A bill filed this session in the Kansas Legislature would close public access to the state’s registry of licensed law enforcement officers.

The bill is unnecessary. There simply is no justifiable reason to keep the names and basic employment histories of the state’s law enforcement officers shrouded in mystery.

State law requires the Kansas Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training to maintain a “central registry of all Kansas police officers or law enforcement officers.” The law requires agencies to submit the name of any person elected or appointed to a law enforcement position within 30 days of the appointment. Similarly, state agencies are required to submit notice to CPOST anytime a law enforcement officer leaves a position, whether the officer left voluntarily or was terminated. Agencies are required to submit reports explaining the circumstances under which an officer left the job.

At present, names on the registry and CPOST termination records are subject to the Kansas Open Records Act. But House Bill 2070, which has been filed with the House Judiciary Committee, would exempt the registry information from KORA requirements, including the names on the central registry of law enforcement officers.

Advocates of the bill say closing the records is needed to protect officers. But in the rare instances when officers overstep their bounds, someone has to ensure the interests of the public also are being protected. Subjecting records to public scrutiny is the best way to do that.

To understand the problem with HB 2070, look no further than the case of former Lawrence Police Officer William Burke, who resigned his position in 2015 after a disturbing incident in which he allegedly beat and locked in a dog cage a fellow female officer with whom he was having a relationship. An investigation into the incident shows Burke essentially admitted to the allegations in text messages to the female officer.

In September, Burke filed a lawsuit against the city, claiming he was illegally searched, arrested and defamed. The city’s response to Burke’s lawsuit lays out the details surrounding his departure.

The Journal-World was able to confirm through CPOST that Burke is still registered as a law enforcement officer. The newspaper also was able to get a copy of Burke’s termination/status change notice, though it was heavily redacted.

Serious questions linger about why Burke was allowed to resign instead of being terminated, why he remains a registered law enforcement officer and why Burke’s arrest was expunged.

In Burke’s case, the lawsuit triggered the Journal-World’s investigation into the incident. That investigation was enhanced by the ability to access information from CPOST.

House Bill 2070 would make it considerably more difficult to shed light on incidents like the one involving Burke and thus much easier for officers who run into problems in one community to get law enforcement work in another community without questions being raised. That doesn’t serve the best interests of anyone — the officers involved, the agencies they work for or the public they serve.