Texas Senate Bill SB1518

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 3/10/11
• Out of Senate Committee: 3/30/11
• Voted on by Senate: 4/7/11
• Refer: 3/22/11
• Out of House Committee: 5/6/11
• Report Pass: 3/30/11
• Voted on by House: 5/19/11
• Engrossed: 4/7/11
• Governor Action: 6/17/11
• Refer: 5/2/11
• Report Pass: 5/4/11
• Enrolled: 5/20/11
• Passed: 6/17/11

Caption

Relating to the powers and duties of the Texas Historical Commission; imposing a penalty.

Impact

The bill proposes significant changes to existing state laws governing the management and operation of historic sites. By allowing the THC to contract services related to the preservation and management of these sites, it effectively streamlines operations and encourages cooperation with various entities, including municipalities and nonprofit organizations. Furthermore, the bill enables the THC to establish guidelines for the construction and improvement of public infrastructure adjacent to historic sites, which could enhance access and visitor experience while maintaining historical integrity.

Summary

Senate Bill 1518 aims to bolster the functions and responsibilities of the Texas Historical Commission (THC) by enhancing its authority to manage historic sites across the state. The bill introduces provisions allowing the Commission to obtain criminal history records for employees, volunteers, and contractors, establishing a framework that governs how this sensitive information is handled. This move is designed to ensure the safety and integrity of personnel involved in historic preservation activities while protecting the public visiting these sites.

Contention

Notably, some concerns have been raised regarding the privacy implications of the newly introduced provisions for background checks. Opponents argue that the broad access to criminal history records could deter potential volunteers and contractors who may have minor past offenses but are otherwise qualified. Furthermore, the stipulation that the THC may lease lands and charge fees for concessions may spark debates about commercialization versus preservation in state-protected historic areas. Ensuring a balance between operational funding and maintaining historical significance is expected to be a point of discussion among stakeholders.