SB 1901 reflects a principled and pragmatic approach to improving the governance and ethical standards of the Texas Opioid Abatement Fund Council without expanding the size or scope of government. By instituting staggered six-year terms for voting members and requiring recusals in cases of conflict of interest, the bill enhances accountability and integrity in how opioid settlement funds are managed. These safeguards promote transparency while maintaining the functional independence of individual council members, a key aspect of good governance.
Importantly, SB 1901 does not impose any new costs on the state or local governments, as confirmed by the Legislative Budget Board. All operational changes can be absorbed within existing budgets, meaning there is no increased burden on taxpayers. Additionally, the bill does not expand regulatory authority over individuals, businesses, or local entities. Instead, it adds an internal procedural standard for a government body already tasked with distributing public health funds. The bill’s provision allowing the Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company to reallocate unclaimed or declined funds ensures that opioid abatement dollars are used effectively rather than sitting idle or being wasted.
For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 1901. It represents responsible legislative refinement, improving functionality without imposing new costs or controls.
- Individual Liberty: The bill strengthens ethical safeguards by requiring members of the Texas Opioid Abatement Fund Council to recuse themselves from decision-making when they or close family members have a financial or professional interest in an entity applying for opioid abatement funds. This ensures that public funds are administered in an impartial, fair, and transparent manner. These ethics provisions uphold public trust in government without infringing on individual freedoms, thus reinforcing the principle of liberty through fair process.
- Personal Responsibility: The bill includes provisions that encourage counties and municipalities to actively claim and utilize the funds allocated to them. If a local government fails to deposit its share within two years or affirmatively declines the funds, the state may reallocate those funds for other qualifying purposes. This incentivizes local actors to act responsibly and avoid letting critical public health funds go to waste. It also fosters a culture of stewardship, aligning with the principle that individuals and institutions should be accountable for their decisions.
- Free Enterprise: By establishing clear conflict-of-interest standards, the bill promotes a level playing field for all entities seeking funding. It helps prevent cronyism or preferential treatment, ensuring that public dollars are awarded based on merit and need, not insider influence. This reinforces trust in the integrity of the process and supports fair competition among service providers addressing the opioid crisis.
- Private Property Rights: While the bill does not directly address property rights, it indirectly supports the broader social environment in which those rights can flourish. By promoting more effective use of opioid abatement funds, it contributes to addressing public health issues that can negatively affect communities, property values, and safety.
- Limited Government: Critically, the bill does not grow the size or scope of government. It avoids creating new agencies or expanding regulatory authority, and it imposes no new costs on taxpayers. Instead, it clarifies procedures, improves oversight, and ensures ethical governance within an already existing body. This is a textbook example of refining government function while respecting the boundaries of limited governance.
