24 THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT Texas' open meetings statute, originally enacted in 1967, has been interpreted to provide citizens' access to many meetings at all levels of government. (Texas Open Meetings Act, VTCS Article 6252-17.) The law declares all meetings to be open but provides that, under certain specific circumstances, parts of meetings may be closed if the closed session was announced at a prior meeting and provided that all final action is taken in public. - - - of The governmental body must provide notice in most cases 72 hours The law has seemed to work fairly well. There have been many attorney general's opinions as well as several court cases interpreting the legislation. We will not fully analyze that body of law, but will explain how the open meetings law works and how it may be applied in light of some of the more significant opinions and decisions. What Government Bodies are Covered by the Act The statute covers government bodies on the state and local level. On the state level, the law applies to any "board, commission, department, committee, or agency within the executive or legislative department of state, which is under the direction of one or more elected 25 or appointed members." This includes the legislature even though the state constitution allows either house to set its own rules. The attorney general has said the statute has the effect of an adoption of rules both houses and therefore all committees must follow the law in connection with meetings. (Attorney General Letter Advisory No. 84, September 3, 1974.) The On the state level even if a board does not have express authority to take action on behalf of the state, it is covered by the law. Athletic Council of the University of Texas at Austin sought to be excluded from the coverage of the open meetings law because it claimed that it did not have authority to act for the state. The attorney general held, however, that since the Council is part of the executive branch and since it discusses public business over which it has suprevisory powers, it is subject to the requirements of the open meetings law. (Attorney General Opinion No. H-438, October 31, 1974.) Therefore, on the state level advisory councils as well as bodies with direct authority to take action on behalf of the state seem to be covered by the act. On the local level the act covers: every Commissioners Court and City Council in the state, and every deliberative body having rulemaking or quasi-judicial power and classified as a department, agency, or political subdivision of a county or city; and the board of trustees of every school district, and every county board of school trustees and county board of education; and governing board of every special district heretofore or hereafter created by law. This section clearly directs that certain bodies are subject to the act like commissioners courts, school boards, etc. However, as to other bodies the statute applies a functional definition: "every deliberative 26 body having rule-making or quasi-judicial power." The Library Board of the City of Irving is a department or agency of the City of Irving, but the attorney general has held that it acts primarily in an advisory capacity and in most instances would not be subject to the open meetings law When and if the Board acts in other than an advisory capacity it may be subject to the act. (Attorney General Opinion No. H-467, December 9, 1974.) What Meetings Are Covered Whenever a quorum of members of a public body gather to deliberate or discuss official business, they are subject to the open meetings law. Informal meetings or meetings of less than a quorum of members are not covered by the law. An amendment to the act has made it a punishable offense for less than a quorum of a body to meet with the purpose of avoiding the intent of the act. . The general rule is that all meetings of a quorum of members where official business is discussed must be open to the public. Closed meetings may be held only if they are authorized by a specific section of the open meetings law. If a government body is goi to close a meeting, it must announce such intention at a public meeting and give a reason for closing a meeting as authorized under the law. In any event, no final action may be taken in closed sessions. The closed sessions may only discuss matters; any final action or disposition taken with respect to those matters must be in public session. When a Closed Session May Be Held Closed sessions are permitted only in the following cases: (1) deliberations of grand juries; (2) consultations between a governmental body and its (3) discussion with respect to the purchase, exchange, (4) appointment, employment, evaluation, reassign- (6) deployment, or specific occasions for implemen- (7) school board deliberations as to labor relations; (9) meetings between the Board of Pardons and Paroles Notice The statute directs that a government body provide 72 hours notice of all meetings. Such notice is to give the hour, place and subject of the meeting. If an emergency meeting is held, the governmental body must provide at least 2 hours notice and notify interested media by telephone. 27 28 Notices are to be posted as follows: (1) State government: On a bulletin board in the (2) City government: Hall. At a bulletin board at City (3) County government: At a bulletin board at the (4) School boards: On a bulletin board at the main The attorney general has taken the position that the 72-hour notice period should elapse only during times when the public has actual access to the notice. (Attorney General Opinion No. H-373, August 20, 1974.) Unfortunately, he conceded that his interpretation was somewhat limited since, "the Amarillo Court of Civil Appeals has held that public access is not determinative." In Lipscomb Independent School Dist. v. County School Trustees, 498 S.W. 2d 364 (Tex. Civ. App., Amarillo 1973, writ ref'd; n.r.e.), the court stated that even though the notice was locked inside the courthouse from Friday afternoon until Monday morning and was unavailable to the public, the terms of the statute were satisfied. The Attorney General may not, of course, simply reject the court's opinion, but he has indicated his belief that the state supreme court will eventually overrule the Amarillo court and he has construed that court's ruling to apply only to circumstances like those present in Lipscomb. There, the complaining parties had received actual, though informal, notice more than 72 hours |