Kansas Senate Bill SB211

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/6/25
• Report Pass: 3/12/25

Caption

Modifying member appointments to the wildlife and parks commission, authorizing the commission to direct the secretary to develop or report on rules and regulations and allowing members to submit potential rules and regulations to the commission.

Summary

SB 211 revises the structure and authority of the Kansas wildlife and parks commission. It changes the appointment framework for commission members, including who appoints certain seats, term lengths for some appointing authorities, and the ability of appointing authorities to replace incumbents on a specified date. The bill also preserves existing limits on who may be appointed, such as excluding controlled shooting area licensees, their employees, and hunting outfitters or guides. The bill’s most significant policy change is in rulemaking oversight. It requires the secretary or commission members to submit proposed rules and regulations to the commission for review, and the commission must approve, modify and approve, or reject them. It also makes fees for licenses, permits, stamps, and other department issues subject to commission approval. In addition, the commission remains advisory to the governor and secretary on department policy and planning, and the bill keeps existing provisions on removal, quorum, chair selection, and compensation.

Impact

SB 211 would amend K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 32-805, altering the governance and rulemaking process for the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks commission. It would give the commission a more direct role in reviewing proposed regulations and approving fees, which could shift some practical authority away from the secretary and toward the commission. The bill also affects appointment and term provisions for commission members, including staggered terms and replacement authority for certain appointing officials.

Sentiment

The available vote history suggests the bill faced significant opposition in the Senate. It failed on emergency final action, with 16 yeas and 23 nays reported in the vote record, indicating that support was not sufficient to advance the measure. No committee transcript is available, so the recorded sentiment is based primarily on the floor vote rather than detailed debate.

Contention

The main points of contention likely centered on governance and control of wildlife and parks rulemaking. Supporters may have favored greater commission oversight and a more formal role for commission members in shaping regulations and fees, while opponents may have viewed the bill as an unnecessary restructuring or as reducing administrative flexibility for the department secretary. Appointment changes and the ability of appointing authorities to replace incumbents may also have been controversial, particularly because they affect the balance of influence over the commission.