BILL ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 2486
By: Guiterrez
04-25-95
Committee Report (Substituted)
BACKGROUND
In 1993, the United States Congress amended the Higher Education
Act of 1965 directing the governor of each state to establish a
State Postsecondary Review Program (SPRP) to reduce student loan
defaults. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board has been
designated by the Governor of Texas as the State Postsecondary
Review Entity (TXSPRE).
The Department of Education has required that each state program
establish rules and guidelines for conducting the reviews of
institutions. The Coordinating Board is working with institutions
throughout Texas to develop rules and standards to govern the
reviews of the institutions. The rule-making process has been a
collaborative effort to ensure that the concerns of the
institutions are addressed.
PURPOSE
If enacted, C.S.H.B. 2486 provides several measures designed to
protect an institution subject to review from irreparable harm that
could result from premature or inappropriate disclosure of
unfounded allegations about the institution. In addition, this
bill allows the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to
conduct efficient and effective reviews of the institutions.
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. Amend Chapter 61, Education Code, by adding Subchapter
Q to read as follows:
SUBCHAPTER Q. STATE POSTSECONDARY REVIEW PROGRAM
Sec. 61.791. DEFINITIONS.
(1) The "entity" is the state postsecondary review entity
designated by the governor in an agreement with the U.S.
Secretary of Education.
(2) "Program" refers to the state postsecondary review
program authorized under the 20 U.S.C. Chapter 28, Subchapter
IV, Part G, Subpart 1 (20 U.S.C. Section 1099a et seq.)
Sec. 61.792. AGREEMENT. The governor may enter into an agreement
with the U.S. Secretary of Education.
Sec. 61.793. NOTICE. The entity shall notify an institution of
higher education whose activities are being reviewed under the
program.
Sec. 61.794. CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE DEMAND. An authorized employee
or agent of the entity may execute in writing a civil investigative
demand requiring the institution to produce documents and records
or permit inspection and copying of documents and records.
(b) The demand must describe the documents and records to be
produced or made available with specificity to identify the
material demanded; state the date and the documents and records
are to be produced or made available; and identify the entity's
employee or agent to whom the materials are to be delivered or made
available.
(c) The entity may serve a demand on an institution's president,
chief financial officer or registered agent for service of
process.
(d) Service of a civil investigative demand may be made by:
(1) a personal service of an executed copy of the demand; or
(2) the mailing of an executed copy of the demand by certified
mail.
(e) Materials demanded shall be produced during normal business
hours at the institution's place of business or at the time and
place on which the institution and the staff of the entity agree.
(f) If an institution of higher education does not comply with a
civil investigative demand, the entity may file a petition for an
order of enforcement in a district court in the county in which the
institution is located and serve the petition on a person
designated in Subsection (c).
Sec. 61.795. JUDICIAL REVIEW. (a) An institution of higher
education may appeal a decision rendered by the entity in a
contested case brought under the program. The court shall
determine the appeal under the substantial evidence rule.
(b) An action brought under the program shall be brought in a
district court in Travis County, except as provided by Section
61.794.
Sec. 61.796. CONFIDENTIALITY. This section provides that
investigative information (including complaints, investigation
files and reports, and documentary material produced) obtained by
the entity during a review of an institution is privileged and
confidential.
(b) Investigative information obtained during a review of an
institution may be used by the entity in an enforcement action
brought under the program. While an action against an institution
is pending, the entity may not be required to produce investigative
reports or memoranda, attorney-client communications, attorney-work
product, or other materials. On final adjudication of an action
brought by the entity against an institution of higher education or
on completion of a review of the institution, the information
obtained is available as provided by Chapter 552, Government Code.
(c) Investigative information may be disclosed if it is in the
possession of the entity or an authorized employee or agent of the
entity.
(d) If a crime may have been committed, the entity shall report
the information to the
appropriate law enforcement agency in accordance with the law.
(e) If a potential violation of another law exists for which an
institution may be liable, the entity may disclose relevant
investigative information to the institution's governing board.
Sec. 61.797. IMMUNITY. This section specifies that there is no
private cause of action against any person who assists the entity
in good faith.
SECTION 2. Effective date: September 1, 1995.
SECTION 3. Emergency clause.
COMPARISON OF SUBSTITUTE TO ORIGINAL
The committee substitute contains a revised caption compared to the
original bill.
SECTION 1. The committee substitute amends Chapter 61 by adding
Subchapter Q. The original bill amends Chapter 61 by adding
Subchapter P. The following sections were included in the
committee substitute and were not in the original bill:
Section 61.792. Agreement (This section contains new information
that is not found in the original bill).
Section 61.795. Judicial Review (The heading is a new title with
the same information in section 1.03 Jurisdiction and section 1.04
Venue contained in the original bill).
The sections were renumbered in the committee substitute as
compared to the original bill.
SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION
H.B. 2486 was considered by the committee in a public hearing on
April 4, 1995.
The chair recognized Representative Roberto Gutierrez to explain
the bill.
The committee considered a complete substitute for the bill.
The following person testified neutrally on the bill:
Mr. Don Brown.
The chair recognized Representative Roberto Gutierrez to close.
The bill was left pending.
H.B. 2486 was considered by the committee in a formal meeting on
April 20, 1995.
The committee considered a complete substitute for the bill. The
substitute was adopted without objection by a non-record vote.
The bill was reported favorably as substituted, with the
recommendation that it do pass and be printed, by a record vote of
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv, 2 absent.