Texas House Bill HB1490

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Out of House Committee: 4/17/09

Caption

Relating to injury leave and related benefits for certain state peace officers injured in the course of performance of duty.

Impact

The implications of HB1490 are significant for the health and well-being of state peace officers, as it seeks to provide them with better support during their recovery from work-related injuries. It reassures them that they will not suffer financial hardship due to their service and sacrifice. The law aims to ensure that peace officers can recuperate without worrying about unpaid leave or exhausting their available leave time. This affirmation of support is also intended to bolster morale among law enforcement personnel and provide an added layer of protection for those who risk their lives daily while serving the public.

Summary

House Bill 1490 is designed to amend certain provisions of the Texas Government Code regarding injury leave and related benefits for state peace officers who are injured in the course of their duties. The bill's primary focus is to entitle affected peace officers to injury leave without a salary deduction. This means that if a peace officer suffers an injury resulting from specified offenses while performing their duties, they will not be required to use their accrued compensatory time or any other types of leave under the relevant chapter of the code. The amendment aims to provide a safeguard for state peace officers who face dangerous situations in the line of duty.

Contention

While the bill seeks to strengthen the benefits available to state peace officers, it may also spur discussions around the adequacy of support for all law enforcement personnel and the financial implications for the state budget. Some might argue about the potential costs involved in expanding benefits for peace officers, bringing attention to how these changes fit within the broader context of public safety funding. Furthermore, there might be debates about whether similar provisions should extend to other categories of public servants who face similar risks in the line of duty, thereby raising questions of equity and fairness in the allocation of such benefits.