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.