the Board of Trustees of the Houston Firefighters' Relief and Retirement Fund v. the City of Houston, Texas, 466 S.W.3d 182

The Board of Trustees of the Houston Firefighters’ Relief and Retirement Fund (the Board) governs the city firefighters’ pension and must obtain actuarial valuations at least every three years.
Texas Gov’t Code § 802.1012 requires that every five years the most recent actuarial valuations, studies, and reports be audited by an independent actuary engaged by the governmental entity (here, the City of Houston), and that confidentiality and pre-audit meetings occur.
In 2008 the City performed a high-level audit; in 2011 the City sought to engage an actuary to perform a replication-level audit of the July 1, 2011 valuation and requested detailed census data (member-level data) from the Board.
The Board objected, contending the five-year interval had not yet elapsed and that the statute does not impose a ministerial duty to produce all requested materials, particularly protected member data, without negotiation and confidentiality safeguards.
The City sued for mandamus under § 802.003 seeking an order compelling disclosure of all underlying materials (including census data); the trial court granted summary judgment for the City and issued a writ of mandamus, but enforcement was stayed pending appeal.
The court of appeals reversed, holding the statute did not impose a nondiscretionary/ministerial duty requiring the Board to produce all requested replication-level data as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 802.1012 imposes a ministerial duty on the Board to disclose all materials (including census data) requested by an independent actuary for an audit	§ 802.1012 necessarily implies a duty to provide whatever materials are required for the City’s audit; courts should imply powers necessary to effect statutory purpose (City)	The statute does not expressly direct the Board to produce all requested materials; scope of production is not defined and requires negotiation/confidentiality protections; Board has discretion to protect member privacy	Not ministerial. Statute lacks precision/certainty to remove Board discretion; summary judgment and mandamus for City reversed and judgment rendered for Board
Whether City satisfied preconditions in § 802.1012 (e.g., confidentiality agreement, meeting about assumptions, independent auditor)	City argued it engaged an actuary and requested data; confidentiality and pre-audit steps do not demonstrate lack of duty to produce	Board argued City failed to comply with preconditions (independence, confidentiality agreement, pre-audit meeting), so disclosure obligation was not triggered	Court treated these preconditions as indicia that disclosure is not automatic; absence of a clear statutory directive meant preconditions and negotiation matter

Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791 (Tex. 1991) (defines ministerial duty standard)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus to compel ministerial acts or correct clear abuse of discretion)
In re Robinson, 175 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (statutory construction can reveal nondiscretionary duties despite lack of mandatory language)
Warner v. Glass, 135 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. 2004) (courts may imply necessary powers to effect statute’s purpose)
Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. Steel, 997 S.W.2d 217 (Tex. 1999) (summary judgment limitations when movant fails essential element)