Opinion: Kansas Legislature’s supermajority makes mockery of open records law over efficiency portal messages
- Opinion
- 17 hours ago
- 4 min read
By Max Kautsch, special to the Kansas Reflector
Since the 1980s, the Kansas Open Records Act has mandated that all public agencies, including the Legislature, produce public records either within three business days or “as soon as possible” in response to requests for records.
But the current Legislature seems to believe those words mean “whenever we feel like it.”
And for almost 20 years, KORA has allowed public agencies to redact information from public records that, if disclosed, would amount to a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Such information includes Social Security numbers, dates of birth or other information that could enable identify theft.
But this iteration of the Legislature seems to think it is entitled to redact information that could traditionally be found in a phonebook, and that it may do so in a futile attempt to shield the identity of a handful of powerful Kansans but not the rest of us.
Isn’t it time the Legislature follows its own laws for the benefit of everyone and not just a select few?
Rule of law shudders
Wichita Sen. Renee Erickson, chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Government Efficiency and a member of the Republican supermajority, viewed timely KORA compliance as optional this legislative session when she faced the prospect of disclosing information submitted to the supermajority’s online “government efficiency portal.”
The portal itself makes clear that “submissions are public records that are subject to the Kansas Open Records Act.” But when Kansas Reflector made a KORA request in February for submissions to the portal, Erickson said the Reflector would have to wait, not three business days, but rather two months for a response.
Such a long timeline could, potentially, be permissible under KORA if Erickson had offered a “detailed explanation of the cause for further delay,” as the law requires.
But by Erickson’s own admission, the delay was necessitated not by the Legislature’s inability to produce the records in a timely way, but because it preferred not to. In response to Reflector’s request on March 7, Erickson wrote that the requested submissions should be kept under wraps until May 1 because they were to be discussed “during meetings to be called during the 2025 interim” before next session “as a basis for possible legislation to be considered during the 2026 legislative session.”
Erickson would later amend the timeline, indicating that the records would be disclosed April 9. But Erickson proved even that date was not “as soon as possible,” as she allowed the records to be disclosed to members of her committee in mid-March — well before April 9.
Ultimately, Kansas Reflector received leaked copies of the requested records, and their authenticity was corroborated by Erickson’s tardy disclosure. In due course, the real reason for her delay became clear: the portal was a repository for criticism of the supermajority’s legislative agenda, and it was in the supermajority’s interest to keep that fact from the public for as long as possible.
Consistently arbitrary
Kansas Reflector’s request yielded disclosures of more than 1,600 submissions that Kansans had made to the portal. The names and contact information for just 55 submitters were redacted, while the names and contact information for the other 1,500-plus Kansans were disclosed.
Comparing the leaked records to Erickson’s disclosure shows that a submission that named Senate President Ty Masterson is one of the 55 from which the name and contact information were redacted.
Redacting the identities of anyone, a potential gubernatorial candidate such as Masterson or not, violates KORA. Redactions due to privacy concerns are authorized under KORA only when disclosure of such information poses a serious risk to the person identified and is not “of legitimate concern to the public.”
There can be no doubt that the submissions to the politically charged government efficiency portal are of legitimate concern to the public, negating application of KORA’s privacy provision on that basis alone. Moreover, disclosure of someone’s name, address and email address does not put them at undue risk when that information is most likely available through a Google search.
Additionally, every person who submitted information to the portal was required to check a box acknowledging that submissions would be subject to KORA. That means each submitter effectively waived any application of KORA’s privacy provision.
Even so, in the April 9 email in which Erickson disclosed the requested records to Kansas Reflector, she claimed that redactions were made for “the portions of records containing information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
Simply put, it is not credible to claim that KORA’s privacy provision applied to Kansas Reflector’s request. Moreover, the Legislature’s attempt to shield information about certain submissions and not others is evidence that it is willing to play favorites at the expense of being fair and complying with KORA in a timely manner.
Max Kautsch focuses his practice on First Amendment rights and open government law. Through its opinion section, the Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
This article was republished with permission from the Kansas Reflector. The Kansas Reflector is a non-profit online news organization serving Kansas. For more information on the organization, go to its website at www.kansasreflector.com.
Comments