Overall Vote Recommendation

Vote No; Amend

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

HB 3711 modifies the Texas Government Code to strengthen the enforcement of the Open Meetings Act. Specifically, it reclassifies violations of Chapter 551 by county or municipal officers and school district trustees as "offenses against public administration." The bill expands the oversight role of the Public Integrity Unit, requiring local prosecutors who receive formal or informal complaints about Open Meetings Act violations to request the assistance of the Public Integrity Unit. Upon request, the Unit must either assist in the investigation or refer it to another qualified law enforcement agency.

Additionally, HB 3711 imposes new transparency requirements on local prosecutors. If a prosecutor decides not to prosecute an offense involving a violation of the Open Meetings Act, they must post a public notice on their office’s website explaining the decision and the rationale behind it. This notice must remain accessible for at least one year, thereby enhancing public awareness of non-prosecution decisions.

The bill specifies that these changes will only apply to offenses occurring on or after the bill’s effective date. Investigations and prosecutions for offenses committed before that date will remain subject to the law as it existed prior to the bill’s passage.

The originally filed version of HB 3711 proposed a relatively narrow change to Texas law by amending Section 411.0252 of the Government Code. Its primary purpose was to classify violations of the Open Meetings Act (Chapter 551) committed by county and municipal officers or school district trustees as “offenses against public administration.” This change would allow such offenses to be treated similarly to other government integrity violations. The original bill made no alterations to the processes for investigating or prosecuting these offenses—it simply expanded the list of what constitutes an offense against public administration. It also clarified that these changes would apply prospectively, only affecting offenses committed on or after the bill's effective date.

In contrast, the Committee Substitute version of HB 3711 significantly broadened the bill’s scope. While it retained the reclassification of Open Meetings Act violations, it introduced new procedural requirements for how these offenses must be handled. Specifically, it mandated that any prosecuting attorney who receives a complaint related to such an offense must request assistance from the Public Integrity Unit. The Public Integrity Unit is then required either to assist in the investigation or to refer the case to another law enforcement agency. Furthermore, the committee substitute created a new transparency obligation: if a prosecutor decides not to pursue a case, they must publish a public notice of their decision and the reasons for it on their office’s website for at least one year.

Overall, the Committee Substitute transforms HB 3711 from a technical classification update into a broader reform aimed at increasing accountability and transparency around Open Meetings Act enforcement. It shifts some investigative responsibility toward the state’s Public Integrity Unit and imposes new public reporting obligations on local prosecutors. These additions reflect a much stronger push toward oversight and public disclosure than the originally filed bill contemplated.

Author (3)

Giovanni Capriglione

Caroline Harris Davila

David Cook

Sponsor (1)

Mayes Middleton

Contact the Author

Rep. Giovanni Capriglione

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0690

Capitol Office:

EXT E1.506

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 3711 is estimated to have a negative fiscal impact of $5.4 million on the state’s General Revenue Fund over the biennium ending August 31, 2027. The Department of Public Safety (DPS) indicated that the expanded duties assigned to the Texas Rangers' Public Integrity Unit (PIU) under the bill could not be absorbed within their existing resources. To meet the expected increase in investigations of Open Meetings Act violations, DPS would need to hire 11 new full-time employees. This includes six new Texas Rangers (one for each DPS region) and five additional support staff members, such as a forensic scientist, a criminal intelligence analyst, and administrative personnel.

The fiscal breakdown shows that personnel salary and benefits costs are estimated at approximately $1.5 million annually, starting in fiscal year 2026. In addition to salaries, there would be significant one-time and ongoing costs for travel, supplies, operating expenses, and capital expenditures—around $1.8 million in 2026 and $480,000 in 2027. The annual ongoing costs beyond 2027 are projected to stabilize at approximately $2 million per year.

Regarding local governments, the fiscal note states that there may be an increase in prosecutions by local attorneys due to the bill’s requirements for formal complaint investigations and public reporting of non-prosecution decisions. However, the exact financial impact on local governments could not be determined at this time.

Vote Recommendation Notes

HB 3711 seeks to improve transparency and accountability by enhancing enforcement of the Open Meetings Act violations committed by local officials. While this is an important and commendable goal, the method chosen by the bill substantially grows state government in ways that conflict with key liberty principles, especially limited government, local control, and fiscal responsibility.

Specifically, the bill would require the Department of Public Safety to hire 11 new full-time employees, including six new Texas Rangers, to support the Public Integrity Unit's expanded investigative role. It imposes an estimated $5.4 million negative impact to the General Revenue Fund over the 2026–27 biennium, with ongoing annual costs of about $2 million. These costs directly burden taxpayers and expand the size and scope of state government to enforce a law that should ideally be handled at the local level.

Moreover, the bill mandates prosecutors to involve the state in local investigations and to publicly post non-prosecution decisions, reducing local discretion and autonomy. While well-intentioned, these mandates represent a significant centralization of power in Austin, undermining principles of decentralized governance and local responsibility.

Suggested Amendments:

Limit or cap the expansion of state investigative responsibilities
Provide prosecutors with discretion rather than mandates
Restrict or cap new spending tied to enforcement
Strengthen local control and citizen-driven accountability mechanisms.

HB 3711 moves in the right direction on transparency, but it uses the wrong vehicle by unnecessarily growing the bureaucratic state. Texas can and should defend open government without building new layers of costly, centralized enforcement. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 3711, unless amended as described above.

Individual Liberty: Citizens' right to open, transparent government is strengthened because violations of the Open Meetings Act would be investigated more seriously. The government becomes more visible and accountable to the people.
Personal Responsibility: Local officials are held more accountable for misconduct. Prosecutors would have to treat Open Meetings violations with seriousness, promoting responsibility among public servants.
Free Enterprise: The bill does not regulate private businesses or individuals. It focuses only on public officials and public transparency. No impact on free market operations.
Private Property Rights: More transparent local government could better protect citizens from backroom deals that might harm property owners. But the bill does not directly address property rights.
Limited Government: The bill grows the size and cost of state government by hiring 11 new full-time employees at a cost of over $5.4 million initially. It shifts power away from local prosecutors to centralized state agencies, reducing local autonomy and increasing centralized oversight.

View Bill Text and Status