425 P.3d 290
Kan.2018Background
- Kiowa County established Kiowa County Memorial Hospital under K.S.A. 19-4601 et seq.; an elected Hospital Board could lease management to a private entity.
- Great Plains of Kiowa County, Inc. (Great Plains), a not-for-profit subsidiary, operated the hospital under a 2001 lease giving it responsibility for daily management and requiring operation "for the benefit of the community."
- The hospital received substantial ad valorem tax levies in 2012–2014 that funded 14–20% of Great Plains’ budget in those years.
- The Kiowa County Commission (acting as the State) requested multiple financial and administrative records from Great Plains under the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA); Great Plains refused claiming it was not a public agency.
- The district court ordered disclosure and fined Great Plains $500; the Court of Appeals affirmed liability but remanded to determine which requested documents were relevant to contract performance.
- The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed whether Great Plains is a KORA "public agency," whether the Court of Appeals’ relevance remand was proper, and whether statutory payment-only exceptions applied.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Great Plains' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Great Plains a "public agency" under KORA? | Great Plains is an instrumentality of the county and thus a public agency. | Great Plains is a private nonprofit not subject to KORA. | Great Plains is an instrumentality of Kiowa County and therefore a public agency under KORA. |
| Does KORA exclude entities solely because they receive public funds for goods/services? | The statutory exclusion for entities paid by public funds does not cover instrumentalities performing governmental functions. | Receiving public funds alone exempts Great Plains from KORA. | The payment-only exclusion does not apply; instrumentalities remain subject to KORA. |
| Were the Court of Appeals’ remand and relevance-based limitation on disclosure appropriate? | Remand was unnecessary; KORA applies to public agencies and statutorily enumerated exemptions govern disclosure. | (Great Plains did not press this specific defense below.) | The Court of Appeals’ remand for relevance was erroneous; disclosure governed by KORA and its enumerated exceptions. |
| Was the district court’s order and fine appropriate? | District court properly ordered disclosure and imposed a bad-faith refusal fine. | Great Plains contested KORA applicability but did not assert statutory exceptions for requested records. | District court’s judgment ordering disclosure and imposing the fine was affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Purvis v. Williams, 276 Kan. 182 (defining "instrumentality")
- Memorial Hospital Ass'n v. Knutson, 239 Kan. 663 (holding similar hospital association not subject to KOMA)
- Carroll v. Kittle, 203 Kan. 841 (earlier discussion of hospital function; distinguished)
- Musulin v. University of Michigan Bd. of Regents, 214 Mich. App. 277 (treating public hospitals as governmental instrumentalities)
- Allegheny Dept. of Admin. Servs. v. Parsons, 61 A.3d 336 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl.) (approach the Court of Appeals cited regarding records "directly related" to contract performance)