TO: | Honorable Robert Duncan, Chair, Senate Committee on State Affairs |
FROM: | John S. O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board |
IN RE: | HB2061 by Keffer, Jim (Relating to the acquisition or disclosure of the social security number of a living person by a governmental body, including by a district or county clerk.), As Engrossed |
The bill would amend Section 552.147, Government Code, to authorize a county or district clerk to disclose in the ordinary course of business a social security number that is contained in information held by the clerk's office. In addition, unless another law requires a social security number to be maintained in a government document, the clerk would be required to redact all but the last four digits of a social security number from official public records maintained by the clerk's office upon receiving a written request from an individual or their representative. The written request would be required to be on a form provided by the clerk.
The bill would amend Section 11.008, Property Code, to prohibit a preparer from including a person's social security number on an instrument submitted for recording in a county clerk's office. Other than the duty to redact an individual's social security number upon the person's request, a county clerk would have no duty to ensure an instrument presented does not contain a social security number.
The bill would take effect immediately if it were to receive a two-thirds vote in each house; otherwise, it would take effect September 1, 2007.
Based on Attorney General Opinion GA-0159 (February 2007), under current statute, clerks would have to go through all records maintained in their offices and redact social security numbers. Passage of the bill would create a significant savings for county and district clerks' offices that, prior to GA-0159, have not been redacting social security numbers from all existing records. The savings would vary depending on number of records maintained.
For example,
The Fort Bend County Clerk's Office estimates a savings of $1 million that would otherwise have to be spent for redacting social security numbers from all existing records maintained by that office.
Source Agencies: |
LBB Staff: | JOB, KJG, DB
|