would seemingly create a significant burden as to the potential affects for all meetings that would fall under this new technology requirement. School Boards, Sub-Committee and Task Force meetings, District and Building Site Council meetings would be in potential excess of Ten Thousand (10,000) plus meetings annually. Considering this potential operational impact created by this new responsibility we are considered about the lack of direction and specificity in the bill. (Attachment 13)

Amanda Stanley testified in opposition of HB2219 stating The League and their members have several concerns with this legislation. First, it is exceptionally broad. Second, it is extremely vague. Third, the legislation is unclear for how long the audio or video must be retained and it is unclear "what accessible to the public means." Ms. Stanley elaborated on these three issues while bringing up a number of other details, such as; weekend meetings, 24 hour deadlines being met by part time help, cost of implementation and many other points addressed in her attachment. (Attachment 14)

Rachel Lamm testified in opposition of HB2219 stating her opposition is not to open and transparent government; however, after reviewing the changes to K.S.A. 75-4318, she has concerns for the implementation for smaller communities—her communities. While the amendment is only a small paragraph that may not affect many of the densely populated areas of Kansas that are already recording and publishing their meetings, places like Thomas County, Kansas and Bird City, Kansas will feel a larger impact. Thomas County, the most populated county for approximately 100 miles in any direction, hired its first Information Technology Employee May 2016.  The additional costs to the communities she represents would mean hiring additional personnel.  Finally she explained the lack of a consistent & reliable internet service would have to be addressed by these communities as well.  (Attachment 15)   Ms. Lamm also referenced documentation to demonstrate further difficulties with implementation of HB2219. Those were provided to the membership after the meeting. (Attachment 16) (Attachment 17)

Jay Hall testified in opposition of HB2219 stating T he Kansas Association of Counties is a strong supporter of fiscal responsibility and efficiency within local government. As stewards of citizens tax dollars, the members of the Association of Counties must be responsible with each dollar that is spent.  While HB2219 would grant easier access to government for citizens, this would come at a significant cost to taxpayers, both initially and on an ongoing basis. Mr. Hall asked the membership to consider the cost compliance of this bill and asked that it be rejected. (Attachment 18)

Chairperson Patton closed the hearing on HB2219.