The Committee on Local Government held a hearing on House Bill 2160, a proposal to extend whistleblower protections to municipal employees of cities, counties and unified school districts.

The reviser opened the hearing by summarizing the bill: “House Bill 21 60 would enact a Kansas municipal employee whistleblower act. There is currently a statute known as the Kansas whistleblower act that provides legal protections for state employees who report or disclose unlawful or dangerous actions by state agencies. Under both the current State Employee Act and under the proposed act under the bill, an employer would be prohibited from taking any disciplinary action against an employee for engaging in certain conduct such as reporting or disclosing these actions.” The reviser explained the bill would adopt several protections in the state act and add protections for disclosures of malfeasance, misappropriation of monies, and substantial dangers to public health and safety; it would allow aggrieved employees to seek relief in district court within 90 days.

Rep. Carrie Barth, the bill sponsor, told the committee she brought the bill after receiving reports she said showed local employees risked retaliation for reporting wrongdoing. “This bill is to help provide protections for them,” Barth said, describing instances she had been told about in counties and school districts and urging the committee to review the written testimony submitted with the bill.

Supporters who testified (in person and by WebEx) included individual citizens and local officials; some suggested adding conflicts‑of‑interest disclosures to the protected acts. Neutral witnesses representing municipal organizations generally said they supported extending whistleblower protections to municipal employees but offered technical suggestions to improve the bill. Spencer Duncan of the League of Kansas Municipalities urged the committee to add a clear statutory definition of “malfeasance” and “misappropriation,” to remove a redundant section (section 5), and to add an administrative appeal step referencing the existing statute 75‑29‑73 so affected employees could pursue an administrative remedy before filing a court action. Jay Hall of the Kansas Association of Counties made similar points and noted that conflicts of interest are already covered elsewhere in state law (cited in committee as 75 43 0 1 a).

The committee did not take a vote on the bill during the hearing. The chair closed the hearing and announced the committee would reconvene in a later meeting for further consideration.

Ending: Committee members asked clarifying questions of the reviser and thanked witnesses; no formal action was taken at this session.