Opinion ID: 2498867
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Do the 2008 Amendments to the KUUDPA Treat Indistinguishable Classes of Organizations Differently?

Text: One-Call claims that it is being treated differently than every other private not-for-profit corporation in Kansas. Most of One-Call's argument focuses on the application of KOMA and KORA to it. In support of its argument, One-Call relies on our caselaw in Memorial Hospital Ass'n, Inc. v. Knutson, 239 Kan. 663, 722 P.2d 1093 (1986), In re Arbitration between Johns Constr. Co. & U.S.D. No. 210, 233 Kan. 527, 664 P.2d 821 (1983), and the Court of Appeals opinion in Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 6 Kan.App.2d 444, 629 P.2d 1174, rev. denied 230 Kan.819 (1981), for support. One-Call also relies on several attorney general opinions. The State responds with two arguments. First, it contends that One-Call fails the first step of equal protection analysis because it is not similarly situated to any other company. The State is correct. Second, it argues that KOMA and KORA apply to the notification center under our prior caselaw. In 2008, the Kansas Legislature amended K.S.A. 66-1805( l ) and deemed the notification center to be a public agency subject to KOMA and KORA. The statute states: ( l ) The notification center established pursuant to this section shall be and is hereby deemed to be a public agency and shall be subject to the provisions of the open records act, K.S.A. 45-215 et seq., and amendments thereto, and the open meetings act, K.S.A. 75-4317 et seq., and amendments thereto, except that the notification center or board of directors, or successor managing organization shall not disseminate, make available or otherwise distribute data or information provided by an operator of a tier 1, 2 or 3 facility unless such dissemination, making available or distributing is necessary for the state corporation commission or the notification center to carry out legal duties or specific statutory duties prescribed under this chapter. K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 66-1805( l ). One-Call contends that the Kansas Legislature performed a frontal lobotomy on the traditional rules governing the application of KOMA and KORA. See State ex rel. Murray v. Palmgren, 231 Kan. 524, 535, 646 P.2d 1091 (1982) (discussing the five-part test for determining if an organization is a public agency subject to KOMA). But the legislature is not required to follow our prior five-part test in determining whether to designate the notification center a public agency. One-Call asks us to ignore K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 66-1805( l ) and use its caselaw to determine if the notification center is a public agency under KOMA and KORA statutes. One-Call's argument might have merit if it were not for K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 66-1805( l ), which specifically designates the notification center as a public agency subject to KOMA and KORA. The caselaw and attorney general opinions cited by One-Call are simply irrelevant. Likewise, the State's response that the notification center is a public agency under previous caselaw is immaterial. Political or taxing subdivisions of the state are subject to KORA and KOMA. See K.S.A. 75-4318(a) (KOMA); K.S.A. 45-217(f) (KORA). K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 66-1805( l ) states that the notification center is a public agency subject to KORA and KOMA. Every case cited by the parties involved a question of whether an organization is subject to KORA and KOMA absent a statutory provision that states the entity is subject to KORA and KOMA. Here, the question is not whether the notification center is a public agency under K.S.A. 75-4318(a) or K.S.A. 45-217(f). To the contrary, the legislature has already answered that question in the affirmative by enacting K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 66-1805( l ). One-Call does not cite a single Kansas authority in making its argument. As the State points out, by law One-Call cannot be similarly situated to any other Kansas company because it operates the  single notification center for the state of Kansas. K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 66-1805(a). Consequently, One-Call fails the first step of equal protection analysis. See Rail-Trails, 292 Kan. at 315, 255 P.3d 1186 (indistinguishable classes of individuals being treated differently). Nevertheless, according to One-Call, the notification center's public accountability statutes are unconstitutional. The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same. Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147, 60 S.Ct. 879, 84 L.Ed. 1124 (1940). The Equal Protection Clause allows states to write into law differences that exist in those areas which public power is exerted. Tigner, 310 U.S. at 147, 60 S.Ct. 879 (And so we conclude that to write into law differences between agriculture and other economic pursuits was within the power of the Texas legislature.). For example, in explaining that the Kansas Legislature has the constitutional authority to impose a burden on a party that may not be contractually waived or assumed by another party, we stated: The Kansas Legislature has the constitutional authority to impose a burden on a party that may not be contractually waived or assumed by another party. [ State v. Mwaura, ] 4 Kan.App.2d [738,] 470-41 [740-41, 610 P.2d 662, rev. denied 228 Kan. 807 (1980)]. For example, the legislature may constitutionally impose on the seller of a used car a nondelegable duty to see that the car meets minimum safety standards. 4 Kan.App.2d at 741 [610 P.2d 662]. The legislature similarly has the constitutional authority to protect the lives and property around underground utilities. Double M Constr. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 288 Kan. 268, 277, 202 P.3d 7 (2009). The notification center furnishes an important public service. Double M Constr., 288 Kan. at 272, 202 P.3d 7 (The KUUDPA creates a statutory duty to the public to ensure the safety and integrity of underground utilities.). And [t]he legislature similarly has the constitutional authority to protect the lives and property around underground utilities. 288 Kan. at 277, 202 P.3d 7. As a result, the Kansas Legislature has the authority to write into law differences that exist in those areas in which public power is exerted. Thus, One-Call's equal protection claim fails.