BILL ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 1911

By: Burrows

State Affairs

Committee Report (Substituted)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

State law provides confidentiality protections for the home address information of certain individuals in property tax appraisal records. Employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) or the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) are among those currently covered by these confidentiality protections. However, certain contract employees providing health care services at corrections facilities are not covered because they are not employees of TDCJ or TJJD. C.S.H.B. 1911 seeks to extend these confidentiality protections to a current or former employee or contract staff member of a university health care provider at a TDCJ or TJJD facility, as well as to a current or former attorney for the Department of Family and Protective Services.

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. 1911 amends the Tax Code to extend the confidentiality protections for home address information in property tax appraisal records to the following individuals:

· a current or former employee or contract staff member of a university health care provider at a corrections facility operated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice or the Texas Juvenile Justice Department; and

· a current or former attorney for the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS).

EFFECTIVE DATE

On passage, or, if the bill does not receive the necessary vote, September 1, 2023.

COMPARISON OF INTRODUCED AND SUBSTITUTE

While C.S.H.B. 1911 may differ from the introduced in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following summarizes the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.

Whereas the introduced extended the confidentiality protections only to a current or former employee or contract staff member of a university health care provider at a state corrections facility, the substitute extends these protections also to a current or former attorney for DFPS.