Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Data-hosting bill advances to workgroup after committee debate over contracts and scope
Summary
Representative Steven Meeks’ House Bill 1514, intended to prevent vendors from withholding public data after contract termination and to require return in readable formats, drew questions about retroactive effect on existing contracts and vendor amendments; the sponsor agreed to seek tweaks with stakeholders.
Representative Steven Meeks told the committee HB 1514 was prompted by an incident in which a contractor hosting a sheriff’s department’s data declined to return the data at contract end, effectively holding it "for ransom." Meeks said the bill would make data stored by a data company for a public entity the property of that entity, require timely return in a readable format, and require vendors to destroy retained copies unless a GRAMA exemption or an express contract allows retention.
Kevin White of Legislative Audit told the committee the bill is designed to "gap fill" where existing contracts are silent, not to override express contract terms; he said language in the draft captures that limitation and that courts could be asked to decide unresolved legal questions. Meeks and audit staff said the bill’s authors had addressed many industry concerns but that one entity — identified in the transcript as AT and T — remained dissatisfied and had proposed an amendment the sponsors judged to "gutt" the bill by narrowing the scope to cloud services and flipping ownership language.
Members pressed the sponsor on whether the bill would apply to existing contracts and whether the legislature has authority to add terms retroactively. Senator Garner and others said imposing new obligations on existing contractors could create constitutional or financial problems for businesses that relied on contract terms. Kevin White and the sponsor said the bill aims primarily at small and medium local contracts that currently lack clear post-termination data provisions and that larger vendors likely had already negotiated protections.
Senator Tucker raised practical concerns: mandatory return could impose transfer costs and some public entities might prefer to have vendors retain backups; he suggested limiting the bill so it does not sweep too broadly into every software and storage service. Legislative Audit replied that the critical statutory definition is "data company," which requires provision of software and storage services to a public entity, narrowing the scope to realistic vendors.
After extended questioning and requests from multiple senators for compromise language to protect both public entities and vendors, the sponsor said he would confer with counsel, take suggested amendments, and pull the bill to work with stakeholders before returning it to committee. No committee vote on final passage occurred during the hearing.
