HBA-ATS, NIK H.B. 3624 76(R)BILL ANALYSIS


Office of House Bill AnalysisH.B. 3624
By: Swinford
Civil Practices
6/24/1999
Enrolled



BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 

County extension agents are funded by both the state and the county in
which they work. Consequently, both the state and county are liable for the
maximum allowable damages in any lawsuit brought against a county extension
agent.  Counties contend that since the state hires, supervises, and
reviews the performance of the extension agent, while the county only
supplements the agent's salary, the agent should not be considered a county
employee for tort purposes. Removing the extension agent from the list of a
county's employees may prevent litigants from bringing lawsuits related to
such an agent against both the state and county.  H.B. 3624 provides that a
county extension agent is not considered a county employee for liability
purposes. 

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the opinion of the Office of House Bill Analysis that this bill does
not expressly delegate any additional rulemaking authority to a state
officer, department, agency, or institution. 

SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

SECTION 1.  Amends Section 102.001(1), Civil Practice and Remedies Code, to
provide that the term "employee" does not include a county extension agent. 

SECTION 2.  Emergency clause.
  Effective date: upon passage.