BILL ANALYSIS |
C.S.H.B. 1784 |
By: Faircloth |
Government Transparency & Operation |
Committee Report (Substituted) |
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Interested parties contend that clarity relating to the limitations period for bringing certain enforcement, injunctive, or mandamus actions under state open meetings law is needed. C.S.H.B. 1784 seeks to provide for the period during which an action alleging a violation of the open meetings law may be brought.
|
||||||||
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.
|
||||||||
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.
|
||||||||
ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 1784 amends the Government Code to require a person to bring certain enforcement, injunctive, or mandamus actions relating to an alleged violation or threatened violation of state open meetings law before the second anniversary of the date the alleged violation occurred or the second anniversary of the date the alleged violation should reasonably have been discovered.
|
||||||||
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2017.
|
||||||||
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.H.B. 1784 may differ from the original in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following comparison is organized and formatted in a manner that indicates the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.
|
||||||||
|