[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6638213,"mediaKeyId","2573994-aba5add3f942929c1d3721f1e72920f3","parentId",2573994,"title","Secretary of State backs bill to require disclaimers on fee solicitations to small businesses","audioSeconds",143,"startMs",869000,"endMs",1012000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2573994-aba5add3f942929c1d3721f1e72920f3&start=869&end=1012","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2573994-aba5add3f942929c1d3721f1e72920f3/thumbnail_869000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6638213/Kansas/Secretary-of-State-backs-bill-to-require-disclaimers-on-fee-solicitations-to-small-businesses","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6638213-ab6d08aa6c42d7beae7c3629c09fbc1a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138624&Signature=abaMwVFZvK-v8gMNlNT4cPRAODCvB~cr8rTxe2tVRGbI5aap6ngvzYSqGKcDCVMysRrapKgZA2XCtSsb-ErWKfKXH6VknEz6bKO1iQ6H46TBdhYZCO3belV2TlnLBBPfT6hrvwpCWJhextx~pfwEItBbgRTG2rSxQhlHX3e9Z24GKV1EwxtqhGW8DB8KzqDO28pnlJJ-v96WuaAIgMSqnrT1ovhihmbc7hD8r25mJNK3Zq5fUnUNhMBSIWMRZlSGJxhHAOq~4Eb-4IZdz3UnqpUz~jHMF6PsYrIvZRxmWPYO-vLPXFQDKWHHtaDEFn5jCDNd-Iwzm3Ju2QkPcoTK0g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Senate Judiciary","date","2025-03-12T16:43:36.79Z","article","House Bill 21‑18 would add a new section requiring anyone (other than a government entity) who solicits a fee to file or retrieve a copy of a state or local public record or certificate to include conspicuous disclosure: the solicitation must state it is an advertisement not made by the government, provide the solicitor’s name and physical address, explain how to file directly with the government, and not use language or formatting that would make the mailing appear to be a government document.

Clay Barker (Clay Barker), general counsel for the Kansas Secretary of State, testified that the office brought the bill because of numerous complaints from small entities about solicitations that imply a government requirement and charge inflated fees. Barker told the committee the scheme is common and that certain mailings or websites will ask a small business to pay hundreds of dollars to file or obtain documents that the company could obtain quickly and cheaply through the Secretary of State’s website. “What it combats is a common form of deceptive scam,” Barker said. He cited warnings from the Better Business Bureau, Federal Trade Commission and National Association of Secretaries of State and said some solicitations charge vastly higher fees than the government charge.

Barker said Kansas sees roughly 29,000 new LLCs a year, many with one or two people and no in‑house counsel, and that those small entities are a frequent target. He explained enforcement would be civil: complaints would be referred to the Attorney General and the Secretary of State could collect examples from complainants. Barker said the bill’s language was modeled on measures from other states and that the Attorney General had no objections to adding the consumer‑protection remedy.

Committee members questioned how the measure would be enforced and whether the existing Kansas Consumer Protection Act covers targeted business entities such as LLCs. Barker said the office would work with the committee on any definitional clarifications; staff suggested the office might consider an amendment to ensure the intended corporate recipients are covered. The committee also discussed fiscal language in the bill file indicating a potential $78,075 General Fund request for one investigator and related salary and wage costs; Barker said he did not have background to confirm that figure.

Why it matters: Supporters described the bill as a consumer‑protection measure to reduce deceptive solicitations that overcharge small and newly formed Kansas business entities, and they said the remedy is civil enforcement through the Consumer Protection Act.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Committee on Judiciary 03/12/2025","oneSentenceSummary","House Bill 21‑18 would require private firms that solicit fees to file or retrieve public records to include a clear disclaimer that the solicitation is not from a government agency and provide the solicitor’s contact information and filing options.","taxTitle"," Judiciary, Standing, Senate, Committees, Legislative, Kansas","taxId",18805,"location","Kansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6638219,"Committee hears bill to ban sheriff fees for serving protection orders",102,278000,380000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2573994-aba5add3f942929c1d3721f1e72920f3&start=278&end=380","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2573994-aba5add3f942929c1d3721f1e72920f3/thumbnail_278000.jpg","/articles/6638219/Kansas/Committee-hears-bill-to-ban-sheriff-fees-for-serving-protection-orders","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6638219-e81aa13aa926558670e695d8c3c05770/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138624&Signature=Ma45id1jxb6qKztJMBAEkatB7koon8qc2hgPuoYvMKG~pMCwUkpG-8~INpZp3qkfkbfRHVGjqSnpYpzg~xbxtHOkkxoQ9woDN6~jVxMogZ2Z0Ty5oIQotxBnbvrQck0t0aciO~DEQDu7dsl0JXl9lFJXBUzdjnQgkghEgNPVJBhmaqWm2uYFud~ZWOwkK09AX-s-bXIpgveNAMqHXkUketTGlX30HtD2mx~94MkWty~QJGMiEYb9w4L1FA2FKmHE5qh6UWKOKShRV1kSMSOP5IcYLaTbO~XPuTJiHPF7nWV1aHqpPvWiFoz~Gxrcv2PPUu0Iwx8mLDPTbgMbr-oV7w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 21‑82 would add an exception to the statutory $15 fee sheriffs may charge for serving and returning process, providing that no fee shall be charged for service related to proceedings under the Protection from Abuse Act, the Protection from Stalking, ****** Assault, or the Human Trafficking Act, and for substantially similar out‑of‑state proceedings.

A reviser summarized the bill and the added committee provision extending the fee exemption to comparable out‑of‑state orders. Michelle McCormack, executive director of the Kansas Coalition Against ****** and Domestic Violence, testified in support and said the change would reduce barriers for victims seeking protection orders. “Victims and survivors of domestic and ****** violence should have the least amount of barriers possible in order for them, to get access to the tools that provide for their safety,” McCormack told the committee. She said the absence of a statutory prohibition has occasionally led some sheriff offices to attempt to charge the fee and that lacking the statutory clarity could threaten certification for certain federal grant programs tied to STOP (Services*Training*Officers*Prosecutors) funding.

McCormack said the issue is not frequently tracked but that, anecdotally, it has happened only “a handful of times” in her experience. Committee members noted the Judiciary’s fiscal comment that enactment would have no fiscal effect on State revenues or expenditures; the Association of Counties said it would decrease county government revenues but could not provide a precise estimate.

Ed Klump, representing the Kansas Sheriffs Association, said a survey of sheriffs did not find offices charging the fee for protection orders and described that exemption as common practice that this bill would codify. When senators asked whether out‑of‑state orders could be identified and served under the amendment, Klump explained the administrative process: orders from other states are often forwarded to Kansas sheriffs for service and, if the bill becomes law, Kansas sheriffs would not charge a process fee for serving those orders.

No neutral or opponent testimony was taken and the committee closed the hearing without immediate final action.

Why it matters: Proponents said codifying the fee exemption would remove a potential financial barrier for victims seeking protective orders and help maintain eligibility for federal STOP funding; opponents were not present and county associations noted a possible decrease in fee revenue.","House Bill 21‑82 would prohibit Kansas sheriffs from charging the statutory $15 service fee for process related to protection‑order proceedings and similar out‑of‑state orders.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6638224,"Committee hears bill to raise state match for corrections public‑private projects to 50%",340,488000,148000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2573994-aba5add3f942929c1d3721f1e72920f3&start=488&end=148","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2573994-aba5add3f942929c1d3721f1e72920f3/thumbnail_488000.jpg","/articles/6638224/Kansas/Committee-hears-bill-to-raise-state-match-for-corrections-publicprivate-projects-to-50","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6638224-291d4c7325042b30768d8802e34d0a0f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138624&Signature=mSXWiu4VZbayHFQXUOBx28xMZM5-z~fjfN16A-Ce7w-mflTxQCaobkmhwdNDN-kuyHN7OOg2efGHXgTmkUi4n5M5BVdNIt2ieYGN8A2dhGj9psYuvPYOAjFhBCx6uD3IIJ8u4ifpAeGSvIskdxDI8ol-i2byw3Iwc0YRdKI39Xa41CDUHF-QHzPZYA2AJkoK0w7v~9XR5UxyA4TNgxmjCGcE9NDNELdPwUkGfxvw3ooK4RDH8peikd5ZrYcoAZqQxs0dr1nvXC8YOjwtd9zrwQjSxMH4cV7-PdY3HQ-UQ0o6oQjDXnCkCVNsXyKLGwo2g9zT8MMmNDYnkTf4gcWaFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 22‑15 would change the statutory definition of a public‑private partnership for correctional institution construction so the Department of Corrections could pay up to 50 percent of project costs, not the current 25 percent.

The change, the bill brief said, would amend “KSA 75 52 1 67,” the section that defines the terms related to the secretary of corrections’ authority to enter such partnerships. Reviser testimony summarized the existing definition and the proposed amendment to increase the department cost cap from 25 percent to 50 percent.

Keith Bradshaw, executive director of contracts and finance for the Kansas Department of Corrections, testified in support. “This is simply changing the matching rate, for state funds, from 25% to 50%, which would allow us to draw down, and, leverage private donations for the construction of a career campus, which, would be sited at the Lansing Correctional Facility,” Bradshaw said. He told the committee the department commissioned a feasibility study that found support in the business community and reported the common theme that private donors expected a larger state financial stake at a 50 percent match.

Bradshaw said the legislature last session appropriated the funding necessary to meet a 50 percent match and that “there will be no fiscal impact as a result of this bill.” He said, if the Lansing campus succeeds, the department would explore similar projects at other facilities.

Committee members asked whether the change would affect other sites such as Hutchinson; Bradshaw said that would be a possible next step only if the Lansing effort proved successful. When asked which private entities had committed to donate, he said the department was at an early stage of outreach and anticipated making donor requests in the next month or two.

No opponents testified at the hearing and the committee did not take final action during the session on HB 22‑15.

Why it matters: Proponents said raising the match would let the state leverage private donations to build vocational and career‑training facilities inside a correctional institution, starting with Lansing Correctional Facility; supporters said that employers and businesses expressed support but expected a larger state contribution.","House Bill 22‑15 would change the statutory definition of a public‑private partnership for correctional institution construction so the Department of Corrections could pay up to 50 percent of project costs, not the current 25 percent.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6638204,"Committee votes to recommend uniform guardianship and protective‑proceedings acts",88,2052000,2140000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2573994-aba5add3f942929c1d3721f1e72920f3&start=2052&end=2140","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2573994-aba5add3f942929c1d3721f1e72920f3/thumbnail_2052000.jpg","/articles/6638204/Kansas/Committee-votes-to-recommend-uniform-guardianship-and-protectiveproceedings-acts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6638204-464137a5616fb2828a6a37801372c70f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138624&Signature=bZSdDYkXSRE60AYIqWjYeJkWEoEJJiiwhvZ2o23sheD7nKyaHabXzmt41vAHHsfk~xhVm57v45ltVVNE6BsQ~aau9oYaN2ew5VYkUtB-enOvp8TF1UQn6xZbhRzzzU3bxZuSF9ubkZOT51dcgE5RNK5xuTVXrd5LtPP5SDfmQIGnxEdVemH6~ukPWLGaZLwg6dYvA-wu3FQYDK1JUUbIYwsCuDZC1MrCN~1DLyostpJzfSBh0gV0dN8NXhBwD8mg6zzxUrwcM~YodQItFjE89n96TcpPWhFLbhG82blCU2cXd50ZwY794HqKusPPF7kHFeTkmGX-Dk5qOVsHFN2wuw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 23‑59 would enact uniform statutes concerning adult guardianship and protective proceedings, replacing parts of Kansas’ current guardianship framework with the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act and the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship and Other Protective Arrangements Act.

The reviser summarized the bill as the product of a Judicial Council working group. Senator Bowser spoke in support citing personal and military experience and said she encountered the issues the bill addresses. Senator Titus moved that the committee recommend the bill favorably; Senator Rose seconded the motion. The committee voted by voice and the motion carried.

Why it matters: Supporters described the bills as modernization of Kansas guardianship law to align with uniform national acts developed to address cross‑jurisdictional and procedural gaps in adult guardianship and conservatorship law. The committee advanced the bill by voice vote.","The committee voted to recommend House Bill 23‑59, which would adopt uniform acts replacing Kansas’ current guardianship laws with the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act and the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship and Other Protective Arrangements Act.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6638208,"Committee adopts amendment and votes to report favorably on bill excluding certain offenders from certified drug‑treatment programs",105,1915000,2020000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2573994-aba5add3f942929c1d3721f1e72920f3&start=1915&end=2020","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2573994-aba5add3f942929c1d3721f1e72920f3/thumbnail_1915000.jpg","/articles/6638208/Kansas/Committee-adopts-amendment-and-votes-to-report-favorably-on-bill-excluding-certain-offenders-from-certified-drugtreatment-programs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6638208-68f0a4acb916cacc0cf0cb3e71875676/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138624&Signature=ewZgPvuXlYRDWUojl~WNJ5-qpyb3xZLhRwws7UD6OJ9NYsy3X0ne4kabXkGIerbk5Gb1B6LNlbmwnueLfpIiRr13-RDlOuJzRRhByA-fWJm4~wYEMsjP3ztht7XtCN2ccQVepFoEQo1gr4SGoZO2LAjgB8WvjYdLAgrINndFJAvCbf8M88Deo20sUMRoFkqnCW0gl5CtOzMVjdPLubW0mPqCldMLvLEcMGj6Ld8KigsApehypqW0J-Spr8IbDITk3LSx9nTCoZdw1slVn~vAsiRQMI4KgcRRklwQByHZlvu-XkB5RPgpyMNPBBjodlsSG0Tows~tKFij1q~na4UnSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 23‑12 would exclude certain offenders convicted of a non‑person felony from participation in certified drug abuse treatment programs under the sentencing commission’s related provisions. The committee heard a reviser summary placing the bill in the context of the Sentencing Commission’s work on Senate Bill 1 23 rules and risk‑and‑needs assessments for community corrections.

Committee members moved a conceptual amendment to change the bill’s effective date language from “publication in the statute book” to publication in the Kansas Register; the committee adopted the amendment by voice vote. Senator Haley moved that the committee report the bill favorably as amended; Senator Bowser seconded. The committee voted by voice and the motion carried.

Why it matters: The change narrows eligibility for the certified drug abuse treatment program by excluding specified offenders, and it assigns community corrections responsibility for certain assessments; committee action advanced the bill for further legislative consideration.","The committee considered House Bill 23‑12, which amends participation rules for certified drug abuse treatment programs, adopted a technical amendment changing the effective publication venue, and voted to recommend the bill favorably as amended.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Secretary of State backs bill to require disclaimers on fee solicitations to small businesses

Committee hears bill to ban sheriff fees for serving protection orders

Committee hears bill to raise state match for corrections public‑private projects to 50%

Committee votes to recommend uniform guardianship and protective‑proceedings acts

Committee adopts amendment and votes to report favorably on bill excluding certain offenders from certified drug‑treatment programs