Invited Testimony to the House Committee on Governmental Oversight, Select
Item 2: Texas Public Information Act
Study the applicability of the Texas Public Information Act, the entities currently subject to the Act, its effectiveness, and the necessity of exemptions from public disclosure. Additionally, review requirements related to public notices and make recommendations to improve citizen awareness and transparency.
Chairman Vasut, Vice Chair Walle and Members of the Committee:
Thank you so much for the invitation to testify today on the Texas Public Information Act on behalf of the experiences of Our Schools Our Democracy.
My name is Carrie Griffith, and I am the co-founder and Executive Director of Our Schools Our Democracy, which is a nonpartisan 501c3 nonprofit organization established in 2024 to protect the fundamental rights of all Texans to a free and quality public education.
I have prepared comments today based on my organization’s recent experience engaging with the public information officer of the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts since the passage of Senate Bill 2 by the 89th Texas Legislature. I will speak in particular to the effectiveness of the Public Information Act, per the item charge, as well as entities not subject to the Act that we believe should be. I will close with recommendations we believe would serve to increase transparency for Texans.
In February of this year, OSOD launched the Texas Center for Voucher Transparency, which is a public resource that exists to support transparency, fiscal responsibility and fairness in the implementation of the $1 billion taxpayer-funded voucher program, the Texas Education Freedom Accounts (TEFA). Given that SB2 does not include reporting requirements for many data points of great interest to taxpayers, my team – and the thousands of Texans who follow our work – truly values the fundamental principle of Government Code chapter 552, “that government is the servant and not the master of the people.”
I understand our rights as requestors of public information to include:
- The right to anonymity
- The right to be treated equally to all requestors
- Prompt access to information
- The right to be notified if a governmental body will take longer than 10 business days to produce the requested information, and the right to be notified when the information will be released
- In the event of a withheld record, the right to be notified of a decision by the Open Records Division if requested information is exempt from disclosure or if a request is submitted to the Office of the Attorney General
I want to be sure first to express our sincere appreciation for the availability of the Comptroller’s public information officer and adherence, in most cases, to the rights laid out in the government code. TXCVT exists to support transparency in the voucher program, and so we rely on this Act and on the integrity of agency staff to fill the information void between data that is collected by the Comptroller’s office and that which is reported publicly. Especially in instances where we have needed to correspond directly via email with issues or questions, staff has been courteous and quick to respond.
OSOD has submitted right at 100 requests for information since the passage of the new law. We have therefore been in touch regularly with the Comptroller’s office and believe we are in a unique position to contribute to the conversation regarding the potential for improved effectiveness in light of the public right to government records.
IMPROVED EFFECTIVENESS
1) Interaction with information officer and agent: OSOD has experienced multiple examples of extended deadlines, incomplete or unrelated responses, and questionable claims of there not being responsive records. For example, in April we submitted a request for an excel file with TEFA awardees disaggregated by several variables. After two separate requests and 7 extensions, we received an incomplete response 51 days after the initial request with no explanation for the missing data.
We have experience as well having made requests for several different pieces of information since April that we have had to make repeated requests for because the response, which generally takes between 10 and 15 business days, is returned with incomplete answers or answers to questions we did not ask. There are about 6 record requests that we have made for which we have yet to receive a complete answer.
Additionally, we have found a need to submit public information requests for data that was statutorily obligated to be reported or posted related to the program that were not made available in compliance with the law. The demographic report required by SB 2 to be released on August 1 failed to include zip codes of awardees. When we submitted a request for the missing data, the responsive document was the very demographic report that was missing the data in the first place.
We are also waiting on the Legislative Appropriations Request Submission for the 2028-29 biennium that was due last Friday and will need therefore to submit a PIR for this information.
2) Public Information Request system changes:
At the end of July, when traffic was likely very high in the new voucher program, the agency switched to a public information system, from FYI Open Records to Comptroller Record Request System (CRRS). All pending requests in FYI were transferred over to CRRS, which we confirmed and appreciated. However, our first response from CRRS arrived, the email alert said we would only have access to our records for 10 days from the date of the email. This was initially concerning because we did not believe there was any precedence for this or statutory protection for limiting records access in this manner. However, when we log into the CRRS portal to access the records, it indicates an expiration of 2 years after the uploaded date. At minimum, the contradictory information should be clarified.
Additionally, with the new system there were some instances when the request was marked as complete but not uploaded until hours later. Staff was especially helpful in this instance. We flagged this for them, and the responsive records were then sent immediately. This issue appears to have been resolved since. Of course we understand that there will be some administrative challenges in transitioning to a new system, and the staff is doing a great job working through this.
3) Arbitrary FERPA threshold: The public is unable to access voucher-related data that affects 560 school districts – about half the districts in Texas – in which fewer than 30 children are participating in the program. This was done to protect the privacy of students, according to the Comptroller’s office, but we believe that this threshold is arbitrary, unnecessary, and a detriment to Texans rights to public information. The Texas Education Agency, for example, uses 10 students as the FERPA threshold when reporting demographic data. The additional 20 in the Comptroller’s threshold not only impacts the ability of these small districts to pass informed budgets, but it also limits taxpayer access to a large amount of important information.
ENTITIES NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT
1) SB 2 authorizes the Comptroller to contract with a certified educational assistance organization to administer the voucher program. Additionally, the comptroller or designee may enter into contracts or agreements and engage in marketing, advertising, and other activities to promote, market and advertise the development and use of the program. We have requested and received the contract between the Comptroller and the chosen CEAO, Odyssey, for $26 million over the first biennium of the program. However, reporting from the Houston Chronicle in October 2025 noted that Odyssey will subcontract with three companies to market the program which will receive $1.2 million of Odyssey’s total contract. Concerningly, we have been unable to access contracts from the vendors being paid with taxpayer dollars because they are not government agencies or directly contracting with a government agency.
For example, on October 20 and December 11, we requested to see subcontracts between Odyssey and any marketing firms including but not limited to Vianovo, Steel, and Outschool, which were publicly reported to be the three companies contracting with Odyssey. The Comptroller reported no public records, so we submitted a request directly to Odyssey through their support line on January 6 and were directed by Odyssey to submit a request through the Comptroller’s office.
FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY
1) Post additional data that is collected: OSOD recommends that the Comptroller post a cross-tabulated data file showing income levels, disability categories, and participation patterns. By comparison, the Texas Education Agency posts many excel files for researchers, but to date the Comptroller’s office has not yet posted any despite having collected detailed information through the application process. We believe this would ultimately be a benefit to taxpayers not only because it would increase transparency immediately, but it would relieve the strain on the public information officers who are having to respond to requests for information. This would likely result in a cost savings to taxpayers in that fewer FTE would be required.
2) Increase statutory reporting requirements: Finally, I understand that this is not the charge of this committee, but in that this committee has been charged to examine democratic privilege Texans have as it relates to accessing government records, I believe it is prudent to state the obvious: there is only value in the Public Information Act to the extent the state commits to collecting and reporting the numbers that matter.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today. I will end by sharing that OSOD reviewed the over 300 public comments submitted during the Comptroller’s rulemaking process and we found a common thread through – irrespective of whether the commenter supported the voucher program or not, irrespective of geography, and irrespective of demographic – Texans demand transparency in a program of this price tag. It is the responsibility of this committee to ensure access to information is effective and in the true spirit of the law stating that our state government is the servant of and not the master of the people.