HB 4864 proposes to expand the list of professionals eligible to serve as arbitrators in property tax disputes by including registered professional appraisers. While this aims to address concerns about the availability of arbitrators and improve access to binding arbitration, the bill raises legitimate concerns regarding the neutrality and perceived impartiality of the individuals tasked with resolving disputes between taxpayers and appraisal districts.
Registered professional appraisers, by the nature of their work, are closely aligned with the property tax system and often have working relationships or professional ties with appraisal districts. This proximity can create real or perceived conflicts of interest. Unlike attorneys or certified public accountants—who are already allowed to serve as arbitrators and are typically further removed from day-to-day appraisal functions—appraisers may be seen as biased toward the government’s valuation system. Arbitration must be, above all, impartial. If taxpayers do not trust that the arbitrator is neutral, the legitimacy of the process is compromised.
Additionally, the bill does not include any built-in safeguards to ensure that appraisers selected for arbitration panels are free from conflicts of interest or undue influence. It lacks requirements for disclosure, recusal, or random assignment that would prevent bias and reinforce fairness. Without such measures, expanding eligibility in this manner opens the door to reasonable doubt about the integrity of arbitration outcomes.
In light of these concerns, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 4864. The bill attempts to solve an access problem, but it does so in a way that could erode confidence in the very system it seeks to improve. Until neutrality and transparency safeguards are put in place, expanding eligibility to include appraisers poses more risks than benefits. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 4864.
- Individual Liberty: The bill affects individual liberty by altering who can resolve disputes between taxpayers and the government. Arbitration is often the final check against perceived government overreach in property taxation. If arbitrators are not truly neutral—or are perceived to favor appraisal districts—then the liberty of the property owner to seek fair and impartial redress is weakened. Citizens must be confident that the dispute resolution process is unbiased. Without stronger safeguards, the bill risks eroding this critical protection.
- Personal Responsibility: In principle, the bill allows trained professionals (registered appraisers) to serve in a greater civic capacity, encouraging participation and responsibility within their field. However, that benefit is undercut if the expanded role creates ethical gray areas or invites conflicts of interest. Professional responsibility in quasi-judicial roles demands higher scrutiny, and this bill does not fully enforce that.
- Free Enterprise: By expanding the arbitrator pool, the bill could introduce more competition and service availability within the arbitration process. That aligns with free-market principles. However, arbitration is not a typical open market—it’s a government-controlled process designed to ensure justice. Without clear mechanisms to maintain impartiality, greater access could come at the cost of fairness, which undermines the intended function of the system.
- Private Property Rights: This principle is central to the property tax appeal process. A fair and impartial arbitration process protects property owners from incorrect or inflated appraisals. Allowing professionals who may have close ties to appraisal districts to judge disputes over those appraisals could weaken this safeguard, thereby threatening the property rights the bill intends to uphold.
- Limited Government: The bill does not grow government bureaucracy or spending—so on its face, it respects the principle of limited government. However, by potentially weakening the independence of checks on local appraisal districts, it may shift power implicitly toward government actors. Arbitration must function as a constraint on governmental authority, not as an extension of it.
