Kansas House Bill HB2166

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/30/25
• Refer: 1/30/25
• Report Pass: 2/7/25
• Engrossed: 2/25/25
• Refer: 2/26/25
• Report Pass: 3/6/25
• Enrolled: 3/21/25
• Passed: 4/10/25

Caption

Continuing in existence certain exceptions to the disclosure of public records under the open records act.

Summary

HB2166 is an Open Records Act continuation bill. Its main purpose is to keep certain Kansas public-records disclosure exceptions in force by extending them through the legislature’s review-and-sunset process. The bill amends the general review framework in K.S.A. 45-229, reaffirming the legislature’s policy that exceptions to disclosure should exist only when they protect sensitive personal information, support effective government administration, or protect confidential information, and that new or substantially amended exceptions generally expire after five years unless renewed. The bill specifically continues a large number of existing exceptions across Kansas statutes, including exceptions that were previously reviewed in multiple legislative sessions and a set of exceptions reviewed in 2025. It also updates two specific provisions: K.S.A. 48-962, which keeps certain COVID-19-related information shared with first responders and 911 centers exempt from the Kansas Open Records Act, and K.S.A. 65-7616, which includes confidentiality for acupuncture-board impairment records. The bill repeals the prior versions of those sections and the related expired exception statute K.S.A. 45-229d, replacing them with the updated continuation language. The bill’s impact on state law is primarily administrative and procedural rather than substantive. It does not create a broad new transparency rule or a major new exemption category; instead, it preserves a long list of existing confidentiality provisions in Kansas law and prevents them from expiring under the sunset-review system. As a result, agencies, boards, and other entities covered by those statutes may continue withholding the specified records from public disclosure under the Open Records Act. The overall sentiment around HB2166 appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. The recorded votes were unanimous in both chambers: 121-0 in the House and 39-0 in the Senate. That voting pattern suggests broad bipartisan support for maintaining the existing records exceptions and for the routine housekeeping function of the bill. There is little evidence of active contention in the available materials. The main policy tension inherent in the bill is the usual open-government versus confidentiality balance built into K.S.A. 45-229: supporters of disclosure may view continued exceptions as limiting transparency, while supporters of the bill would emphasize privacy, public safety, governmental efficiency, and protection of confidential or sensitive information. No specific objections or amendments are reflected in the provided committee or floor materials.

Impact

HB2166 continues in force numerous statutory exceptions to disclosure under the Kansas Open Records Act, preventing them from expiring under the state’s sunset-review framework. It also updates and reenacts specific confidentiality provisions in K.S.A. 48-962 and K.S.A. 65-7616, while repealing the prior versions of those sections and K.S.A. 45-229d. The practical effect is to preserve existing limits on public access to designated records for agencies, boards, first responders, and other affected entities.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been viewed as routine and broadly acceptable. It passed the House 121-0 and the Senate 39-0, indicating unanimous support in both chambers. The lack of recorded committee testimony or floor controversy suggests the bill was treated as a standard continuation measure rather than a disputed policy change.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. The only inherent issue is the general policy tradeoff between open records and confidentiality: the bill preserves exceptions that limit disclosure, which can be seen as necessary for privacy, safety, and effective administration, but also as reducing public access to government records. Any disagreement would likely center on whether particular exceptions remain justified under the Open Records Act’s narrow criteria, though no named opponents or objections appear in the record provided.