Overall Vote Recommendation

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

HB 869 seeks to modernize the State of Texas's approach to classifying information technology (IT) positions by requiring the State Classification Officer to perform a biennial review of all IT roles within the state's position classification plan. The objective of the review is to ensure that the titles, classifications, and job descriptions for state IT jobs closely align with equivalent roles in the private sector. This move is intended to keep the state competitive in recruiting and retaining skilled IT professionals.

In addition to aligning classifications with industry standards, the bill mandates a shift in job descriptions toward a competency-based format. This approach focuses on the actual skills and knowledge necessary to perform the job, rather than imposing rigid requirements for specific degrees or certifications. By emphasizing competencies, the legislation aims to broaden the pool of qualified candidates and recognize real-world experience and abilities over traditional academic credentials.

The legislation also requires the classification officer to consult with the Department of Information Resources (DIR) during the review process to ensure that revisions are informed by current industry best practices. Furthermore, the officer must implement any necessary changes to the classification plan. A written report summarizing the initial review and any changes made must be submitted to the Governor and members of the Legislature by October 1, 2026.

The originally filed version of HB 869 tasked the State Classification Officer with conducting a periodic review of state information technology (IT) positions to ensure alignment with private-sector standards and to update job descriptions to focus on skills and competencies rather than formal degree or certification requirements. However, the original bill did not define how often these reviews must occur, leaving the timing open-ended. While it required that necessary changes be made based on the review, it did not establish any formal process for input or collaboration with other state agencies.

In contrast, the Committee Substitute version made several important refinements to strengthen the bill. Most notably, it specifies that the classification officer must perform the review at least once every two years, introducing a clear and predictable schedule for these updates. This change ensures greater accountability and more regular modernization of IT job standards. Furthermore, the substitute version adds a requirement for the classification officer to consult with the Department of Information Resources (DIR) and consider their recommendations during each review, providing a more structured and informed review process.

Overall, the Committee Substitute version of HB 869 is more prescriptive and comprehensive. It addresses key ambiguities in the original bill by setting a defined review period and ensuring collaboration with subject-matter experts at DIR. These additions make the legislation stronger, more enforceable, and better positioned to ensure the state’s IT workforce remains competitive with the private sector.

Author (1)

Suleman Lalani

Co-Author (1)

Penny Morales Shaw

Contact the Author

Rep. Suleman Lalani

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0596

Capitol Office:

EXT E1.212

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 869 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state budget. The activities required by the bill—specifically, the biennial review and potential revision of information technology (IT) positions in the state's classification plan—are assumed to be manageable within the existing resources of the responsible agencies. Therefore, no additional appropriations or new funding mechanisms would be necessary to implement the bill’s provisions.

The fiscal note also clarifies that no fiscal implication is anticipated for local governments. This is because the bill’s requirements pertain only to state-level administrative operations involving the State Classification Officer and the Department of Information Resources. Local units of government, such as cities or counties, would not be tasked with any new duties or associated costs under this legislation.

Overall, from a fiscal perspective, HB 869 is designed to improve the management of state IT positions without imposing new financial burdens. The bill promotes modernization and workforce alignment in a cost-neutral manner by leveraging existing agency personnel and operational frameworks.

Vote Recommendation Notes

HB 869 seeks to improve the competitiveness of Texas’s state government in hiring IT professionals by mandating that the State Classification Officer review and update IT job descriptions every two years, in consultation with the Department of Information Resources. While the goal of modernizing outdated job classifications is understandable, the bill unnecessarily imposes a new legal mandate on internal agency processes that could already be handled under existing authority.

The bill, although labeled as cost-neutral, risks expanding administrative bureaucracy by requiring ongoing biennial reviews, mandatory consultations, and formal reporting requirements. Over time, even small administrative mandates can accumulate into significant compliance burdens, drawing agency focus and resources away from core public services. Moreover, there is no clear evidence that mandatory biennial reviews, as opposed to flexible updates as needed, will substantially solve the underlying challenges the state faces in hiring IT talent.

HB 869 does not create new taxes or regulations on the public, but it does grow the scope of government oversight internally and risks setting a precedent for micromanaging state agency operations through statute. In defense of limited government principles, operational flexibility, and efficiency, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 869.

Individual Liberty: The bill slightly advances individual liberty by pushing the state to recognize real-world skills and competencies, rather than rigid academic credentials, when hiring for IT positions. This could broaden access to government employment based on merit rather than formal degrees. However, because it also imposes a mandatory review structure on agencies, it slightly limits the liberty of institutions to self-govern their hiring practices without legislative micromanagement.
Personal Responsibility: The bill supports personal responsibility by encouraging individuals to build practical knowledge and capabilities that are directly tied to job performance, rather than simply accumulating credentials. It reinforces the idea that a person’s value in the workforce should be measured by their skills and ability to perform, not just by formal education or certifications.
Free Enterprise: The bill has a modestly positive effect on free enterprise principles by encouraging the state to operate more like the private sector when it comes to workforce practices. By aligning IT job classifications with modern industry standards, the bill reduces barriers that can distort the public sector labor market. However, since it impacts only internal state operations and not the broader private market, the overall impact on free enterprise is limited.
Private Property Rights: The bill does not impact private property rights at all. It is entirely focused on internal human resources practices within state government agencies and does not touch on ownership rights, land use, business operations, or any other property-based liberty issues.
Limited Government: The bill runs counter to the principle of limited government by creating a new, ongoing administrative mandate. Although the goal is modernization, the bill introduces a rigid, two-year review cycle and requires agencies to consult with another department, potentially adding layers of compliance and reporting bureaucracy. Over time, this could lead to administrative growth without clear, measurable improvements, undermining the idea that government should remain as lean and efficient as possible.

View Bill Text and Status