Do appraisal district board members in Texas have to take the state's mandatory cybersecurity training for local government officials?

Plain-English summary

Texas requires local governments to keep their people trained on cybersecurity. Government Code section 2054.5191(a-1), part of the Information Resources Management Act, says that at least once a year a local government must identify employees with access to its computer systems and require those employees, along with the local government's "elected officials," to complete a certified cybersecurity training program. The Hill County Attorney asked the Attorney General a narrow question: does that mandate cover the members of an appraisal district's board of directors?

The AG agreed that an appraisal district is a "local government" covered by the statute, because the Tax Code makes it a political subdivision of the state. The sticking point was the phrase "elected officials," which the Act does not define. Under Tax Code section 6.03, appraisal district directors are "appointed" by the governing bodies of the cities, school districts, junior college districts, and the county that participate in the district. Those bodies cast votes under a statutory formula, so the selection has a voting element, but the AG stressed it is a vote among a limited set of taxing units, not a popular election of the general public.

To pin down "elected official," the AG turned to ordinary and legal dictionary definitions, which separate an appointed office from an "elective office" filled by popular election. The office had already concluded in 1984, in Opinion JM-166, that the selection of appraisal district directors is not an election governed by the Election Code, and that the law had not changed since. Putting it together, the AG concluded that a court would likely hold appraisal district board members are not "elected officials" within subsection 2054.5191(a-1), so the certified cybersecurity training that subsection mandates does not reach them. The AG flagged in a footnote that the omission of "appointed officials" from subsection (a-1), which subsection (a) includes for state agencies, might be a legislative oversight given the policy behind cybersecurity training, but explained that clear statutory text controls and any fix is for the Legislature.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2020. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. The cybersecurity-training requirement in Government Code chapter 2054 is exactly the kind of provision the Legislature revisits often, so verify the current text of section 2054.5191 before relying on this conclusion.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

The opinion answered a compliance question for appraisal districts and the local officials who advise them. For an appraisal district and its board, the reading at the time was that the directors did not fall within the mandatory-training command of subsection 2054.5191(a-1), because that command was written for employees and elected officials and the directors are appointed. For county attorneys and other local-government advisers, the opinion provided a clear line: the popular-election test, not merely the presence of voting in a selection process, is what marks an "elected official" for this statute. The AG was careful to frame the conclusion as what a court would "likely" hold and to note the possible legislative oversight, signaling that the safer course on the policy itself was a matter for lawmakers, not the opinion.

Common questions

Q: Are appraisal districts covered by the cybersecurity training law at all? A: Yes. The AG confirmed an appraisal district is a "local government" under the statute because the Tax Code makes it a political subdivision. The question was only whether its board members count as "elected officials."

Q: Why aren't appraisal district directors "elected officials"? A: Because the Tax Code says they are "appointed" by the participating taxing units. Even though those units vote, it is a limited vote by specific entities, not a popular election, and dictionaries and prior opinion JM-166 treat appointment as distinct from an elective office.

Q: Does this mean appraisal district directors can never be required to take cybersecurity training? A: The opinion addressed only the mandate in subsection 2054.5191(a-1). It noted the omission of "appointed officials" might be an oversight, and it left any change to the Legislature. A district could also choose to train its directors voluntarily.

Q: What about appointed officials of state agencies?
A: A separate provision, subsection 2054.5191(a), requires the same training of a state agency's "elected and appointed" officials. The AG contrasted that wording, which expressly includes appointed officials, with subsection (a-1), which does not.

Background and statutory framework

The training requirement sits in the Information Resources Management Act (Government Code chapter 2054). Subsection 2054.5191(a-1) directs a local government to require employees with system access and the local government's elected officials to take a cybersecurity program certified under section 2054.519, and section 2054.003(9) defines "local government" to include political subdivisions. The Tax Code supplies the nature of an appraisal district and its board: section 6.01 makes the district a political subdivision established in each county, and section 6.03 provides that directors are appointed by the participating taxing units under a voting-entitlement formula. The AG applied plain-meaning statutory construction (Brazos Elec. Power Coop., Inc. v. Tex. Comm'n on Envtl. Quality; Tex. State Bd. of Exam'rs of Marriage & Family Therapists v. Tex. Med. Ass'n), used dictionary and case authority for "elect" and "appointment" (Wooley v. Sterrett), relied on the prior characterization of these directors as appointees (Opinion JM-166; Colony Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Appraisal Dist. of Denton Cty.), and invoked the rule that clear text controls even over possible legislative oversight (Brown v. De La Cruz; Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers; City of Houston v. Jackson).

Citations and references

Statutory provisions:

• Tex. Gov't Code ch. 2054 (Information Resources Management Act; cybersecurity training)
• Tex. Tax Code ch. 6 (appraisal districts; board of directors)
• Tex. Elec. Code § 1.002 (scope of the Election Code)

Cases:

• Brazos Elec. Power Coop., Inc. v. Tex. Comm'n on Envtl. Quality, 576 S.W.3d 374 (Tex. 2019)
• Tex. State Bd. of Exam'rs of Marriage & Family Therapists v. Tex. Med. Ass'n, 511 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. 2017)
• Wooley v. Sterrett, 387 S.W.2d 734 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1965, no writ)
• Colony Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Denton Cty. v. Appraisal Dist. of Denton Cty., 626 S.W.2d 930 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
• Brown v. De La Cruz, 156 S.W.3d 560 (Tex. 2004); Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009); City of Houston v. Jackson, 192 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. 2006)

Related opinion:

• Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JM-166 (1984) (appraisal district directors are appointees, not elected under the Election Code)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/ken-paxton/kp-0326
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2020/kp-0326.pdf

Original opinion text

August 10, 2020

The Honorable R. David Holmes
Hill County Attorney
Post Office Box 253
Hillsboro, Texas 76645

Opinion No. KP-0326

Re: Whether subsection 2054.5191(a-1) of the Government Code requires a member of the board of directors of an appraisal district to complete certified cybersecurity training (RQ-0332-KP)

Dear Mr. Holmes:

You ask whether Government Code subsection 2054.5191(a-1) requires “a member of the board of directors of an appraisal district to complete a certified cybersecurity training program at least once” a year. 1 Contained within the Information Resources Management Act (“Act”), Government Code subsection 2054.5191(a-1) provides that

[a]t least once each year, a local government shall identify local government employees who have access to a local government computer system or database and require those employees and elected officials of the local government to complete a cybersecurity training program certified under Section 2054.519 or offered under Section 2054.519(f).

TEX. GOV’T CODE § 2054.5191(a-1); see also id. § 2054.002 (entitling chapter as the “Information Resources Management Act”). The Act defines a “local government” to mean a “county, municipality, special district, school district, junior college district, or other political subdivision of the state.” Id. § 2054.003(9). It thus applies to an appraisal district, which is “a political subdivision of the state.” TEX. TAX CODE § 6.01(c); see also id. § 6.01(a) (establishing an appraisal district in each county).

An appraisal district is governed by a board of directors comprising at least five members. Id. § 6.03(a); see also id. § 6.031(a), (b) (providing methods for the board or the participating taxing units to increase number of board members). “Members of the board of directors . . . are

1
Letter from Honorable R. David Holmes, Hill Cty. Att’y, to Honorable Ken Paxton, Tex. Att’y Gen. at 2 (Feb. 10, 2020), https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/51paxton/rq/2020/pdf/RQ0332KP.pdf (“Request Letter”).

appointed by vote of the governing bodies of the incorporated cities and towns, the school districts, the junior college districts, and, if entitled to vote, the conservation and reclamation districts that participate in the district and of the county.” Id. § 6.03(c). Each governing body has a set number of votes determined by a voting entitlement formula established by statute, and it may cast all its votes for one candidate or distribute its votes among candidates for any number of director positions. See id. § 6.03(c), (d). Thus, as you point out, directors of an appraisal district board are appointed, but their appointments include an element of an election. See Request Letter at 2.

The Act does not define “elected officials.” TEX. GOV’T CODE § 2054.003 (“Definitions”). The primary “objective in statutory construction is to give effect to the Legislature’s intent, which
[a court ascertains] from the plain meaning of the words used in the statute because the best indicator of what the Legislature intended is what it enacted.” Brazos Elec. Power Coop., Inc. v. Tex. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 576 S.W.3d 374, 383–84 (Tex. 2019) (quotation marks omitted). When a statute does not define a term, courts apply the “common, ordinary meaning unless a contrary meaning is apparent from the statute’s language.” Tex. State Bd. of Exam’rs of Marriage
& Family Therapists v. Tex. Med. Ass’n, 511 S.W.3d 28, 34 (Tex. 2017). To determine a statutory term’s common meaning, courts typically look first to the dictionary definitions and then “consider the term’s usage in other statutes, court decisions, and similar authorities.” Id. at 35.

We find no dictionary or judicial opinion that defines the term “elected official.” The term “elect” is commonly defined to mean to “choose (someone) to hold public office or some other position by voting.” NEW OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY 559 (3rd ed. 2010); see also Wooley v. Sterrett, 387 S.W.2d 734, 740 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1965, no writ) (using dictionary to define “elect” to mean “to determine by choice; to decide upon; to choose”). Yet, definitions of other relevant terms are also informative. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “appointment” to mean “the choice or designation of a person, such as a nonelected public office, for a job or duty; esp. the naming of someone to a nonelected public office.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 121 (10th ed. 2014). It defines “elective office” as an “office that is filled by popular election rather than by appointment.” Id. at 632. These definitions distinguish between an appointed and elected office, and that distinction is based, in part, on a popular election.

This office previously determined that the selection process for appraisal review board directors is not such an election governed by the Election Code. See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JM- 166 (1984) at 3. Opinion JM-166 relied on the language in Tax Code section 6.03 providing that members of the board are appointed. Id. The opinion contrasted the plain language calling for an appointment of appraisal district directors against the applicability of the Election Code to elections and primaries in the State. Id. (recognizing that on the other hand the Election Code applies to the elections and primaries held in the State); see TEX. ELEC. CODE § 1.002(a) (applying the Election Code to the general, special and primary elections in Texas). The opinion also noted that a Texas court recognized an appraisal district board of directors “as a board consisting of appointees.” Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JM-166 (1984) at 3 (citing Colony Mun. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Denton Cty. v. Appraisal Dist. of Denton Cty., 626 S.W.2d 930, 932 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1982, writ ref’d n.r.e.)). The state of the law has not substantively changed since Opinion JM-166. Moreover, while the selection of the appraisal district board members is determined through the votes of the specified member taxing units, the selection process involves only a select set of taxing units as voters and is not an election involving the general populace. TEX. TAX CODE § 6.03(a);

see also id. § 6.03(c)–(k) (enumerating the specific taxing entities that can vote and generally providing for the administration of the selection process by the chief appraiser).

Accordingly, a court would likely conclude that members of the board of an appraisal district are not elected officials within the scope of subsection 2054.5191(a-1) of the Government Code, and thus they are not required to complete the certified cybersecurity training program it mandates. 2

2
When compared with Government Code subsection 2054.5191(a)—a similar provision requiring the same training of a state agency’s “elected and appointed” officials—we recognize that the omission of “appointed officials” in subsection 2054.5191(a-1) could have been an oversight by the Legislature, especially given the policy concerns behind the requirement of cybersecurity training. See Brown v. De La Cruz, 156 S.W.3d 560, 566 (Tex. 2004) (“It is at least theoretically possible that legislators—like judges or anyone else—may make a mistake.”). Yet it is also possible the Legislature intended to exclude appointed officials of local governments from this training. See Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433, 437 (Tex. 2009) (“Where text is clear, text is determinative of
[legislative] intent.”). Policy preferences like this are best left to the Legislature. City of Houston v. Jackson, 192 S.W.3d 764, 773–74 (Tex. 2006) (refusing to add to a statute language the Legislature chose not to include). Absent an absurd result, we, like the courts, cannot disregard the clear statutory language that the Legislature enacted. Summers, 282 S.W.3d at 437.

S U M M A R Y

Government Code subsection 2054.5191(a-1) requires
certain employees and elected officials of a local government to complete a cybersecurity training program. Under Tax Code section 6.03, board members of an appraisal district are “appointed.” A court would likely conclude that the members of the board of an appraisal district are not elected officials within the scope of subsection 2054.5191(a-1), and thus they are not required to complete the certified cybersecurity training program it mandates.

Very truly yours,

KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas

JEFFREY C. MATEER
First Assistant Attorney General

RYAN L. BANGERT
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General

RYAN M. VASSAR
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee

CHARLOTTE M. HARPER
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee