City council hears how new Texas open-records rules could require NDAs for elected officials

A presenter identified in the meeting as Olive told the City of Lamar City Council on March 9 that recent changes to Texas open-records law expand the tools local governments can use when responding to sensitive requests, including requiring elected officials to sign nondisclosure agreements before accessing some records.

Olive told the council the changes mean public-records requests must be in writing and that the Texas attorney general’s office will continue to play the central role deciding which records qualify for an exception. "The new law says that the city can require elected officials to sign nondisclosure agreements in access," Olive said, adding the NDA would be "above and beyond" existing duties under state law.

Why it matters: Council members said the practical effect matters for police body-camera footage, contract records and any material that other agencies might publicly release even if the city would withhold it. Council members repeatedly asked for a clear, plain-language memo and a local policy so staff and elected officials know when requests should be referred to the attorney general, when an NDA is appropriate and how the city will document decisions.

What the presentation covered: Olive summarized several operational points the council will need to address if the city adopts NDA processes or tight confidentiality rules:

- Request form standards: Olive said some requests are delayed because they lack required elements (such as date, time and subject) and suggested clearer intake procedures to avoid unnecessary hold-ups. She referenced statutory provisions in the course of the explanation.

- Attorney-general determinations: Olive said the attorney general’s office, not the local body, determines many exceptions. "If the attorney general comes down to no, you don't have to sign NDA for this information," Olive said while noting the process has not been widely tested.

- Body-camera and multi-agency releases: Council members raised concerns that a district attorney or another agency could release material the city classifies as confidential; Olive described that as a complicating factor but reiterated that city disclosure obligations are governed by state law and AG guidance.

- Fees and abusive requests: Asked how to deter repetitive or burdensome requests that consume staff time, Olive said the law allows cities to require payment of estimated production charges after a threshold of staff effort (she referenced roughly a 36-hour workload threshold as an operational benchmark). She cautioned the council that fee-waiver policies must be formalized and applied uniformly to avoid unequal treatment. "This request, we absolutely will process it and follow the law, but you have to pay our estimated charges first," Olive said.

- Record retention and lost files: Council members asked how far back requests can go and what happens if records are missing. Olive said retention schedules differ by record type and pointed to guidance from the Texas State Library; she recommended formalizing retention practices and advised that unresolved disputes can be raised to the attorney general.

Council response and next steps: Council members repeatedly asked staff for a plain-language memorandum explaining the new law’s exceptions, how the city will determine when to refer items to the attorney general, who would be authorized to sign NDAs, and recommended practice for handling repetitive requests. Olive agreed to return with a policy draft and educational materials the council and the public can use to understand the changes.

No formal motion or vote was recorded on the topic in the transcript. The meeting paused later for a technical reset.