If a Kansas public employee is convicted of official misconduct from a past job, does he lose his current, different public job too?

Plain-English summary

A city administrator committed official misconduct while working for a county in a prior job, but was not convicted of the offense until after he had already moved into his current city position. The city attorney asked whether K.S.A. 21-6002(b)(2), which requires forfeiture of office "upon conviction of official misconduct," reaches into the new job or is limited to the position where the misconduct happened.

The Attorney General concluded the forfeiture is limited to the position the person held when the misconduct occurred. K.S.A. 21-6002(a) defines official misconduct as acts committed by a public officer or employee "in the officer or employee's public capacity or under color of the officer or employee's office or employment," tying the offense itself to a specific position. Reading that definition together with the forfeiture provision in subsection (b), the opinion concluded forfeiture attaches only if the person still holds that same position at conviction. The opinion contrasted this with the bribery statute, K.S.A. 21-6001(b), where the Legislature explicitly wrote in broader, forward-looking language (permanent disqualification from all public office or employment). Because the Legislature used that kind of sweeping language for bribery but not for official misconduct, the opinion declined to read the same reach into K.S.A. 21-6002(b)(2).

What this means for you

City and county employers with employees who move between public jobs: the opinion holds that a conviction for official misconduct committed in a prior public position does not automatically cost the employee their current, different position under K.S.A. 21-6002(b)(2), even though it does cost them the position where the misconduct happened (if they still hold it).

Public officers or employees facing an official misconduct charge: the opinion clarifies the forfeiture penalty is tied to the specific position abused, not a blanket bar on all public employment, which distinguishes official misconduct from bribery under K.S.A. 21-6001(b).

Common questions

Does this mean the employee keeps working for the city with no consequences?
The opinion addresses only the reach of the K.S.A. 21-6002(b)(2) forfeiture provision itself; it does not address whether a city might have independent grounds, such as its own personnel policies, to take action based on a conviction unrelated to the current job.

Is official misconduct treated the same as bribery under Kansas law?
No. The opinion points out that K.S.A. 21-6001(b), the bribery statute, explicitly extends to future public office and employment and survives expungement, while K.S.A. 21-6002(b)(2) contains no comparable forward-looking language.

Background and statutory framework

K.S.A. 21-6002(a) defines official misconduct through a list of specific acts committed by a public officer or employee in their official capacity or under color of their office. K.S.A. 21-6002(b)(2) then requires that, "[u]pon conviction of official misconduct[,] a public officer or employee shall forfeit such officer or employee's office or employment." Because the underlying offense in subsection (a) is defined by reference to a particular position, the opinion read the forfeiture in subsection (b) as tied to that same position, following ordinary rules of statutory construction that require reading related provisions harmoniously rather than reading language into a statute that is not there.

The opinion drew a contrast with K.S.A. 21-6001(b), the bribery statute in the same article of the criminal code, which expressly extends beyond the position held at the time of the offense: it requires forfeiture of "the person's office or employment" and separately makes a bribery conviction grounds for permanent disqualification from all public office or employment in the state, even surviving expungement under K.S.A. 21-6614. Because the Legislature used that kind of explicit, far-reaching language for bribery and did not use it for official misconduct, the opinion concluded the Legislature did not intend K.S.A. 21-6002(b)(2) to reach positions other than the one held when the misconduct occurred.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- K.S.A. 21-6002 (incl. (a), (a)(1), (b)(2))
- K.S.A. 21-6001 (incl. (b))
- K.S.A. 21-6614

Cases:
- In re Est. of Strader, 301 Kan. 50 (2014)
- In re Marriage of Ross, 245 Kan. 591 (1989)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ks.gov/reports-resources/ag-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.ks.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/24668/638981051710530000

Original opinion text

The full opinion as issued by the Office of the Kansas Attorney General:

October 2, 2025

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2025-23

Andrew E. Werring
City Attorney
City of Valley Falls
417 Broadway St.
Valley Falls, Kansas 66088

Re: Crimes and Punishments—Crimes Affecting Public Trust—Official Misconduct

Synopsis: K.S.A. 21-6002(b)(2) provides that "[u]pon conviction of official misconduct a public officer or employee shall forfeit such officer or employee's office or employment." Because the forfeiture is tied to the offense, and the offense is tied to the abuse of a specific position, the forfeiture is limited to the position held when the offense was committed. Cited herein: K.S.A. 21-6001; 21-6002.

Dear Mr. Werring:

As City Attorney for Valley Falls, you ask about the reach of K.S.A. 21-6002(b)(2), which provides that "[u]pon conviction of official misconduct a public officer or employee shall forfeit such officer or employee's office or employment." Specifically, you are concerned with whether the forfeiture is limited to the position that was abused to commit official misconduct when that position is retained through the time of conviction, or whether the forfeiture extends to any public office or employment held at the time of conviction, even if it is a new position. You raise this issue because the City Administrator of Valley Falls committed official misconduct while employed in a prior position by Atchison County, but he was not convicted of the offense until after he began his current position.1 As explained below, K.S.A. 21-6002(b)(2) applies only to the office or employment held when the official misconduct was committed, so it does not apply to the City Administrator's current position.

1 See generally State v. Lanter, No. AT-2024-CR-000039 (Atchison Cnty., Kan., Dist. Ct.).

Your question turns on statutory interpretation. In this exercise, we look to the "plain and unambiguous" meaning of the relevant statutes.2 We can neither "speculate" nor "read into the statute[s] language not readily found there."3 Statutory interpretation must "reconcile the different [statutory] provisions so as to make them consistent, harmonious, and sensible."4

2 In re Est. of Strader, 301 Kan. 50, 55, 339 P.3d 769 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
3 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
4 In re Marriage of Ross, 245 Kan. 591, 584, 783 P.2d 331 (1989).

K.S.A. 21-6002(a) defines "official misconduct" as certain enumerated "acts committed by a public officer or employee in the officer or employee's public capacity or under color of the officer or employee's office or employment."5 The offense is tied to the position held when the conduct is committed. Accordingly, the forfeiture required by subsection (b) is tied to the offense in subsection (a)—the official misconduct committed by the officer or employee in his position. Reading subsections (a) and (b) together, the forfeiture only applies to the position held at the time of the official misconduct. Therefore, if the officer or employee still holds the position when he is convicted, then the position is forfeited. The plain language of the statute, however, does not extend forfeiture to new positions.

5 The City Administrator was convicted under K.S.A. 21-6002(a)(1) for using a vehicle "exclusively" for his or another person's "private benefit or gain."

A contrary interpretation would effectively amend the statute to divest an individual of any public office or employment held at the time of conviction even if he had done nothing improper in his new position. The statute does not contain sweeping, prospective punishment even though the Kansas Legislature has crafted and enacted such a punishment in other contexts. For example, K.S.A. 21-6001, which is in the same article as K.S.A. 21-6002, defines the offense of bribery. K.S.A. 21-6001(b) provides: "Upon conviction of bribery, a public official shall forfeit the person's office or employment. Notwithstanding an expungement of the conviction pursuant to K.S.A. 21-6614, and amendments thereto, any person convicted of bribery under the provisions of this section shall be forever disqualified from holding public office or public employment in this state."6 Had the Legislature intended for K.S.A. 21-6002(b)(2) to extend to future positions, it would have included language similar to K.S.A. 21-6001(b). But it did not, and it would be inappropriate to add statutory language to achieve such a reach.7

6 (Emphases added.)
7 See In re Est. of Strader, 301 Kan. at 55.

Combining the plain language of the statute and surveying other relevant statutory provisions, the forfeiture under K.S.A. 21-6002(b)(2) is limited to the position that was abused to commit official misconduct. The Legislature did not extend this punishment to subsequent positions.

In conclusion, because the City Administrator was convicted for official misconduct that he committed in a previous position, K.S.A. 21-6002(b)(2) does not require forfeiture of his current position.

Sincerely,

/s/ Kris W. Kobach

Kris W. Kobach
Attorney General

/s/ Adam T. Steinhilber

Adam T. Steinhilber
Assistant Solicitor General