Kansas Attorney General Opinion 1992-101

ROBERT T. STEPHAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
July 31, 1992
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 92- 101
Barbara Hinton
Legislative Post Auditor
Legislative Division of Post Audit
1200 Merchants Bank Tower
8th & Jackson
Topeka, Kansas 66612
Re: Public Records, Documents and Information --
Records Open to Public -- Certain Records Not
Required to be Open; Peer Assistance Program Records
Legislature -- Legislative Post Audit -- Additional
Financial Compliance or Performance Audits
Authorized at Direction of Post Audit Committees;
Persons Subject to Audit; Access to Records;
Limitations; Peer Assistance Program Records
Synopsis: Persons and corporations conducting a state funded
peer assistance program on behalf of a state agency
are subject to the audit authority of the state
insofar as such audits relate to the state funded
program. The confidentiality and privilege
provisions of 42 U.S.C., § 290ee-3, K.S.A. 1991
Supp. 65-4921 et seq. or K.S.A. 1991 Supp.
47-846 et seq. may be read in harmony with the
access authority given the legislative division of
post audit pursuant to K.S.A. 46-1101 et seq.
The record closure laws cited herein do not
prohibit or prevent access to such records by the
division of legislative post audit. Pursuant to
the dictates and exceptions of the acts cited
herein, such records are and should remain

confidential, privileged and otherwise unaccessible
whether possessed by the program, the state agency
or the division of post audit. Cited herein:
K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 40-3401, as amended by L. 1992,
ch. 156, § 2; K.S.A. 45-215; 45-217, as amended
by L. 1992, ch. 321, § 22; K.S.A. 1991 Supp.
45-221; K.S.A. 46-1101; K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 46-1106;
46-1108; K.S.A. 46-1112; K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 46-1114;
K.S.A. 46-1115; 46-1116; K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 47-846;
47-849; 65-4921; 65-4923; 65-4924; 65-4925; 42
U.S.C. S 290ee-3; 42 C.F.R. 2.1; 42 C.F.R. 2.53.
*
Dear Ms. Hinton:
You request our opinion regarding access by post audit to
records pertaining to individuals licensed by the state who
are or have been participants in one of the many state funded
impaired licensee programs. You advise that the legislative
post audit committee (LPAC) approved an audit reviewing the
effectiveness of fee-funded regulatory agencies' programs for
impaired licensees. The agencies involved in this audit
include the Kansas state board of nursing, the board of
healing arts, the board of veterinary examiners, the dental
board, and the board of pharmacy.
Peer assistance programs are authorized pursuant to K.S.A.
1991 Supp. 65-4921 et seq. or K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 47-846
et seq. The programs are conducted by different
entities. However, the basic purpose served by each program
remains the same; the state is attempting to help state
licensees recover from some problem, usually related to drug
or alcohol use or addiction, while nevertheless protecting the
public from any unsafe practice by these licensees. The
program records are sought by post audit in an attempt to
ascertain whether state funds are being utilized efficiently
and effectively.
The records in question concern and name individual
licensees. You inform us that "for us to be able to determine
whether the programs are effective at helping licensees and
protecting the public, we would need to know which licensees
have been in the programs and look at their files to determine
whether those licensees fulfilled their agreements to obtain
treatment, and if not, what action the regulatory boards took
against them. We would also need to know the identities of
these individuals so that we could check for complaints

subsequent to their participation in the program that might
indicate that the treatment had not been successful."
Access to public records is generally set forth in the Kansas
open records act (KORA) at K.S.A. 45-215 et seq. The
KORA provides that public records, as defined by K.S.A.
45-217, are open to the public unless a specific public record
is otherwise required or permitted to be closed by law.
K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 45-221(a)(1) recognizes that a public record
may be closed if "disclosure [is] specifically prohibited or
restricted by federal law, state statute or rule of the Kansas
Supreme Court or disclosure is prohibited or restricted
pursuant to specific authorization of federal law, state
statute or rule of the Kansas Supreme Court to restrict or
prohibit disclosure." Some specific closure laws apply to
certain patient or peer assistance records. See K.S.A. 1991
Supp. 65-2925, 47-879 and 42 U.S.C. § 290ee-3.
Despite the possible closure of a record pursuant to K.S.A.
1991 Supp. 45-221(a)(1) or other authority, the division of
legislative post audit may nevertheless access confidential
records. See K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 46-1106, 46-1108 and
46-1114. The issues therefore become (1) whether post audit
access authority applies to the entity which possesses the
records in question and (2) if post audit access authority is
superseded or eliminated with regard to these specific
records.
We will first address applicability of post audit access
authority to the individuals or entities possessing the
records in question.
K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 46-1106, 46-1108 and 46-1114 permit the post
auditor access to records of a state agency or person subject
to the legislative post audit act. "Person" is defined by
K.S.A. 46-1112 as "(a) . . . an individual, proprietorship,
partnership, limited partnership, association, trust, estate,
business trust, group, or corporation, whether or not operated
for profit, or a governmental agency, unit or subdivision."
K.S.A. 46-1101 et seq. create and delineate the authority
of the LPAC and the division of post audit. K.S.A. 1991
Supp. 46-1108(b) permits audits to be conducted in order to
determine "whether the programs and activities of a state
agency, or a particular program or activity, is being
efficiently and effectively operated." K.S.A. 1991 Supp.
46-1106, which is referenced in and adopted by K.S.A. 1991
Supp. 46-1108, states in subsection (g):

"In the discharge of the duties imposed
under the legislative post audit act, the
post auditor or firm conducting a
financial-compliance audit or conducting
other financial-compliance audit work
shall have access to all books, accounts,
records, files, documents and
correspondence, confidential or otherwise,
of any person or state agency subject to
the legislative post audit act or in the
custody of any such person or state
agency. Except as otherwise provided in
this subsection, the post auditor or
firm conducting a financial-compliance
audit or other financial-compliance audit
work and all employees and former
employees of the division of post audit
or firm performing a financial-compliance
audit or other financial-compliance audit
work shall be subject to the same duty of
confidentiality imposed by law on any
such person or state agency with regard to
any such books, accounts, records, files,
documents and correspondence, and any
information contained therein, and shall
be subject to any civil or criminal
penalties imposed by law for violations of
such duty of confidentiality. . . ."
(Emphasis added).
K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 46-1114(b)(2) authorizes audits upon any
person who receives any grant or gift from or through the
state. K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 46-1114(d)(3) provides:
"Access to all books, accounts, records,
files, documents and correspondence,
confidential or otherwise, as authorized
under subsection (b) of this section of
any nongovernmental person audited under
authority of subsection (c)(4) of this
section shall be limited to those books,
accounts, records, files, documents, and
correspondence, confidential or
otherwise, of such person to which the
state governmental agency which regulates
or licenses such person or the state
institution on whose behalf such person

operates or functions is authorized under
law to have access."
We have reviewed some of the contracts between the state
agencies and the program providers. With the exception of the
board of pharmacy, each agency has retained some authority to
occasionally access records of individuals otherwise complying
with the peer assistance program. Thus, K.S.A. 1991 Supp.
46-1114 permits access to some of the records in question.
In addition to audit authority under K.S.A. 1991 Supp.
46-1114, K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 46-1108 permits performance audits
to determine if a program or activity of a state agency is
being efficiently and effectively implemented. All of the
licensing boards previously mentioned in this opinion are
state agencies, and therefore subject to the legislative post
audit act and the KORA. All of the agencies in question
could conduct the peer assistance programs, however, each has
chosen to contract with some other entity for the actual
performance of peer assistance programs. In some instances
the entity contracting with the state licensing agency
performs the services. However, at least six programs
subsequently contract with a third party who actually creates
or possesses the records in question. Nevertheless, the
records in question relate to a program of a state agency. It
is important to note that a state agency (or its agents) may
not, by contract, close records which are not otherwise
permissibly or mandatorily closed pursuant to law. See
Attorney General Opinion No. 91-116.
Each of the contractual relationships of which we are aware
result in receipt of funds from or through the state. Each of
the contracting parties is conducting a program for the state
agency. These programs are state agency programs. A primary
or secondary contract to implement a state peer assistance
program does not, in our opinion, automatically insulate the
process or entity from post audit authority. Rather, each of
the peer assistance contracting parties is performing a
program on behalf of a state agency and receives state funds
to do so. Thus, it is our opinion that, pursuant to K.S.A.
1991 Supp. 46-1114 or 46-1108, persons or corporations
receiving funds from or through a state funded peer assistance
program for the purpose of conducting such a program on behalf
of a state agency are subject to audits conducted pursuant to
K.S.A. 46-1101 et seq. insofar as such audits relate to
the state funded program.

The remaining and perhaps most problematic issue is whether
the rather broad access authority vested in the division of
post audit is in some way negated or overridden by laws
concerning the records in question.
The following statutes and regulation provide possible
closure authority for the records in question: K.S.A. 1991
Supp. 65-4921 et seq., K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 47-846 et
seq., 42 U.S.C. § 290ee-3, and 42 C.F.R. §S 2.1 et
seq.
42 U.S.C. § 290ee-3 states in pertinent part:
"(a) Disclosure authorization
"Records of the identity, diagnosis,
prognosis, or treatment of any patient
which are maintained in connection with
the performance of any drug abuse
prevention function conducted, regulated,
or directly or indirectly assisted by any
department or agency of the United States
shall, except as provided in subsection
(e) of this section, be confidential and
be disclosed only for the purposes and
under the circumstances expressly
authorized under subsection (b) of this
section.
"(b) Purposes and circumstances of
disclosure affecting consenting patient
and patient regardless of consent
• • •
"(2) Whether or not the patient, with
respect to whom any given record referred
to in subsection (a) of this section is
maintained, gives his written consent, the
content of such record may be disclosed as
follows:
"(B) To qualified personnel for the
purpose of conducting scientific
research, management audits, financial
audits, or program evaluation, but such

personnel may not identify, directly or
indirectly, any individual patient in any
report of such research, audit, or
evaluation, or otherwise disclose patient
identities in any manner." (Emphasis
added).
42 C.F.R. § 2.1(b)(2) and § 2.53 further authorize access to
patient records in order to audit and evaluate the drug abuse
program. Thus, although we do not have sufficient information
to determine if the federal law applies to the records in
question, the confidentiality imposed by federal law
nevertheless permits access to patient records by "qualified
personnel for the purpose of conducting . . . management
audits, financial audits, or program evaluation."
In Kansas the division of post audit is the agency
authorized, assigned and qualified to conduct financial audits
and program evaluations on state agencies, or entities
providing services to such entities, as set forth in K.S.A.
1991 Supp. 46-1106, 46-1108, and 46-1114. This is the purpose
and directive of the division. The personnel in this state
agency are qualified to conduct management audits, financial
audits or program evaluations. Assuming that federal law
applies to the records in question, the federal law
nevertheless permits limited unconsented to access for audit
and program evaluation purposes. Therefore, although post
audit personnel and staff remain subject to the duty of
confidentiality imposed by K.S.A. 1991 46-1101 et seq.,
and possibly the federal law, it is our opinion that, if it
applies, federal law permits the division of post audit access
to records falling within the purview of 42 U.S.C. § 290ee-3
and the regulations adopted pursuant to this federal act.
K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 65-4921 et seq. was enacted as part of a
comprehensive state effort to reduce injuries by and lawsuits
involving health care providers. This act applies to and
requires reporting by specific health care providers and
medical care facilities, as those terms are defined by K.S.A.
1991 Supp. 65-4921. See also K.S.A. 40-3401. K.S.A. 1991
Sup. 65-4923 and 65-4924 specifically address reports relating
to impaired health care providers. K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 47-846
et seq. is the corollary act for impaired veterinarians.
It is this authority that specifically authorizes certain
state licensing agencies to contractually provide for
treatment programs. The licensees included within the ambit
of these two acts include licensees subject to the authority
of the Kansas state board of nursing, the board of healing

arts, the dental board, the board of pharmacy and the board of
veterinary examiners.
K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 65-4925 makes reports and records made
pursuant to K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 65-4921 et seq. confidential
and privileged:
"(a) The reports and records made
pursuant to K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 65-4923 or
65-4924, and amendments thereto, shall be
confidential and privileged, including:
"(1) Reports and records of executive or
review committees of medical care
facilities or of a professional society or
organization;
"(2) reports and records of the chief of
the medical staff, chief administrative
officer or risk manager of a medical care
facility;
"(3) reports and records of any state
licensing agency or impaired provider
committee of a professional society or
organization; and
"(4) reports made pursuant to this act to
or by a medical care facility risk
manager, any committee, the board of
directors, administrative officer or any
consultant.
"Such reports and records shall not be
subject to discovery, subpoena or other
means of legal compulsion for their
release to any person or entity and shall
not be admissible in any civil or
administrative action other than a
disciplinary proceeding by the appropriate
state licensing agency." (Emphasis
added).
The provision of state funded peer assistance programs to
impaired veterinarians is set forth at K.S.A. 1991 Supp.
47-846 et seq. K.S.A.. 1991 Supp. 47-849 provides in
pertinent part:

"(a) The reports and records made
pursuant to K.S.A. 1989 Supp. 47-847 or
47-848, and amendments thereto, shall be
confidential and privileged, including:
"(1) Reports and records of executive or
review committees of a professional
society or organization;
"(2) reports and records of the board or
impaired veterinarian committee of a
professional society or organization; and
"(3) reports made pursuant to this act
to or by any committee or any consultant.
"Such reports and records shall not be
subject to discovery, subpoena or other
means of legal compulsion for their
release to any person or entity and shall
not be admissible in any civil or
administrative action other than a
disciplinary proceeding by the board."
(Emphasis added).
It is possible that not all reports or records concerning an
impaired licensee necessarily occur pursuant to K.S.A. 1991
Supp. 65-4921 et seq. or K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 47-846 et
seq. The reports and records in question appear to
primarily be in the possession of organizations conducting
programs pursuant to this authority and on behalf of a state
agency. For the purposes of this opinion we must therefore
assume that the records in question are reports made pursuant
to the acts cited herein.
These acts make the reports and records in question
"confidential and privileged" and limit the ability of persons
or entities to discover, subpoena or otherwise compel their
release. The dispositive issue therefore becomes whether such
"confidential and privileged" status overcomes the post audit
division access authority set forth at K.S.A. 46-1101 et
seq.
We are faced with access statutes which declare that the
division of post audit "shall have access to all . . . records
. . . confidential or otherwise. . . ." And, closure statutes
which provide that certain reports and records ". . . shall be

confidential and privileged . . . and not subject to
subpoena."
"Confidential" has been defined as "entrusted with the
confidence of another or with his secret affairs or purposes;
intended to be held in confidence or kept secret. . . ."
Blacks Law Dictionary 269 (5th ed. 1979). See also Burke
Energy Corp. v. Dept. of Energy for U.S., 583 F.Supp. 507,
510 (D.C. Kan. 1984); Cochran v. Amrine, 155 Kan. 777,
782 (1942); and State v. George, 223 Kan. 507 (1978).
"Privileged" means "possessing or enjoying a privilege; exempt
from burdens. . . ." Blacks Law Dictionary 1078 (5th ed.
1979), while "privilege" is "a particular and peculiar benefit
enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common
advantages. . . . An exceptional or extraordinary power or
exemption. . . ." Id. at 1077. Baldrige v. Shapiro,
455 U.S. 345, 102 S.Ct. 1103, 71 L.Ed.2d 199 (1982), held that
the confidentiality provisions of the Census Act constituted a
privilege within the meaning of discovery provisions of
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
"Privilege" within the meaning of statutes governing discovery
is the privilege as it exists in the law of evidence.
Wesley Medical Center v. Clark, 234 Kan. 13 (1983).
From the herein cited authority, we must conclude that the
terms "confidential and privileged" contained in K.S.A.
65-2925 and K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 47-879 are meant to ensure that
the reports subject to those statutes remain secret and cannot
be used against program participants except in the
circumstances described in those statutes. The access
authority granted post audit does not negate this
confidentiality or privileged status. However, we do not
believe the use of the term "privileged" countermands the
access authority of post audit. Rather, it is meant to
restrict the circumstances under which such reports may be
used or made public.
Statutory construction rules dictate that the intent of the
legislature governs when that intent can be ascertained from
the statute. See State ex rel. Stephan v. Kansas Racing
Commission, 246 Kan. 708 (1990); Cedar Creek Properties,
Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, Johnson County, 246
Kan. 412 (1990). In determining the legislative intent, the
court may look at the historical background of the statute,
the purpose to be accomplished by its enactment, the necessity
and effect of the statute, and the effect of the statute under

the various constructions suggested. Matter of Marriage of
Ross, 245 Kan. 591 (1989); Stauffer Communications, Inc.
v. Mitchell, 246 Kan. 492 (1990). There is a presumption
that the legislature does not intend to enact useless or
meaningless legislation. Matter of Adoption of Baby Boy L,
231 Kan. 199 (1982). It is the duty of a court to reconcile
different statutory provisions so as to make them consistent,
harmonious and sensible; general and special statutes should
be read together and harmonized whenever possible, but to the
extent a conflict exists, special statutes will prevail unless
it appears that the legislature intended to make the general
statute controlling. Kansas Racing Management, Inc. v.
Kansas Racing Commission, 244 Kan. 343 (1989). When there is
conflict between a statute dealing generally with this subject
and another statute dealing specifically with a certain phase
of that subject, the specific statute controls unless it
appears that the legislature intended to make the general act
controlling. State v. Wilcox, 245 Kan. 76 (1989); Garden
City Educators Association v. Vance, 224 Kan. 732 (1978).
35 K.L.R., Comment, 763, 777 (1987) discusses the intent
behind enactment of health care risk management laws:
"One of the new sections of the 1986 Act
requires each medical care facility in
Kansas to establish an Internal Risk
Management Program. The program is
designed to discover, as well as prevent,
the occurrence of medical malpractice.
The section sets forth several technical
requirements, including the process of
investigating claims and the determination
of whether a negligent act was committed.
Activities conducted under the auspices of
the Internal Risk management Program are
confidential, and any findings made are
not discoverable or admissible at any
subsequent legal proceeding. The Internal
Risk Management Program is designed to
force the medical profession to police
itself, not to provide claimants with
damaging evidence to present at trial."
All legislative history and subsequent comment located by this
office evidences a strong desire to encourage impaired
providers to come forward and utilize state funded recovery
programs. Insuring confidentiality about a provider's

participation in such a program was seen as one way to
encourage participation. It is our understanding that
individuals entering impaired provider programs sometimes sign
a contract which agrees that the program will not further
reveal the identity of the impaired licensee if that
individual fully complies with the requirements of the
program. The agent for the state may make such a contractual
promise only if the principle state agency itself possesses
and has delegated the authority to promise such closure.
See Attorney General Opinion No. 91-116. It has been argued
that possession of the records by the legislative post audit
division would risk discouraging participation by impaired
licensees and possibly make the documents subject to discovery
and legal process, in contravention of the provisions of
K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 65-4925 and 47-849. In accordance with the
statutory construction rules cited herein, these matters may
be considered in determining legislative intent.
The express language of K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 65-4925(a) and
K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 47-849(a) provide that any report or record
made pursuant to those acts is privileged and confidential and
is not subject to discovery, subpoena or other legal means of
compulsion for their release. The express language in K.S.A.
46-1101 et seq. gives post audit access to confidential
records. We acknowledge that the peer assistance statutes are
the more specific and the post audit statutes are general.
However, whenever possible, we must read statutes in harmony.
Further, we must consider that failure to furnish information
or records to post audit division may result in the
withholding of otherwise available state funds, as provided by
K.S.A. 46-1115, or imposition of class A misdemeanor
penalties, pursuant to K.S.A. 46-1116. Post audit also
possesses subpoena powers under K.S.A. 46-1001 et Reg.
K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 47-849(d) provides that nothing in that
section shall limit the authority of the board to require
reports to the board on actions or recommendations and the
state agency may require transfers of records of such
committees. K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 65-4923(e) provides "if a state
agency that licenses health care providers determines that a
review or executive committee referred to in subsection (a) is
not fulfilling its duties under this section, the agency, upon
notice and an opportunity be heard, may require all reports
pursuant to this section to be made directly to the agency."
It may be difficult, or even impossible, to determine if a
committee is in fact fulfilling its duties if the board
(state) cannot ascertain the information sought by post audit.

K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 65-4924(c) requires impaired provider
committees to develop procedures and consultation with the
licensing agency for periodic reporting of statistical
information, and requiring "periodic disclosure and joint
review of such information as the licensing agency considers
appropriate regarding reports received, contacts or
investigations made and the disposition of each report."
(Emphasis added). It appears that each of the licensing
agencies themselves retain and possess some authority to
contractually provide for access of reports concerning
individuals. As noted previously, we have been provided with
copies of some of the contracts between the state agencies and
the program providers. Some access to the identity of
impaired providers is contractually retained by most of the
state agencies in question. Moreover, each impaired provider
law cited herein permits access to these records by the agency
funding the program.
We understand it has been the practice of some of state
agencies to ordinarily refrain from asking for or obtaining
any information on specific individuals if those individuals
continue to comply with the terms of their treatment program.
However, it does not appear that the closure law authority
cited herein absolutely prohibits the licensing agencies or
the post auditor from obtaining individually identifiable
records or reports. To infer such a prohibition would
effectively eliminate the ability of the state to conduct
management or financial audits or program evaluations done to
ensure compliance with the program contract. Such oversight
is contemplated and permitted by state and federal law.
The purpose of the risk management program laws is served by
ensuring the confidentiality and privileged nature of the
reports and records in question. The special confidential and
privileged status given these records restricts access to
information and encourages participation in state funded
treatment programs. Access to the post auditor under K.S.A.
46-1101 et seq. does not open the door to access by the
LPAC or other entities. However, as recognized by the acts
themselves (and the federal act), the licensing agencies have
the authority to monitor and determine the effectiveness and
efficiency of the programs they are funding. One monitoring
mechanism available to the state and its agencies is accessing
individual records, as permitted by 42 U.S.C. § 290ee-3, 42
C.F.R. 2.1, K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 65-4924(c) and K.S.A. 1991 Supp.
47-849(d). In addition, the legislative post audit act gives
the post auditor access to confidential records. As
representatives for the state, the licensing agencies and post

audit should cooperatively seek to insure that the purpose of
the impaired provider act is served and that state funds and
programs are being utilized in accordance with the applicable
laws and contracts.
The confidentiality of the records is not automatically
compromised or lost by providing access to the state agencies
or to legislative post audit. Rather, the dictates of K.S.A.
1991 Supp. 65-4921 et seq., K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 47-846 et
seq., and K.S.A. 46-1101 et seq. provide that these
records are and shall remain confidential and cannot be used
against the licensee/participant except in appropriate actions
on the license. We note that in Bryan v. Hilst, Case
No. 90-4101-S, a federal magistrate reviewed the provisions of
K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 65-2898 and allowed civil litigants to
obtain from a licensing board those records used by the
licensing agency in an investigation of a licensee. This
court opinion does not address records subject only to K.S.A.
1991 Supp. 65-4925 or K.S.A. 46-1101 et sea. authority.
Thus, while we might prefer a more definitive legislative
directive on this issue, we do not believe that the provisions
of 42 U.S.C. § 290ee-3, 42 C.F.R. 2.1 et seq., K.S.A.
1991 Supp. 65-4921 et seq. or K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 47-846
et seq. conflict with or eliminate the access authority
provided to the division of post audit pursuant to K.S.A.
46-1101 et seq.
It is our opinion that the confidentiality and privilege
statutes concerning records created pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S
290ee-3, K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 65-4921 et seq. or K.S.A.
1991 Supp. 47-846 et seq. may be read in harmony with the
access authority given the legislative division of post audit
pursuant to K.S.A. 46-1101 et seq. These closure laws do
not prevent access to such records by the division of
legislative post audit. Such records are and should remain
confidential and privileged whether possessed by the program,
the state agency or the division of post audit.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT T. STEPHAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KANSAS
Theresa Marcel Nuckolls
RTS:JLM:TMN:bas Assistant Attorney General