According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 2446 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state budget. The costs associated with implementing the bill's provisions—such as the preparation and electronic distribution of monthly expense reports and potential adjustments in the composition of local mental health authority (LMHA) governing bodies—are projected to be absorbable within existing resources of the affected agencies, including the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC).

For local governments, including LMHAs themselves, no significant fiscal impact is anticipated either. The reporting requirement may add a minor administrative burden, particularly for smaller or less technologically developed LMHAs. However, because these reports are internal documents and can be disseminated electronically, the additional workload and associated costs are considered manageable without requiring new funding or personnel.

The elimination of more administratively complex provisions, such as the originally proposed ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, likely contributes to the bill's low fiscal footprint. By focusing on structural governance adjustments and electronic recordkeeping, SB 2446 avoids imposing new mandates that would necessitate substantial expenditures at the state or local level.

SB 2446 is a targeted, fiscally responsible reform that improves transparency and strengthens governance in Texas’s network of Local Mental Health Authorities (LMHAs). By requiring that each LMHA distribute monthly electronic expense reports to all board members, including nonvoting members, the bill enhances internal financial oversight and ensures that appointed officials have access to the information necessary for responsible decision-making. This provision directly addresses recent concerns about a lack of accountability in LMHA operations.

The bill also improves the structure and integrity of LMHA governing bodies by prohibiting employees of the authority from serving on their own boards, closing a clear conflict-of-interest loophole, and by mandating the inclusion of at least one public member with business or corporate experience who has never held elected office. These changes bring outside perspectives into the decision-making process and align with free enterprise and personal responsibility values. Furthermore, requiring sheriffs from the communities served by LMHAs to be included on boards adds a local public safety viewpoint and reinforces local law enforcement’s stake in the delivery of mental health services.

Although the bill does introduce some prescriptive requirements for board composition, these are modest and carefully targeted at enhancing accountability rather than expanding state control. The committee substitute also removed more ideologically polarizing language, specifically the ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, from the originally filed bill, signaling a focus on practical reforms rather than partisan messaging. Importantly, the bill is not expected to impose significant fiscal burdens on state or local governments, as its administrative costs can be absorbed within existing budgets.

Taken together, SB 2446 supports the principles of transparency, ethical governance, and prudent public administration. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 2446.

• Individual Liberty: The bill promotes individual liberty by increasing government transparency. When members of the public serving on LMHA boards have full access to financial reports, it enhances their ability to serve as watchdogs for the community. This access ensures that public institutions are not insulated from scrutiny, reinforcing the public’s right to know how mental health services are administered and how taxpayer dollars are spent.
• Personal Responsibility: By mandating that LMHAs include at least one board member from the general public with business experience and no background in elected office, the bill introduces a layer of civic accountability. This encourages broader participation in public service and reinforces the principle that public officials and appointees must act as responsible stewards of public trust. It also discourages insider governance by prohibiting LMHA employees from sitting on their own boards, thereby separating management from oversight.
• Free Enterprise: The inclusion of a business-savvy board member aligns LMHA governance more closely with private-sector practices that emphasize efficiency, budgeting discipline, and performance accountability. While LMHAs are public entities, this move encourages governance that mirrors successful enterprise standards without privatizing services.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not directly impact private property rights. It is focused primarily on internal governance reforms and transparency within public mental health systems.
• Limited Government: The bill takes a limited-government approach by increasing transparency and strengthening board oversight without creating new agencies or regulatory burdens. However, the statutory requirement to include specific individuals (e.g., sheriffs) on LMHA boards introduces some state-imposed mandates on local governance structures. This modest intrusion into local discretion is arguably outweighed by the benefit of ensuring that law enforcement and public representatives are part of oversight in mental health policy, which often intersects with criminal justice systems.

• HB 4856 (Same As)