The group issued a statement arguing Hiller has shown bias in committee discussions and votes, and that her status as a landlord plus campaign donations from real-estate interests create a conflict. They contend this has contributed to the proposal being “slow-walked.” What the newspaper found
- Hiller owns three homes: the one she lives in and two she rents out. The current pilot would apply only to properties with five or more units, so her rentals would not be covered now. A later expansion could change that.
- In her 2025 re-election campaign, roughly $2,900 (about 23 percent of total donations) came from people or entities in real estate or the landlord industry. Named examples include North Homes LLC ($1,000), developer Jim Klausman’s Kansan Towers LLC, and the attorney for the Shawnee County Landlord Association.
She told the paper she bought the two neighboring houses and that her 30-year background in tenant-landlord matters makes her well-qualified to work on the issue. She has publicly said she has concerns about the current draft, wants more work done before a vote, and does not want the city to lose momentum on other property-maintenance initiatives already under way. She declined to put the pilot to a committee vote; the city manager later brought it to the full council. The article does not conclude there is a legal conflict under Kansas ethics rules. It presents the tenants’ appearance-of-conflict argument, the donation data, Hiller’s ownership of two small rentals, and her stated reasons for caution. The pilot remains under discussion and has not been adopted.
Kansas local officials, including city council members, are covered by a specific set of state conflict-of-interest statutes in K.S.A. 75-4301a through 75-4306. These rules are administered by the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission (formerly the Governmental Ethics Commission) and focus on financial “substantial interests,” disclosure, and self-dealing contracts—not on general political appearance or campaign donations.
What counts as a “substantial interest”
A local official has a substantial interest in a business if any of these apply to the official or the official’s spouse:
- Ownership of more than $5,000 or 5% (whichever is less) in the preceding 12 months.
- $2,000 or more in taxable compensation from the business in the preceding calendar year.
- Goods or services worth $500 or more received without reasonable consideration in the preceding 12 months.
- Serving as an officer, director, partner, or proprietor (except certain nonprofits).
- Receiving $2,000 or more in fees or commissions tied to a particular client.
Owning rental houses as a personal landlord generally falls under the ownership or proprietor test if the properties are held in a way that meets the dollar or percentage thresholds. Simply being a tenant in a lease does not create a substantial interest in the landlord.
Disclosure requirements
Elected local officials must file a Statement of Substantial Interests with the county election officer (typically when they become a candidate and annually if interests change). If they have not filed one and a matter before them would affect a business in which they have a substantial interest, they must file a written report of the interest before acting.
Restrictions on acting
- An official may not make or participate in making a contract with a business in which they have a substantial interest, unless they completely abstain. Competitive-bid contracts and contracts with prices fixed by law are exceptions.
- Abstaining from all action on a matter is treated as not “acting” on it.
The statutes do not automatically bar an official from voting on general ordinances that apply to an entire class of people (for example, all landlords of five-or-more-unit buildings) even if the official owns smaller rentals that might later be covered if the ordinance expands. The key questions are whether the official has a current substantial interest in a specific business that would be affected and whether the official participates in a contract with that business.
Enforcement and limits
Violating the contract-prohibition statute can result in forfeiture of office. The Commission issues advisory opinions that officials can request; following an opinion creates a presumption of compliance. Cities may adopt additional ethics rules, but they cannot weaken the state requirements. Campaign contributions from an industry are not treated as a “substantial interest” under these statutes.
