LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE
75th Regular Session
April 6, 1997
TO: Honorable Rodney Ellis, Chair IN RE: Senate Bill No. 1528
Committee on Jurisprudence By: Moncrief
Senate
Austin, Texas
FROM: John Keel, Director
In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on SB1528 ( Relating
to false claims made with certain governmental entities; providing
a civil penalty.) this office has detemined the following:
Biennial Net Impact to General Revenue Funds by SB1528-As Introduced
Implementing the provisions of the bill would result in a
net negative impact of $(711,621) to General Revenue Related
Funds through the biennium ending August 31, 1999.
The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal
basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions
of the bill.
The bill would amend the Government Code to
prohibit the making of false claims for payment or approval
to certain governmental entities or government contractors.
The bill would also prohibit certain other actions (prohibited
acts) that would defraud a governmental entity or government
contractor. The bill would also permit private individuals
to bring a civil action for a violation of the prohibited acts.
A new "whistle blower" protection would be provided to employees
disclosing information, assisting or testifying in an action,
and employees would have a new cause of action against governmental
employers for violation of these protections.
The bill would
require a court that finds a person knowingly committed a prohibited
act to award the affected entity's actual damages, exemplary
damages equal to two times the actual damages, and attorney's
fees and costs. The court could also award the affected entity
a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each false claim.
Money collected on behalf of a governmental entity would be
deposited to the credit of the general revenue fund or the local
governmental entity.
Fiscal Analysis
The Attorney General would be required to investigate alleged
violations of prohibited acts involving state funds, and local
authorities would be required to investigate alleged violations
involving local government funds. The bill would increase the
workload of the Office of the Attorney General because of increased
litigation and additional investigative responsibilities.
Methodolgy
The Attorney General would represent agencies with contracts
that could be the subject of a false claim under the bill and
would be involved in the investigation of such claims, which
would require additional staff as follows: Assistant Attorney
General III -- 1.5; Investigator I -- 1; Legal Assistant II
-- 0.5; Legal Secretary I -- 0.5. The Attorney General would
also incur expenditures for capital items.
The Office of
the Attorney General states that the "whistle blower" provisions
in the bill are different from the standard whistle blower act
(Chapter 554, Government Code) which could cause the state to
have more monetary exposure. The state could be liable for
damages with no monetary caps, as well as liable for punitive
damages.
The probable fiscal implications of implementing the provisions
of the bill during each of the first five years following passage
is estimated as follows:
Five Year Impact:
Fiscal Year Probable Change in Number
Savings/(Cost) of State
from General Employees from
Revenue Fund FY 1997
0001
1998 ($361,825) 3.5
1998 (349,796) 3.5
2000 (349,796) 3.5
2001 (349,796) 3.5
2002 (349,796) 3.5
Net Impact on General Revenue Related Funds:
The probable fiscal implication to General Revenue related funds
during each of the first five years is estimated as follows:
Fiscal Year Probable Net Postive/(Negative)
General Revenue Related Funds
Funds
1998 ($361,825)
1999 (349,796)
2000 (349,796)
2001 (349,796)
2002 (349,796)
Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as
the provisions of the bill are in effect.
Local governments through their prosecuting attorneys would
have similar responsibilities as the Office of the Attorney
General to investigate and file lawsuits on false claims. The
bill would have a fiscal impact on local governments that do
not currently undertake such actions. Local governments would
also have the same potential monetary exposure with regard to
whistle blower actions by employees.
Source: Agencies: 302 Office of the Attorney General
303 General Services Commission
304 Comptroller of Public Accounts
LBB Staff: JK ,BB ,JC