Relating to a governmental body's response to a request for public information.
Summary
HB 4219 amends the Texas Public Information Act procedures for how a governmental body must respond when it receives a request for public information. If the agency has no responsive records, it must notify the requestor in writing within 10 business days. If the requested information is covered by a prior attorney general “previous determination” allowing or requiring withholding, the agency must also notify the requestor within 10 business days and identify the specific prior determination it is relying on.
The bill also clarifies the deadline for a governmental body to ask the attorney general for a ruling when it wants to withhold requested information, requiring that request to be made within a reasonable time but no later than the 10th business day after receiving the request. In addition, it creates a new complaint process for requestors who believe a governmental body failed to respond as required. A requestor may complain to the attorney general, who may then require open records training for the public information officer or designee, prohibit the agency from charging costs for producing the information, and impose a shortened deadline for seeking an attorney general decision if the agency still wants to withhold the records.
The bill’s practical effect is to strengthen response obligations and enforcement under Chapter 552 of the Government Code, while adding consequences for agencies that do not timely acknowledge requests or properly explain withholding. It applies only to requests received on or after September 1, 2025, and does not retroactively affect earlier requests.
Overall sentiment appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. The bill passed the House and Senate by overwhelming margins, with only a handful of dissenting votes in the House and unanimous approval in the Senate. The available record shows no committee transcript debate, suggesting limited public controversy or that the measure was viewed as a procedural improvement to open records administration.
Any likely points of contention would center on the added compliance burden for governmental bodies and the new enforcement tools available to requestors and the attorney general. Agencies may view the mandatory notice deadlines, training requirement, cost prohibition, and accelerated withholding timeline as stricter oversight, while transparency advocates would likely support them as improving accountability and access to public information.
Impact
HB 4219 amends Chapter 552 of the Government Code, including Section 552.221 and Section 552.301, and adds new Section 552.328. It imposes a 10-business-day written notice requirement when no responsive records exist or when records are withheld under a previous determination, requires identification of the specific prior determination, and creates a complaint mechanism to the attorney general for failures to respond. The bill also authorizes remedial consequences such as mandatory open records training, waiver of costs to the requestor, and a shortened deadline for seeking an attorney general ruling if withholding is still pursued.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It passed the House 133-1 on third reading and the Senate 31-0, indicating strong agreement that the measure improves public information procedures. The absence of committee transcript discussion in the provided record suggests the bill was not especially controversial and was treated as a technical or administrative reform to open government practices.
Contention
The main policy tension is between transparency advocates and governmental bodies that must comply with the new deadlines and enforcement provisions. Supporters would favor clearer notice, faster responses, and stronger remedies for noncompliance, while critics might argue that the bill increases administrative burdens, exposes agencies to complaints for procedural missteps, and limits cost recovery when a response is late. The bill’s requirement to identify prior determinations and the threat of mandatory training and accelerated attorney general deadlines are the most notable enforcement-related provisions.