Texas Senate Bill SB397

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Out of Senate Committee: 3/9/09
• Voted on by Senate: 3/19/09
• Out of House Committee: 5/22/09
• Voted on by House: 5/27/09
• Governor Action: 6/19/09
• Enrolled: 5/28/09
• Passed: 6/19/09

Caption

Relating to methods of payment for reimbursement of jury service expenses.

Impact

The bill amends existing provisions in the Local Government Code and the Government Code to facilitate these payment methods, thus impacting how counties handle financial transactions related to jury service. By allowing electronic and alternative payment systems, the bill hopes to enhance operational efficiency within local governments. Moreover, this change is expected to reduce delays and improve the provision of funds to jurors, reflecting a modernized approach in managing public service reimbursements.

Summary

SB397 is an act concerning the methods of payment for reimbursement of jury service expenses in Texas. This legislation allows county treasurers the flexibility to disburse payments for jury service using various modern methods, such as electronic funds transfer, cash dispensing machines, or debit cards, among other secure and cost-effective means determined by the county's commissioners court. This legislative change aims to streamline the reimbursement process, making it more convenient for citizens fulfilling their jury duty responsibilities.

Contention

Notably, while the bill seems to promote modernization and convenience, potential points of contention may arise regarding the security and oversight of these alternative payment methods. Critics may raise questions about the accountability of electronic transactions and how counties ensure that these new systems comply with existing financial regulations. The necessity for each method to be approved by the commissioners court adds a layer of bureaucratic process that could be seen as cumbersome by some stakeholders.

Additional_points

Furthermore, the provision that allows jurors to donate their reimbursement back to the county may also generate discussions, reflecting ethical considerations on whether such donations should be an expected norm or entirely voluntary, as well as how transparently these funds are managed.