BILL ANALYSIS C.S.H.B. 949 By: Hightower 03-07-95 Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND Texas inmates, like those in other states, can receive information through the Open Records Act and may use it to their advantage. Some examples of misuse of information obtained by inmates are: an inmate gained information on a disciplinary charge against a correctional officer and disclosed it to other inmates and staff; an inmate learned a correctional officer's age and used it to harass them; an inmate obtained a list of payroll information on prison employees, including social security numbers, and filed several bogus income tax returns, claiming entitlement to refunds; and an inmate made an Open Records Request to the Board of Nursing Examiners, looking for information about the nurses who provide health care in prison. If the home addresses, or enough information to find addresses were supplied, there was often a rash of letters, some claiming to be in love with the nurse, some wanting to make vague or overt threats. Relations between officers and inmates in correctional facilities are difficult, complicated, and dangerous by their nature. Rapid expansion of the system has exacerbated the situation, resulting in the reality of a less seasoned staff and less ability by individual officers to cope with inmate mischief and harassment. Limiting the ability of inmates to acquire information that can be used to "play with the minds" of correctional staff is one thing that the state can do that may help to alleviate some of the problems currently being faced. Michigan adopted a similar amendment to its freedom of information act in 1994 and has seen an improvement in the problem. The Department of Criminal Justice expends considerable resources in processing inmate Open Records requests, arguing their merits to the Attorney General's Office, copying information (in many cases for indigents who cannot reimburse the agency), and directly supervising inmate access to files in lieu of making copies. Also, currently persons confined in correctional facilities seek, through discovery, personal identifying information about employees of the department. The inmate may then also use this information to harass employees and their families. PURPOSE C.S.H.B. 949 provides that a governmental body is not required to accept or comply with a request for information from an individual imprisoned or confined in a correctional facility. It would apply to those confined in TDCJ facilities, facilities under contract to TDCJ, municipal and county jails, and community corrections facilities. C.S.H.B. 949 would also make personal identifying information of an employee of a correctional facility or their family, privileged from civil discovery by an inmate. The bill provides that this information may be discovered by a confined person if they show good cause to the court for the information and the court renders an order that authorizes the discovery of the information. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency or institution. SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS SECTION 1. Amends Subchapter B, Chapter 552, Government Code (the Open Records Act), by adding a Section 552.027: Sec. 552.027. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL. (a) Provides that a governmental agency is not required to accept or comply with information requests from an incarcerated individual. (b) Provides that Subsection (a) does not prohibit a governmental body from disclosing information to an inmate that pertains to the inmate. (c) Defines "correctional facility." SECTION 2. Amends Chapter 30, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, by adding Section 30.07: Sec. 30.07. PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION PRIVILEGED FROM DISCOVERY BY INMATE. (a) Provides that all personal identifying information that pertains to an individual, including their home address, home telephone number and social security number, is privileged from discovery by a person confined in a correctional facility, if the individual is an employee of any correctional facility, or related within the first degree of consanguinity to an employee of a correctional facility. (b) Provides that all personal identifying information that is privileged under this section may be discovered by an inmate only if the inmate shows good cause to the court for the discovery of the information and the court renders an order that authorizes the discovery of this information. (c) Defines "correctional facility." (d) Provides that the Supreme Court may not amend or adopt rules in conflict with this section. SECTION 3. Provides that changes made in Section 2 of this Act apply only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. SECTION 4. Emergency clause. Effective date: upon passage COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE The original bill did not give an inmate access to their own personal file. The substitute allows an incarcerated individual the ability to obtain information held by a governmental body that pertains to the individual. The substitute also provides that a governmental body is not required to accept or comply with an information request from a person confined in a correctional facility. The substitute added language that would make personal identifying information of an employee of a correctional facility or their family, privileged from civil discovery by an inmate. This information may be discovered by a confined person if they show good cause to the court for the information and the court renders an order that authorizes the discovery of the information. SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION H.B. 949 was considered by the Committee on Corrections in a public hearing on February 28, 1995. The Committee considered a complete substitute for the bill. The substitute was adopted without objection. The following person testified in favor of the bill: Lane Zivley, representing the Texas Public Employees Association. The following persons testified neutrally on the bill: Carl Reynolds, representing the Texas Board of Criminal Justice; Wayne Scott, representing the Texas Department of Criminal Justice; and Mark Majek, representing the Texas Board of Nurse Examiners. The bill was reported favorably as substituted, with the recommendation that it do pass and be printed, by a record vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv, and 0 absent. The Committee met in a public hearing on March 7, 1995. The vote by which H.B. 949 was reported favorably as substituted was reconsidered without objection. The vote by which the committee substitute was adopted was reconsidered without objection. The committee substitute was withdrawn. The Committee considered a complete substitute for the bill. The substitute was adopted without objection. The bill was reported favorably as substituted with the recommendation that it do pass and be printed, by a record vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv, 1 absent.