Relating to assistance in the investigation of certain open meetings offenses by the open records division of the attorney general's office.
ModeratePlan for compliance
Low Cost
Effective:2025-06-20
Enforcing Agencies
Attorney General's Office (Open Records Division) • District Attorneys • Criminal District Attorneys • County Attorneys
01
Compliance Analysis
Key implementation requirements and action items for compliance with this legislation
Implementation Timeline
Effective Date:June 20, 2025 (Immediate effect due to supermajority vote).
Compliance Deadline:June 20, 2025. Any decision by a prosecutor to terminate an investigation or decline prosecution on or after this date triggers the public notice requirement.
Agency Rulemaking: While no formal rulemaking period is mandated, the Attorney General’s Open Records Division is expected to issue guidance on the specific format for electronic submission of probable cause reports.
Immediate Action Plan
1.Audit Active Negotiations: Identify any current bids or zoning applications where your team has met privately with multiple members of a government body.
2.Update Indemnification: Revise standard terms for government contracts to protect against contract voidability resulting from TOMA violations by the municipality.
3.Monitor DA Websites: Assign a paralegal to check the websites of the District/County Attorneys in your key markets on a monthly basis for TOMA declination notices.
4.Strict "No Quorum" Policy: Issue a directive to all government affairs staff: No private meetings with a quorum of any government body, under any circumstances.
Operational Changes Required
Contracts
Government Vendor Agreements: Immediately review "Representations and Warranties" clauses in pending contracts with cities, counties, and school districts. Strengthen language requiring the government entity to warrant that "all proceedings related to the award and execution of this agreement were conducted in strict compliance with Texas Government Code Chapter 551."
Lobbyist Engagement Letters: Amend contracts with external lobbyists. Include indemnification clauses protecting your company if the lobbyist’s conduct (e.g., facilitating a "walking quorum") triggers a TOMA investigation.
Hiring/Training
Government Affairs Training: Retrain in-house government relations staff immediately. They must strictly refuse any invitation to private briefings or social gatherings that include a quorum of a board or council, as these are now high-probability targets for state-level investigation.
Reporting & Record-Keeping
Due Diligence Logs: Private entities must rigorously document all interactions with government officials, specifically noting attendees, to affirmatively prove your representatives did not facilitate an illegal meeting.
Prosecutor Monitoring: Legal departments must establish a workflow to monitor the official websites of District and County Attorneys in jurisdictions where you have active projects. A posted "Notice of Non-Prosecution" regarding a relevant government body is a red flag that your contract may be voidable.
Fees & Costs
No Direct Fees: There are no new filing fees for businesses.
Indirect Costs: Anticipate increased legal costs for defensive diligence. The Fiscal Note authorizes funding for additional Texas Rangers for the Public Integrity Unit, signaling a sharp increase in active investigations.
Strategic Ambiguities & Considerations
Depth of "Reason" for Non-Prosecution: The statute requires prosecutors to publish the "reason" for dropping a case but does not define the required detail. Prosecutors may attempt to use vague boilerplate (e.g., "insufficient evidence"), but we anticipate the Attorney General will pressure for factual specificity, potentially exposing embarrassing details about negotiations even if no charges are filed.
Scope of AG "Assistance": The bill allows the AG to "assist" upon request. However, because the AG now receives all probable cause reports automatically, this creates a mechanism for the AG to politically pressure local DAs to invite state intervention in local development or procurement disputes.
Need Help Understanding Implementation?
Our government affairs experts can walk you through this bill's specific impact on your operations.
Information presented is for general knowledge only and is provided without warranty, express or implied. Consult qualified government affairs professionals and legal counsel before making compliance decisions.
The state open meetings law aims to ensure transparency and accountability in governmental proceedings by requiring that meetings of governmental bodies be open to the public, with some exceptions. Violations of that law may result in criminal charges against public officials. Current law outlines offenses against public administration with a primary focus on misconduct by state officers and employees but does not explicitly address violations of state open meetings law committed by local government officials, such as county or municipal officers and school district board members. The bill author has informed the committee that this gap may lead to inconsistent enforcement and prosecution of open meetings violations at the local level. C.S.H.B. 3711 seeks to resolve this issue and improve the enforcement of the state law by explicitly categorizing violations committed by local government officials as offenses against public administration and by enhancing transparency regarding the prosecution of those offenses.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 3711 amends the Government Code to include an offense under state open meetings law committed by a county or municipal officer or school district board of trustees member among those that are an offense against public administration for purposes of provisions relating to the public integrity unit. The bill requires a prosecuting attorney who receives a formal or informal complaint regarding an offense constituting an offense against public administration committed by such an officer or board of trustees member to request the assistance of the public integrity unit in the investigation of the offense. The bill requires the public integrity unit, with respect to such an offense committed by such an officer or board of trustees member and on request of the prosecuting attorney of the county in which venue is proper or the prosecuting attorney who receives a formal or informal complaint regarding the offense, to assist the attorney in the investigation of the offense or refer the investigation of the offense to another law enforcement agency with jurisdiction to investigate the offense.
C.S.H.B. 3711 requires a prosecuting attorney who decides to not prosecute or to terminate the investigation of a case regarding an offense against public administration committed by a county or municipal officer or school district board of trustees member to publish on the attorney's website, if any, for a period of not less than one year notice of the attorney's decision to not prosecute the case and the attorney's reason for not prosecuting the case.
C.S.H.B. 3711 applies only to the investigation or prosecution of an offense committed on or after the bill's effective date. The investigation or prosecution of an offense committed before that date is governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For these purposes, an offense was committed before the bill's effective date if any element of the offense occurred before that date.
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2025.
COMPARISON OF INTRODUCED AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.H.B. 3711 may differ from the introduced in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following summarizes the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.
The substitute includes the following provisions absent from the introduced:
·a requirement for a prosecuting attorney who receives a formal or informal complaint regarding an offense against public administration committed by a county or municipal officer or school district board of trustees member to request the assistance of the public integrity unit in the investigation of the offense;
·a requirement for the public integrity unit to either, on request, assist the attorney in the investigation of the offense or refer the investigation of the offense to another appropriate law enforcement agency; and
·a requirement for a prosecuting attorney who decides to not prosecute or to terminate the investigation of the case to publish on the attorney's website, if any, for a period of not less than one year notice of the attorney's decision to not prosecute the case and the attorney's reason for not prosecuting the case.
Honorable Giovanni Capriglione, Chair, House Committee on Delivery of Government Efficiency
FROM:
Jerry McGinty, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE:
HB3711 by Capriglione (Relating to the investigation and prosecution of certain open meetings offenses as offenses against public administration.), As Introduced
Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for HB3711, As Introduced: a negative impact of ($5,366,009) through the biennium ending August 31, 2027.
The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of the bill.
General Revenue-Related Funds, Five- Year Impact:
Fiscal Year
Probable Net Positive/(Negative) Impact to General Revenue Related Funds
2026
($3,349,146)
2027
($2,016,863)
2028
($2,016,863)
2029
($2,016,863)
2030
($2,016,863)
All Funds, Five-Year Impact:
Fiscal Year
Probable Savings/(Cost) from General Revenue Fund 1
Change in Number of State Employees from FY 2025
2026
($3,349,146)
11.0
2027
($2,016,863)
11.0
2028
($2,016,863)
11.0
2029
($2,016,863)
11.0
2030
($2,016,863)
11.0
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would add Open Meeting Act violations committed by certain local government officials to the Texas Ranger's Public Integrity Unit (PIU) area of responsibility.
Methodology
According to the Department of Public Safety (DPS), the duties and responsibilities associated with implementing the provisions of the bill could not be absorbed within existing resources. DPS states that 6.0 additional Texas Rangers, one for each DPS region, would be needed to investigate the anticipated increase of PIU cases. Additionally, DPS estimates the agency would need an additional 5.0 full-time equivalent positions to support the unit, including 1.0 Administrative Assistant III, 1.0 Criminal Intelligence Analyst III, 1.0 Forensic Scientist IV, 1.0 Police Communications Operator IV, and 1.0 Program Specialist V.
This analysis includes $1,536,485 in fiscal year 2026 and $$1,536,485 in fiscal year 2027 for salary and benefits. Other costs including rent, consumables supplies, travel, other operating expenses, and capital expenditures would total $1,812,661 in fiscal year 2026 and $480,378 in fiscal year 2027.
Local Government Impact
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated.
Source Agencies:
405 Department of Public Safety
LBB Staff:
JMc, RStu, CSh, KVEL
Related Legislation
Explore more bills from this author and on related topics
HB3711 fundamentally alters the enforcement landscape for the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) by removing the ability of local prosecutors to quietly dismiss complaints against government bodies. The law mandates that the Attorney General be notified of probable cause findings and that local prosecutors publicly post their specific reasons if they choose not to prosecute, significantly increasing the risk that "backroom deals" for government contracts or zoning variances will be exposed and voided. Implementation Timeline Effective Date: June 20, 2025 (Immediate effect due to supermajority vote).
Q
Who authored HB3711?
HB3711 was authored by Texas Representative Giovanni Capriglione during the Regular Session.
Q
When was HB3711 signed into law?
HB3711 was signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on June 20, 2025.
Q
Which agencies enforce HB3711?
HB3711 is enforced by Attorney General's Office (Open Records Division), District Attorneys, Criminal District Attorneys and County Attorneys.
Q
How urgent is compliance with HB3711?
The compliance urgency for HB3711 is rated as "moderate". Businesses and organizations should review the requirements and timeline to ensure timely compliance.
Q
What is the cost impact of HB3711?
The cost impact of HB3711 is estimated as "low". This may vary based on industry and implementation requirements.
Q
What topics does HB3711 address?
HB3711 addresses topics including city government, city government--employees/officers, county government, county government--employees/officers and education.
Legislative data provided by LegiScanLast updated: November 25, 2025
Need Strategic Guidance on This Bill?
Need help with Government Relations, Lobbying, or compliance? JD Key Consulting has the expertise you're looking for.
