HB 3516 proposes to expand the types of internal records and communications that are exempt from public disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act, specifically for administrative law judges and technical examiners at the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC). The stated goal is to align confidentiality protections for RRC personnel with those already in place for similar officials at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), thereby safeguarding deliberative communications and promoting efficient decision-making in contested case hearings.
While the bill’s intent to protect sensitive internal deliberations is reasonable, its current language is overly broad and lacks clear limitations. It could inadvertently shield too much information from public access, including materials that may be relevant to regulated businesses or property owners participating in or appealing administrative decisions. This raises concerns under several core liberty principles. It diminishes individual liberty and limited government by weakening transparency and accountability. It also impacts private property rights and free enterprise by potentially limiting access to information important in resolving regulatory disputes.
Additionally, the bill increases the discretionary power of state agencies without introducing corresponding oversight mechanisms. It expands the functional scope of government by reducing public oversight of key regulatory processes, though it does not increase state spending or add regulatory burdens directly.
Given the cumulative impact on liberty principles and the absence of balancing safeguards, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 3516 unless amended to narrowly tailor the exemptions, define key terms, and incorporate measures that maintain public access and protect due process. Only then would the legislation appropriately balance the need for confidentiality with the foundational values of transparency and limited government.
- Individual Liberty: This principle centers on the right of citizens to know how government decisions are made, particularly those that affect their lives and livelihoods. The bill expands the categories of documents and communications that the public can no longer access under the Texas Public Information Act. These documents include the internal notes, thoughts, and draft decisions of administrative judges and technical examiners at the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC). By shielding this information, the bill reduces transparency, making it harder for individuals to understand or challenge decisions made in contested case hearings. This diminishes the public’s ability to hold government officials accountable and undermines a key safeguard of liberty in a free society.
- Personal Responsibility: The bill does not directly affect individual conduct or legal accountability, so it does not significantly impact this principle.
- Free Enterprise: Texas businesses frequently engage with the RRC in highly regulated sectors like energy, transportation, and land development. The bill could make it harder for businesses involved in contested case proceedings to obtain internal communications that might reveal the reasoning behind regulatory actions. This limits transparency and due process for regulated entities, increasing uncertainty and weakening the rule of law in the business environment. A free market requires predictable, accountable regulatory systems—something this bill could hinder by concealing important agency deliberations..
- Private Property Rights: Many disputes before the RRC involve private landowners and mineral rights. When decisions affecting those rights are made behind closed doors with reduced access to internal documentation, property owners may be deprived of the full information they need to defend their interests. This shift could tilt administrative proceedings in favor of the state or powerful interests, undermining the equal protection of property rights guaranteed by Texas law.
- Limited Government: This principle holds that government should be constrained, transparent, and accountable to the people it serves. The bill expands the discretion of executive agencies to withhold information from the public, removing a critical check on administrative power. Without specific limits, time frames, or oversight mechanisms, the bill opens the door to excessive secrecy, weakening democratic accountability and potentially enabling abuse of power.
