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.