HBA-NIK C.S.H.B. 3624 76(R)BILL ANALYSIS


Office of House Bill AnalysisC.S.H.B. 3624
By: Swinford
Civil Practices
4/20/1999
Committee Report (Substituted)



BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 

Currently, because county extension agents are funded by both the state and
the county in which they work, both the state and county are liable for the
maximum allowable damages in any lawsuit brought against that 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.  By removing the extension agent from the list of a county's
employees, litigants are prevented from bringing lawsuits related to such
an agent against both the state and county.  C.S.H.B. 3624 removes county
extension agents from being 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.

COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

C.S.H.B. 3624 modifies the original bill in SECTION 1 by removing reference
to the existing definition of "local government," to conform with
Legislative Council format. 

C.S.H.B. 3624 modifies the original bill in SECTION 2 by replacing the
short emergency clause with the long emergency clause.