Texas Senate Bill SR1087

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Introduced: 5/31/09
• Enrolled: 5/31/09
• Passed: 5/31/09

Caption

Suspending limitations on conference committee jurisdiction, S.B. No. 1068.

Impact

If adopted, SR1087 would not only modify existing regulations related to public information but also expand the exceptions to the typical disclosure requirements under Section 552.021 of the Texas Government Code. This change aims to safeguard public employees from threats, making it permissible to withhold personal information when its disclosure could pose a substantial risk of physical harm. The implications of this amendment could significantly alter the landscape of governmental transparency, reflecting a balance between the public's right to information and the safety of public servants. It indicates a responsive legislative approach to evolving concerns about personal safety in public service.

Summary

Senate Resolution 1087 addresses the need for amendments to Texas's public information laws concerning the disclosure of personal information about public officers and employees. The resolution specifically seeks to enable a conference committee to consider adding provisions to Senate Bill 1068 that would allow governmental bodies to redact certain personal information without needing to request a decision from the attorney general. The key focus of the bill is to enhance the protection of government employees and officers from potential threats by allowing for selective non-disclosure of information that could expose them to physical harm. This potential change signifies a critical step towards ensuring the safety of those working in public service roles.

Contention

Debate surrounding SR1087 may be centered on the tension between transparency and safety. Supporters may argue that the amendment is necessary to protect public officers from potential threats, advocating for an environment where governmental employees can work without fear of harassment or harm. Conversely, critics may highlight the potential for misuse of the redaction provision, raising concerns about the implications for public accountability and transparency. The discussion could prompt questions regarding how to implement such changes without compromising the public's right to access information related to governmental operations and actions.