Open Meetings Act Handbook 2024 PDF

THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT Handbook 2024 Dear Fellow Texans: Founding Father James Madison once wrote that democracy without information was “but prologue to a farce or a tragedy,” and he regarded the diffusion of knowledge as “the only guardian of true liberty.” Texas law has long agreed the inherent right of Texans to govern themselves depends on their ability to observe how public officials conduct the people’s business. The Texas Open Meetings Act was enacted to ensure the Texas government is transparent, open, and accountable to the people. At its core, the Texas Open Meetings Act requires government entities to keep official business accessible to the public. The Open Meetings Act Handbook helps public officials comply with the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act and familiarizes our citizens with using the Open Meetings Act as a resource for obtaining information about their government. The handbook is available online and as a printable document at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/openmeetings_hb.pdf. As Attorney General, I am proud of my office’s efforts to promote open government. We have established an Open Government Hotline for anyone seeking a better understanding of their rights and responsibilities under the law. The toll-free number is 877-OPEN TEX (877-673-6839). Public access to the proceedings and decision-making processes of government is essential to a properly functioning and free state. It is my sincere hope that this handbook will make it easier for public officials and citizens to understand and comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act. Best regards, Ken Paxton Attorney General of Texas Table of Contents I. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1 A. Open Meetings Act........................................................................................................... 1 B. A Governmental Body Must Hold a Meeting to Exercise its Powers.............................. 1 C. Quorum and Majority Vote............................................................................................... 2 D. Other Procedures.............................................................................................................. 3 II. Recent Amendments................................................................................................................ 4 A. Section 551.056. Additional Posting Requirements for Certain Municipalities, Counties, School Districts, Junior College Districts, Development Corporations, Authorities, and Joint Boards........................................................................................... 4 B. Other Notable Changes..................................................................................................... 4 III. Noteworthy Judicial Decisions Since 2022 Handbook......................................................... 6 A. Judicial Decisions............................................................................................................... 6 IV. Training for Members of Governmental Bodies.................................................................. 9 V. Governmental Bodies..............................................................................................................11 A. Definition.........................................................................................................................11 B. State-Level Governmental Bodies.................................................................................. 12 C. Local Governmental Bodies........................................................................................... 13 D. Committees and Subcommittees of Governmental Bodies............................................ 15 E. Advisory Bodies............................................................................................................. 16 F. Public and Private Entities That Are Not Governmental Bodies.................................... 17 G. Legislature...................................................................................................................... 17 VI. Meetings................................................................................................................................. 19 A. Definitions...................................................................................................................... 19 B. Deliberations Among a Quorum of a Governmental Body or Between a Quorum and a Third Party............................................................................................................ 19 C. Gathering at Which a Quorum Receives Information from or Provides Information to a Third Party............................................................................................................... 20 D. Informal or Social Meetings........................................................................................... 21 E. Discussions Among a Quorum through a Series of Communications........................... 22 F. Meetings Using Telephone, Videoconference, and the Internet..................................... 23 VII. Notice Requirements........................................................................................................... 28 A. Content........................................................................................................................... 28 B. Sufficiency...................................................................................................................... 28 C. Generalized Terms.......................................................................................................... 31 D. Time of Posting.............................................................................................................. 32 E. Place of Posting.............................................................................................................. 35 F. Internet Posting of Notice and Meeting Materials......................................................... 38 G. Emergency Meetings: Providing and Supplementing Notice......................................... 39 H. Recess in a Meeting: Postponement in Case of a Catastrophe....................................... 42 I. County Clerk May Charge a Fee for Posting Notice...................................................... 42 VIII. Open Meetings................................................................................................................... 43 A. Convening the Meeting.................................................................................................. 43 B. Location of the Meeting................................................................................................. 43 C. Rights of the Public........................................................................................................ 43 D. Final Actions................................................................................................................... 46 IX. Closed Meetings.................................................................................................................... 49 A. Overview of Subchapter D of the Open Meetings Act................................................... 49 B. Provisions Authorizing Deliberations in Closed Meeting.............................................. 50 C. Closed Meetings Authorized by Other Statutes.............................................................. 61 D. No Implied Authority for Closed Meetings.................................................................... 61 E. Who May Attend a Closed Meeting............................................................................... 62 X. Records of Meetings............................................................................................................... 64 A. Minutes or Recordings of Open Meeting....................................................................... 64 B. Special Recording Requirements................................................................................... 64 C. Certified Agenda or Recording of Closed Meeting........................................................ 65 D. Additional Recording Requirements for Certain Districts............................................. 67 XI. Penalties and Remedies........................................................................................................ 68 A. Introduction.................................................................................................................... 68 B. Mandamus or Injunction................................................................................................. 68 C. Voidability of a Governmental Body’s Action in Violation of the Act; Ratification of Actions........................................................................................................................ 70 D. Criminal Provisions........................................................................................................ 72 XII. Open Meetings Act and Other Statutes............................................................................ 76 A. Other Statutes May Apply to a Public Meeting.............................................................. 76 B. Administrative Procedure Act........................................................................................ 77 C. The Americans with Disabilities Act.............................................................................. 77 D. The Open Meetings Act and the Whistleblower Act...................................................... 78 E. The Open Meetings Act Distinguished from the Public Information Act...................... 79 F. Records Retention.......................................................................................................... 80 Appendix A: Text of the Open Meetings Act............................................................................ 82 Appendix B: Table of Authorities.............................................................................................118 Cases.....................................................................................................................................118 Open Meetings Act Provisions............................................................................................ 124 Introduction I. Introduction A. Open Meetings Act The Open Meetings Act (the “Act”) was adopted to help make governmental decision-making accessible to the public. It requires meetings of governmental bodies to be open to the public, except for expressly authorized closed sessions,1 and to be preceded by public notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the meeting. “The provisions of [the Act] are mandatory and are to be liberally construed in favor of open government.”2 The Act was adopted in 19673 as article 6252-17 of the Revised Civil Statutes, substantially revised in 1973,4 and codified without substantive change in 1993 as Government Code chapter 551. 5 It has been amended many times since its enactment. Before addressing the Act itself, we will briefly mention certain other issues relevant to conducting public meetings. B. A Governmental Body Must Hold a Meeting to Exercise its Powers Predating the Act is the common-law rule that decisions entrusted to governmental bodies must be made by the body as a whole at a properly called meeting.6 This requirement gives each member of the body an opportunity to state his or her views to other board members and to give them the benefit of his or her judgment, so that the decision “may be the composite judgment of the body as a whole.”7 This rule may be changed by the Legislature.8 1 The term “executive session” is often used to mean “closed meeting,” even though the Act uses the latter term. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.101; Cox Enters., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs., 706 S.W.2d 956, 957 (Tex. 1986) (stating that an executive session is a meeting or part of a meeting that is closed to the public). 2 See City of Laredo v. Escamilla, 219 S.W.3d 14, 19 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. denied); Willmann v. City of San Antonio, 123 S.W.3d 469, 473 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, pet. denied); Toyah Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Pecos-Barstow Indep. Sch. Dist., 466 S.W.2d 377, 380 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1971, no writ). 3 Act of May 8, 1967, 60th Leg., R.S., ch. 271, § 1, 1967 Tex. Gen. Laws 597, 597–98. 4 Act of Mar. 28, 1973, 63d Leg., R.S., ch. 31, § 1, 1973 Tex. Gen. Laws 45, 45–48. 5 Act of May 4, 1993, 73d Leg., R.S., ch. 268, § 1, 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 583, 583–89. 6 See Webster v. Tex. & Pac. Motor Transp. Co., 166 S.W.2d 75, 76–77 (Tex. 1942); Fielding v. Anderson, 911 S.W.2d 858, 864 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1995, writ denied). 7 Webster, 166 S.W.2d at 76–77. 8 See Faulder v. Tex. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 990 S.W.2d 944, 946 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, pet. ref’d) (concluding that board was authorized by statute to perform duties in clemency matters without meeting face- to-face as a body). 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 1 Introduction C. Quorum and Majority Vote The authority vested in a governmental body may generally be exercised only at a meeting of a quorum of its members.9 The Code Construction Act10 states as follows: (a) A grant of authority to three or more persons as a public body confers the authority on a majority of the number of members fixed by statute.11 (b) A quorum of a public body is a majority of the number of members fixed by statute.12 The Act defines “quorum” as a majority of the governing body, unless otherwise defined by applicable law or the governing body’s charter.13 For example, three members of the five-member commissioners court constitute a quorum for conducting county business, except for levying a county tax, which requires the presence of at least four members of the court.14 Ex officio, nonvoting members of a governmental body are counted for purposes of determining the presence of a quorum.15 A person who has been elected to serve as a member of a governmental body but whose election has not been certified and who has not yet taken the oath of office is not yet a member of the governmental body.16 Thus, a meeting between two newly elected persons who have not yet taken the oath of office and two serving directors is not subject to the Act because no quorum is present.17 A board member may not delegate his or her authority to deliberate or vote to another person, absent express statutory authority to do so.18 Absent an express provision to the contrary, a proposition is carried in a deliberative body by a majority of the legal votes cast, a quorum being present.19 Thus, if a body is “composed of twelve members, a quorum of seven could act, and a majority of that quorum, four, could bind the body.”20 9 But see TEX. GOV’T CODE § 418.1102(b) (providing that a quorum is not required of local governmental entities if the entity’s “jurisdiction is wholly or partly located in the area of a disaster declared by the president... or governor; and... a majority of the members of the governing body are unable to be present at a meeting of the governing body as a result of the disaster”). 10 Id. §§ 311.001–.034 (chapter 311). 11 A statute may expressly provide a different rule. See TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 363.105 (providing that two- thirds majority vote required of a board of crime control and prevention district to reject application for funding). 12 TEX. GOV’T CODE § 311.013; see id. § 312.004 (“A joint authority given to any number of officers or other persons may be executed by a majority of them unless expressly provided otherwise.”); see also Tex. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs v. Silagi, 766 S.W.2d 280, 284 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1989, writ denied) (stating that absent a statutory provision, the common-law rule that a majority of all members of a board constitutes a quorum applies). 13 TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.001(6). 14 TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 81.006. 15 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0580 (2002) at 2–3 (overruling Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. DM-160 (1992) in part). 16 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0355 (2005) at 3. 17 Id. at 4. 18 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JM-903 (1988) at 4–5. 19 Comm’rs Ct. of Limestone Cnty. v. Garrett, 236 S.W. 970, 973 (Tex. [Comm’n Op.] 1922); Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. GA-0554 (2007) at 2, GA-0412 (2006) at 3. 20 Webster, 166 S.W.2d at 77. 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 2 Introduction D. Other Procedures 1. In General Governmental bodies should consult their governing statutes for procedures applicable to their meetings. Home-rule cities should also consult their charter provisions.21 Governmental bodies may draw on a treatise such as Robert’s Rules of Order to assist them in conducting their meetings, as long as the provisions they adopt are consistent with the Texas Constitution, statutes, and common law.22 A governmental body subject to the Act may not conduct its meetings according to procedures inconsistent with the Act.23 2. Preparing the Agenda An agenda is “[a] list of things to be done, as items to be considered at a meeting.” 24 The terms “agenda” and “notice” are often used interchangeably in discussing the Act because of the practice of posting the agenda as the notice of a meeting or as an appendix to the notice.25 Some governmental entities are subject to statutes that expressly address agenda preparation.26 Other entities may adopt their own procedures for preparing the agenda of a meeting.27 Officers and employees of the governmental body must avoid deliberations subject to the Act while preparing the agenda.28 21 See Shackelford v. City of Abilene, 585 S.W.2d 665, 667 (Tex. 1979) (considering home-rule city charter that required all city meetings to be open to the public). 22 See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0412 (2006) at 2; see also generally Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0554 (2007). 23 See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. GA-0412 (2006) at 2; DM-228 (1993) at 3 (addressing governmental body’s adoption of provisions of Robert’s Rules of Order to govern conduct of meetings). 24 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 72 (9th ed. 2009). 25 See, e.g., City of San Antonio v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 820 S.W.2d 762, 764 (Tex. 1991). 26 See TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 201.054 (providing that Chair of Transportation Commission shall oversee the preparation of an agenda for each meeting). 27 See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. DM-473 (1998) at 3 (discussing home-rule city’s procedure for agenda preparation). 28 Id. 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 3 Recent Amendments II. Recent Amendments Below is a brief discussion of the relevant enactments of the 88th Legislature, Regular Session: A. Section 551.056. Additional Posting Requirements for Certain Municipalities, Counties, School Districts, Junior College Districts, Development Corporations, Authorities, and Joint Boards House Bill 3440 amends subsection 551.056(b) in two main aspects.29 First, it requires specified governmental bodies or economic development corporations to post a meeting agenda concurrently with the meeting notice on the entity’s website.30 Second, it adds “a district or authority created under Section 52, Article III, or Section 59, Article XVI, Texas Constitution” as one of the specified governmental bodies subject to the provision.31 House Bill 3440 also repeals subsection 551.056(c), which had previously required the concurrent posting of the meeting agenda of only a subset of governmental bodies and economic development corporations based on population.32 The repeal of subsection 551.056(c) does away with the population limitation such that all of the specified governmental bodies, regardless of population, must post both a meeting notice and a meeting agenda on their internet website. House Bill 3440 takes effect on September 1, 2023.33 B. Other Notable Changes34 The Legislature adopted legislation that does not amend Government Code chapter 551 but nonetheless implicates open meetings. House Bill 2800 amends Election Code section 51.002 to require that a meeting of the county election board be held in person and be open to the public.35 House Bill 2800 also requires the county clerk to post notice of a meeting of the county election board on the county’s internet website, if it maintains one, “[n]ot later than 48 hours before each meeting....”36 House Bill 2800 takes effect on September 1, 2023.37 29 See Act of May 28, 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., ch. 855, § 1, 2023 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 2656 (to be codified at TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.056(b)). 30 See id. (to be codified at TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.056(b)). 31 Id. (to be codified at TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.056(b)(8)). 32 See id. § 2. 33 See id. § 4. 34 The Legislature also adopted Senate Bill 335, which amended Human Resources Code chapter 40 to require the Family and Protective Services Council to broadcast its meetings live over the internet and to provide access to the meeting over the internet or to make a recording of the meeting available on its internet website within two days of the meeting. See Tex. S.B. 335, 88th Leg., R.S. (2023). However, the bill was vetoed by Governor Abbott. See Veto Message of Gov. Abbott, Tex. S.B. 335, 88th Leg., R.S. (2023). 35 See Act of May 24, 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., ch. 733, § 1, 2023 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 1780, 1781 (to be codified at TEX. ELEC. CODE § 51.002(d)). 36 Id. (to be codified at TEX. ELEC. CODE § 51.002(e)). 37 See id. § 2. 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 4 Recent Amendments House Bill 4611 relates to the Health and Human Services Commission, Medicaid, and other social services.38 Relevant to open meetings, House Bill 4611 adds several new chapters to the Government Code, including chapter 522, subchapter E, titled “Public Access to Meetings.”39 It requires the Health and Human Services Commission or a health and human services agency, and their advisory bodies, with certain exceptions, to broadcast live video and audio of each open meeting, to make a video and audio recording of the meeting, and to provide access to the archived video and audio recording on their website not later than seven days after the meeting.40 The bill also requires the Health and Human Services Commission or a health and human services agency to provide the same notice of an open meeting that is required by the Act on its internet website and to do so in the same time required for posting required by the Act.41 House Bill 4611 expressly directs the Health and Human Services Commission to consider contracting with a private individual or entity to broadcast and archive the meeting.42 It also requires the Health and Human Services Commission Executive Council established under Government Code chapter 523 to comply with chapter 522, subchapter E.43 House Bill 4611 takes effect on April 1, 2025.44 38 See Act of May 19, 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., ch. 769, § 1.01, 2023 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 2015. 39 See id. at 2023–24 (to be codified at TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 522.0201–.0206). 40 See id. (to be codified at TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 522.0202(a), (b), 522.0203(a), (c)); see also id. at 2016 (defining “Commission” and “Health and human services agencies”) (to be codified at TEX. GOV’T CODE § 521.0001(3), (5)). 41 See id. at 2024 (to be codified at TEX. GOV’T CODE § 522.0204). 42 See id. (to be codified at TEX. GOV’T CODE § 522.0206). 43 See id. at 2031 (to be codified at TEX. GOV’T CODE § 523.0106(c)). 44 See id. § 4.02 at 2371. 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 5 Noteworthy Decisions Since 2022 Handbook III. Noteworthy Judicial Decisions Since 2022 Handbook A. Judicial Decisions In Pete v. Dunn, a federal district court clarified that individuals cannot generally assert claims for monetary damages for violations of the Act.45 The pro-se plaintiff, Pete, filed a claim in federal district court that the Beaumont Independent School District’s adoption of a mask mandate violated the 1st and 14th Amendments.46 To these claims, he joined a state-law claim seeking monetary damages from the school board for violating the Act.47 The court dismissed his Open Meetings Act claim as lacking “facial plausibility” under federal pleading rules.48 The court added that Pete could not “assert a claim for monetary damages for violations of [the Act]” because the relief provided for by the Act was injunctive.49 The court concluded the statute which Pete claimed was violated did not allow for damages and his pleading failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.50 In Hardy v. Carthage Independent School District, a federal district court ruled on the scope of section 551.146 of the Act, which makes it an offense to knowingly disclose the certified agenda or recording of a closed meeting.51 Hardy filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against his former employee, the school district.52 During the deposition of a school board member, the school district’s counsel objected to a line of questioning related to discussions between board members at a closed meeting.53 Counsel advised the board member not to answer questions on the substance of the closed meeting invoking the criminal penalty in section 551.146.54 The court stated that section 551.146 “is not a blanket prohibition against testifying about conversations occurring in a closed meeting, it merely penalizes disclosure of the certified agenda or recording—nothing more.”55 Noting that the plain language of section 551.146 limits its application to the agenda and recording, the court declined to expand its scope beyond its plain meaning.56 In Burleson v. Collin County Community College District, the Dallas Court of Appeals considered who constitutes an “interested person” in section 551.142, which sets out who has standing to sue for a violation under the Act.57 In connection with the plaintiffs’ claims, the court had the 45 Pete v. Dunn, No. 1:21-CV-546, 2022 WL 2032306 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2022). 46 Id. at *1. 47 Id. at *5–6. 48 Id. at 5. 49 Id. at 6. 50 Id. 51 Hardy v. Carthage Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 2:19-CV-00277, 2022 WL 609151 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2022). 52 Id. at *1. 53 Id. 54 Id. 55 Id. 56 Id. at *2 (noting that its interpretation of section 551.146 is “further corroborated by” Attorney General Opinion JM-1071, which construed section 551.146’s statutory predecessor to not prohibit persons present at an executive session from afterwards talking about the subject matter of the session). 57 Burleson v. Collin Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., No. 05-21-00088-CV, 2022 WL 17817965 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 20, 2022, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 6 Noteworthy Decisions Since 2022 Handbook opportunity to address disagreement among Texas appellate courts.58 Noting that only one Texas court requires a plaintiff to allege a particular injury or damage, the court recognized the majority view is that the Act “broadly confers standing on any person who shares an injury in common with the general public.”59 Agreeing with the majority view, the court said “[i]t makes little sense to require a plaintiff to demonstrate an injury distinct from the general public when ‘the interest protected by the Open Meetings Act is the interest of the general public.’”60 In State ex rel. Durden v. Shahan, the Texas Supreme Court addressed the scope of “interested person” in section 551.142 of the Act in a different context.61 Durden filed three separate cases in his official capacity as county attorney on behalf of the State of Texas, two of which involved violations of the Act.62 He argued that because Government Code subsection 311.005(2), the Code Construction Act, defines “person” to include a “governmental subdivision or agency,” that he— acting as county attorney on the state’s behalf—qualified as an “interested person” under the Act.63 The court rejected the argument because he “purported to file the[] suits on behalf of the state, not on behalf of a governmental subdivision or agency.”64 The court said it found nothing in the Act or in the Code Construction Act “to support the notion that the state itself qualifies as an ‘interested person.’”65 The Court referred to the Legislature’s 2019 amendment of section 551.142, which authorizes the attorney general to bring certain actions related to the enforcement of one of the Act’s provisions and observed that such change would have been unnecessary and meaningless if an “interested person” included the state. In an unpublished opinion, In re City of Amarillo, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held a meeting notice failed to substantially comply with the Act.66 The case involved a taxpayer’s suit against the City of Amarillo challenging the city’s plan to pay for renovations and expansion of its civic center complex.67 For context, the city’s voters had previously voted against a $275 million bond proposition regarding the civic center complex, and the city was precluded from issuing certificates of obligation to fund the project for three years.68 The city worked on a plan involving several proposed ordinances to generate $260.525 million by other financing mechanisms not requiring voter approval.69 The court considered meeting notice issues with respect one of the ordinances.70 The notice vaguely recited “the discussion and consideration of an ordinance authorizing the issuance of the City of Amarillo, Texas Combination Tax and Revenue Notes, Series 2022A 58 Id. at *9. 59 Id. (citing Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Peters, No. 05-14-00759-CV, 2015 WL 8732420, at *9 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 14, 2015, pet. denied) (mem. op.). 60 Id. (quoting Save Our Springs All., Inc. v. Lowry, 934 S.W.2d 161, 163 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, orig. proceeding [leave denied]). 61 State ex rel. Durden v. Shahan, 658 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2022). 62 Id. at 302. 63 Id. at 303–04. 64 Id. 65 Id. at 304. 66 In re City of Amarillo, No. 07-22-00341-CV, 2023 WL 5279473, at *5 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 16, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). 67 Id. at *1. 68 See id. 69 See id. 70 See id. at *1–2. 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 7 Noteworthy Decisions Since 2022 Handbook resolving other matters incident and related thereto including the approval of a paying agent/registrar agreement and a purchase contract.”71 Citing two prior Texas Supreme Court cases, the court first considered whether the notice’s description of the ordinance required a higher degree of specificity due to any special interest of the public.72 Then it considered the adequacy of the notice.73 In concluding the issue was one of special interest to the public such that the notice required more detail, the court noted that the project had occupied over a decade of the city’s time and that the proposed financing “would have an effect to be felt for years to come.”74 The court was particularly troubled by the fact that the issue had been submitted to—and rejected by—the voters less than two years earlier.75 The court also observed that the notice did not adequately inform the public that the purpose of the alternative financing vehicle was to revive the “previously-voter-rejected civic center project.”76 The court recognized that notice under the Act need not state all the consequences that might flow from an action, but criticized the city’s vague description of the financing vehicles and its omission from the notice of the its intent to finance more than a quarter- billion dollars.77 Lastly, the court noted the notice was “patently incorrect” and misled the public by suggesting that the debt would be secured by a “combination of taxes and revenue” instead of solely by ad valorem taxes as provided by the actual executed ordinance and finance documents.78 Lastly, the court also considered and disregarded the city’s argument that a citizen’s appearance at the city council meeting “refuted” any conclusion that the notice was deficient.79 The court asked whether attendance by one citizen excused the city’s obligations to its other citizens. 80 The court concluded the notice did not substantially comply with the Act and found the ordinance void.81 71 Id. at *2. 72 See id. at *4–5 (relying on Cox Enters., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs., 706 S.W.2d 956 (Tex. 1986) and City of San Antonio v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 820 S.W.2d 762, 763 (Tex. 1991)). 73 See id. at *5–6. 74 Id. at *5. 75 Id. 76 Id. 77 See id. at *6 (disagreeing with the city’s position that the Act is satisfied “so long as the notice mentions possible debt issuance of some amount” when the debt was anticipated to be in excess of $260 million). 78 Id. at *3, 6. 79 See id. at *6. 80 Id. 81 See id. 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 8 Training for Members of Governmental Bodies IV. Training for Members of Governmental Bodies Section 551.005 requires each elected or appointed public official who is a member of a governmental body subject to the Act to complete a course of training addressing the member’s responsibilities under the Act. The public official must complete the training not later than the 90th day after taking the oath of office, if required to take an oath to assume duties as a member of the governmental body, or after the public official otherwise assumes these duties if the oath is not required. Completing training as a member of the governmental body satisfies the training requirements for the member’s service on a committee or subcommittee of the governmental body and ex officio service on any other governmental body. The training may also be used to satisfy any corresponding training requirements concerning the Act that another law requires members of a governmental body to complete. The failure of one or more members of a governmental body to complete the training does not affect the validity of an action taken by the governmental body. The attorney general is required to ensure that the training is made available, and the attorney general’s office may provide the training and may approve any acceptable training course offered by a governmental body or other entity. The attorney general must also ensure that at least one course approved or provided by the attorney general’s office is available at no cost on videotape, DVD, or a similar and widely available medium.82 The training course must be at least one and no more than two hours long and must include instruction on the following subjects: (1) the general background of the legal requirements for open meetings; (2) the applicability of this chapter to governmental bodies; (3) procedures and requirements regarding quorums, notice and recordkeeping under this chapter; (4) procedures and requirements for holding an open meeting and for holding a closed meeting under this chapter; (5) penalties and other consequences for failure to comply with this chapter.83 The entity providing the training shall provide a certificate of completion to public officials who complete the training course. A governmental body shall maintain and make available for public inspection the record of its members’ completion of training. A certificate of course completion is 82 An Open Meetings Act training video is available online at https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/open- government/open-meetings-act-training. 83 In its review of Open Meetings Act training materials submitted for approval, the Office of the Attorney General considers whether the written materials demonstrate that each subject is accurately and sufficiently covered. Materials may be submitted for review at https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/open-government/online- training-application-approval. 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 9 Training for Members of Governmental Bodies admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution under the Act, but evidence that a defendant completed a training course under this section is not prima facie evidence that the defendant knowingly violated the Act. 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 10 Governmental Bodies V. Governmental Bodies A. Definition Section 551.002 of the Government Code provides that “[e]very regular, special, or called meeting of a governmental body shall be open to the public, except as provided by this chapter.”84 “Governmental body” is defined by subsection 551.001(3) as follows: “Governmental body” means: (A) a board, commission, department, committee, or agency within the executive or legislative branch of state government that is directed by one or more elected or appointed members; (B) a county commissioners court in the state; (C) a municipal governing body in the state; (D) a deliberative body that has rulemaking or quasi-judicial power and that is classified as a department, agency, or political subdivision of a county or municipality; (E) a school district board of trustees; (F) a county board of school trustees; (G) a county board of education; (H) the governing board of a special district created by law; (I) a local workforce development board created under Section 2308.253; (J) a nonprofit corporation that is eligible to receive funds under the federal community services block grant program and that is authorized by this state to serve a geographic area of the state;85 and (K) a nonprofit corporation organized under Chapter 67, Water Code, that provides a water supply or wastewater service, or both, and is exempt from ad valorem taxation under Section 11.30, Tax Code; (L) a joint board created under Section 22.074, Transportation Code; and 84 TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.002. An agency financed entirely by federal money is not required by the Act to conduct an open meeting. Id. § 551.077. 85 See 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 9901–26 (Community Services Block Grant Program). 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 11 Governmental Bodies (M) a board of directors of a reinvestment zone created under Chapter 311, Tax Code. Section 551.0015 provides that certain property owners’ associations in a defined geographic area in a county with a population of 2.8 million or more or in a county adjacent to a county with a population of 2.8 million or more are subject to the Act in the same manner as a governmental body.86 B. State-Level Governmental Bodies Subsection 551.001(3)(A), the definition of “governmental body” applicable to state-level entities, does not name specific entities but instead sets out a general description of such entities. Thus, a state-level entity will be a governmental body within the Act if it is “within the executive or legislative branch of state government” and under the direction of “one or more elected or appointed members.”87 Moreover, it must have supervision or control over public business or policy.88 A university auxiliary enterprise was a governmental body under the Act because (1) as an auxiliary enterprise of a state university, it was part of the executive branch of state government; (2) a board of directors elected by its membership controlled the entity, formulated policy, and operated the organization; (3) the board acted by vote of a quorum; (4) the board’s business concerned public education and involved spending public funds; and (5) the university exerted little control over the auxiliary enterprise.89 In contrast, an advisory committee without control or supervision over public business or policy is not subject to the Act, even though its membership includes some members, but less than a quorum, of a governmental body.90 See Handbook Part V.E. The subsection 551.001(3)(A) definition of “governmental body” includes only entities within the executive and legislative departments of the State. It therefore excludes the judiciary from the Act.91 Other entities are excluded from the Act or from some parts of the Act by statutes other than chapter 551. For instance, the Texas HIV Medication Advisory Committee is expressly excluded from the 86 TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.0015; but see TEX. PROP. CODE § 209.0051(c) (requiring that regular and special board meetings of property owner associations not otherwise subject to chapter 551 be open to the owners), 209.0051(b)(1) (defining “board meeting” as “a deliberation between a quorum of the voting board of the property owners’ association, or between a quorum of the voting board and another person, during which property owners’ association business is considered and the board takes formal action”). 87 TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.001(3)(A); see id. § 551.003. 88 Id. § 551.001(4) (definition of “meeting”); Beasley v. Molett, 95 S.W.3d 590, 606 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002, pet. denied); Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0019 (2003) at 5. 89 Gulf Reg’l Educ. Television Affiliates v. Univ. of Houston, 746 S.W.2d 803, 809 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, writ denied); Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. H-438 (1974) at 4 (concluding that Athletic Council of The University of Texas, as governmental body that supervises public business, must comply with the Act). 90 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. JM-331 (1985) at 3 (concluding that citizens advisory panel of Office of Public Utility Counsel, with no power to supervise or control public business, is not governmental body), H-994 (1977) at 2– 3 (concluding that committee appointed to study process of choosing university president and make recommendations to Board of Regents not subject to the Act). 91 See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JM-740 (1987) at 4 (concluding that meetings of district judges to choose county auditor is not subject to the Act). 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 12 Governmental Bodies definition of “governmental body” but still must hold its open meetings in compliance with chapter 551, “except that the provisions allowing executive sessions do not apply to the committee.”92 C. Local Governmental Bodies Subsection 551.001(3)(B) through (M) lists a number of specific types of local governmental bodies. These include a county commissioners court, a municipal governing body and the board of trustees of a school district. Subsection 551.001(3)(D) describes another kind of local governmental body: “a deliberative body that has rulemaking or quasi-judicial power and that is classified as a department, agency, or political subdivision of a county or municipality.93 An inquiry into a local entity’s powers and relationship to the city or county government is necessary to determine whether it is a governmental body under subsection 551.001(3)(D). A judicial decision guides us in applying subsection 551.001(3)(D) to particular entities. The court in City of Austin v. Evans94 analyzed the powers of a city grievance committee and determined it was not a governmental body within this provision. The court stated that the committee had no authority to make rules governing personnel disciplinary standards or actions or to change the rules on disciplinary actions or complaints.95 It could only make recommendations and could not adjudicate cases. The committee did not possess quasi-judicial power, described as including the following: (1) the power to exercise judgment and discretion; (2) the power to hear and determine or to ascertain facts and decide; (3) the power to make binding orders and judgments; (4) the power to affect the personal or property rights of private persons; (5) the power to examine witnesses, to compel the attendance of witnesses, and to hear the litigation of issues on a hearing; and (6) the power to enforce decisions or impose penalties.96 An entity did not need all of these powers to be considered quasi-judicial, but the more of those powers it had, the more clearly it was quasi-judicial in the exercise of its powers.97 92 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 85.276(d). 93 TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.001(3)(D). 94 City of Austin v. Evans, 794 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, no writ). 95 Id. 96 Id. (emphasis omitted); see also Blankenship v. Brazos Higher Educ. Auth., Inc., 975 S.W.2d 353, 360 (Tex. App.—Waco 1998, pet. denied). 97 City of Austin, 794 S.W.2d at 83. 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 13 Governmental Bodies The court in Fiske v. City of Dallas98 concluded that a citizens group set up to advise the city council as to persons qualified to serve as municipal judges was not a governmental body within the Act because it was not part of the city council or a committee of the city council, and it had no rulemaking power or quasi-judicial power.99 In contrast, Attorney General Opinion DM-426 (1996) concluded that a municipal housing authority created under chapter 392 of the Local Government Code was a governmental body subject to the Act.100 It was “a department, agency, or political subdivision of a... municipality” as well as “a deliberative body that has rule-making or quasi-judicial power” within section 551.001(3)(D) of the Act.101 Attorney General Opinion DM-426 concluded on similar grounds that a county housing authority was a governmental body.102 Subsection 551.001(3)(H) provides “the governing board of a special district created by law”103 is a governmental body. This office has concluded that a hospital district104 and the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority105 are special districts. Sierra Club v. Austin Transportation Study Policy Advisory Committee106 is the only judicial decision that has addressed the meaning of “special district” in the Act. The court in Sierra Club decided that the Austin Transportation Study Policy Advisory Committee (ATSPAC) was a “special district” within the Act. The committee, a metropolitan planning organization that engaged in transportation planning under federal law, consisted of state, county, regional and municipal public officials. Its decisions as to transportation planning within a five-county area were used by federal agencies to determine funding for local highway projects. Although such committees did not exist when the Act was adopted in 1967, the court compared ATSPAC’s functions to those of a “governmental body” and concluded that the committee was the kind of body that the Act should govern.107 The court relied on the following definition of special district: a limited governmental structure created to bypass normal borrowing limitations, to insulate certain activities from traditional political influence, to allocate functions to entities reflecting particular expertise, to provide services in otherwise 98 Fiske v. City of Dallas, 220 S.W.3d 547, 551 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.). 99 See id.; see also Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0361 (2005) at 5–7 (concluding that a county election commission is not a deliberative body with rulemaking or quasi-judicial powers). 100 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. DM-426 (1996) at 2. 101 Id. at 2. 102 Id.; see also Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. JC-0327 (2001) at 2 (concluding that board of the Bryan-College Station Economic Development Corporation did not act in a quasi-judicial capacity or have rulemaking power), H-467 (1974) at 3 (concluding that city library board, a department of the city, did not act in a quasi-judicial capacity or have rulemaking power). 103 TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.001(3)(H). 104 See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. H-238 (1974) at 2. 105 See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JM-595 (1986) at 2. 106 Sierra Club v. Austin Transp. Study Pol’y Advisory Comm., 746 S.W.2d 298, 301 (Tex. App.—Austin 1988, writ denied). 107 Id. at 300–01. 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 14 Governmental Bodies unincorporated areas, or to accomplish a primarily local benefit or improvement, e.g., parks and planning mosquito control, sewage removal.108 Relying on the Sierra Club case, this office has concluded that a committee of judges meeting to participate in managing a community supervision and corrections department is a “special district” subject to the Act.109 It also relied on Sierra Club to decide that the Act applied to the Border Health Institute, a consortium of public and private entities established to assist the work of health- related institutions in the Texas-Mexico border region.110 It determined that other governmental entities, such as a county committee on aging created under the Non-Profit Corporation Act, were not “special districts.”111 D. Committees and Subcommittees of Governmental Bodies Generally, meetings of less than a quorum of a governmental body are not subject to the Act.112 However, when a governmental body appoints a committee that includes less than a quorum of the parent body and grants it authority to supervise or control public business or public policy, the committee may itself be a “governmental body” subject to the Act.113 In Willmann v. City of San Antonio,114 the city council established a subcommittee consisting of less than a quorum of council members and charged it with recommending the appointment and reappointment of municipal judges.115 The appellate court, reviewing the conclusion on summary judgment that the committee was not subject to the Act, stated that a “governmental body does not always insulate itself from... [the Act’s] application simply because less than a quorum of the parent body is present.” 116 Because the evidence indicated that the subcommittee actually made final decisions and the city council merely “rubber stamped” them, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment as to the Open Meetings Act issue.117 Attorney General Opinion GA-0957 recently concluded that if a quorum of a governmental body attends a meeting of a committee of the governmental body at which a deliberation as defined by 108 Id. at 301 (quoting BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1253 (5th ed. 1986)). 109 See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. DM-395 (1996) at 3–4; but see Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. KP-0038 (2015) at 2 (acknowledging statutory changes to judges’ managerial authority modified conclusion in DM-395). 110 See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0280 (2004) at 8–9; see also Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. DM-426 (1996) at 4 (concluding that regional housing authority created under chapter 392 of the Local Government Code is special district within the Act). 111 See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. DM-7 (1991) at 2–3; see also Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0160 (1999) at 3 (concluding that ad hoc intergovernmental working group of employees is not a “special district” within the Act). 112 See Hays Cnty. v. Hays Cnty. Water Plan. P’ship, 106 S.W.3d 349, 356 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.); Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0407 (2001) at 9. 113 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. JC-0060 (1999) at 2, JC-0053 (1999) at 3; Tex. Att’y Gen. LO-97-058 (1997) at 2–5; LO-97-017 (1997) at 5. 114 Willmann v. City of San Antonio, 123 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, pet. denied). 115 See id. at 471–72. 116 Id. at 478. 117 See id. at 480; see also Finlan v. City of Dallas, 888 F. Supp. 779, 785 (N.D. Tex. 1995) (noting concern that danger exists that full council is merely a “rubber stamp” of committee); Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. JC-0060 (1999) at 3, H-823 (1976) at 2, H-438 (1974) at 3 (discussing “rubber stamping” of committee and subcommittee decisions). 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 15 Governmental Bodies the Act takes place, the committee meeting will constitute a meeting of the governmental body.118 Yet, in at least one statute, the Legislature has expressly provided that a committee of a board “where less than a quorum of any one board is present is not subject to the provisions of the open meetings law.”119 E. Advisory Bodies An advisory committee that does not control or supervise public business or policy is not subject to the Act,120 even though its membership includes some members, but less than a quorum, of a governmental body.121 For example, the multidisciplinary team established to review offenders’ records under the Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act was not subject to the Act.122 The team made an initial assessment of certain offenders to determine whether they should be subject to further evaluation for civil commitment. Subsequent assessments by other persons determined whether commitment proceedings should be filed. Thus, the team lacked ultimate supervision or control over public business or policy.123 However, if a governmental body that has established an advisory committee routinely adopts or “rubber stamps” the advisory committee’s recommendations, the committee probably will be considered to be a governmental body subject to the Act.124 Thus, the fact that a committee is called an advisory committee does not necessarily mean it is excepted from the Act. The Legislature has adopted statutes providing that particular advisory committees are subject to the Act, including a board or commission established by a municipality to assist it in developing a zoning plan or zoning regulations,125 the nursing advisory committee established by the statewide health coordinating council,126 advisory committees for existing Boll Weevil Eradication zones appointed by the commissioner of the Official Cotton Growers’ Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation,127 and an education research center advisory board.128 118 See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0957 (2012) at 2–3. 119 TEX. WATER CODE § 49.064 (applicable to general law water districts); see also Tarrant Reg’l Water Dist. v. Bennett, 453 S.W.3d 51, 58 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. denied) (discussing Water Code section 49.064 in relation to the Act and questioning previous attorney general opinions’ conclusions that an advisory committee could be subject to the Act as a governmental body). 120 See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0232 (2004) at 3–5 (concluding that student fee advisory committee established under Education Code section 54.5031 is not subject to the Act). 121 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. JM-331 (1985) at 3 (concluding that citizens advisory panel of Office of Public Utility Counsel, with no power to supervise or control public business, is not governmental body), H-994 (1977) at 3 (discussing fact question as to whether committee appointed to study process of choosing university president and make recommendations to Board of Regents is subject to the Act). 122 See Beasley, 95 S.W.3d at 606. 123 Id. 124 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. H-467 (1974) at 3–4, H-438 (1974) at 3. 125 TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 211.0075. 126 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 104.0155(e). 127 TEX. AGRIC. CODE § 74.1041(e). 128 TEX. EDUC. CODE § 1.006(b). 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 16 Governmental Bodies F. Public and Private Entities That Are Not Governmental Bodies Nonprofit corporations established to carry out governmental business generally are not subject to the Act because they are not within the Act’s definition of “governmental body.”129 A nonprofit created under the Texas Nonprofit Corporation Act to provide services to a county’s senior citizens was not a governmental body because it was not a governmental structure, and it had no power to supervise or control public business.130 However, the Act itself provides that certain nonprofit corporations are governmental bodies.131 Other statutes provide that specific kinds of nonprofit corporations are subject to the Act, such as development corporations created under the Development Corporation Act of 1979132 and the governing body of an open-enrollment charter school, which may be a private school or a nonprofit entity.133 If a nonprofit corporation provides in its articles of incorporation or bylaws that its board of directors will conduct meetings in accord with the Act, then the board must do so.134 A private entity does not become a governmental body within the Act merely because it receives public funds.135 A city chamber of commerce, a private entity, is not a governmental body within the Act although it receives public funds.136 G. Legislature There is very little authority on section 551.003. A 1974 attorney general letter advisory discussed its connection with Texas Constitution article III, section 11, which provides in part that “[e]ach House may determine the rules of its own proceedings....”137 The letter advisory raised the possibility that the predecessor of section 551.003 is unconstitutional to the extent of conflict with Texas Constitution article III, section 11, stating that “neither House may infringe upon or limit the present or future right of the other to adopt its own rules.”138 However, it did not address the constitutional issue, describing the predecessor to Government Code section 551.003 as an exercise of rulemaking power for the 1973–74 legislative sessions.139 The Texas Supreme Court addressed Government Code section 551.003 in a 2000 case challenging the Senate’s election by secret ballot of a senator to perform the duties of lieutenant governor.140 Members of the media contended that the Act prohibited the Senate from voting by secret ballot.141 129 TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.001(3); cf. id. § 552.003(1)(A)(xi) (including certain nonprofit corporations in definition of “governmental body” for purposes of the Public Information Act). 130 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. DM-7 (1991) at 3. 131 TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.001(3)(J)–(K). 132 TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 501.072. 133 TEX. EDUC. CODE § 12.1051. 134 Tex. Att’y Gen. LO-96-146 (1996) at 5. 135 Tex. Att’y Gen. LO-98-040 (1998) at 2. 136 Tex. Att’y Gen. LO-93-055 (1993) at 3. 137 Tex. Att’y Gen. LA-84 (1974) at 2. 138 Id. 139 See id. 140 In re The Tex. Senate, 36 S.W.3d 119 (Tex. 2000). 141 See id. at 119. 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 17 Governmental Bodies The Supreme Court stated that section 551.003 “clearly covers the Committee of the Whole Senate. Thus, its meeting and votes cannot be secret ‘except as specifically provided’ by the Texas Constitution.”142 The court then determined that Texas Constitution article III, section 41, which authorizes the Senate to elect its officers by secret ballot, provided an exception to section 551.003.143 More recently, the attorney general recognized in Opinion KP-0347 that pursuant to article III, section 11, “House and Senate rules supersede any contradictory procedural requirements for the Legislature found in the Texas Open Meetings Act or other state law.”144 142 Id. at 120. 143 See id. 144 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. KP-0347 (2021) at 2; see TEX. CONST. art. III, § 11. 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 18 Meetings VI. Meetings A. Definitions The Act applies to a governmental body, as defined by subsection 551.001(3), when it engages in a “regular, special, or called meeting.”145 Informal meetings of a quorum of members of a governmental body are also subject to the Act.146 “Deliberation,” a key term for understanding the Act, is defined as follows: “Deliberation” means a verbal or written exchange between a quorum of a governmental body, or between a quorum of a governmental body and another person, concerning an issue within the jurisdiction of the governmental body.147 “Deliberation” and “discussion” are synonymous for purposes of the Act. 148 And since 2019, the definition of “deliberation” includes written materials.149 The Act includes two definitions of “meeting.”150 Subsection 551.001(4)(A) uses the term “deliberation” to define “meeting”: (A) a deliberation between a quorum of a governmental body, or between a quorum of a governmental body and another person, during which public business or public policy over which the governmental body has supervision or control is discussed or considered or during which the governmental body takes formal action.... 151 B. Deliberations Among a Quorum of a Governmental Body or Between a Quorum and a Third Party The following test has been applied to determine when a discussion among members of a statewide governmental entity is a “meeting” as defined by subsection 551.001(4)(A): (1) The body must be an entity within the executive or legislative department of the state. (2) The entity must be under the control of one or more elected or appointed members. 145 TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.002. 146 Acker v. Tex. Water Comm’n, 790 S.W.2d 299, 300 (Tex. 1990) (considering meeting in restroom of two members of three-person board); Bexar Medina Atascosa Water Dist. v. Bexar Medina Atascosa Landowners’ Ass’n, 2 S.W.3d 459, 460–61 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. denied) (considering “informational gathering” of water district board with landowners in board member’s barn). 147 TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.001(2). 148 Bexar Medina Atascosa Water Dist., 2 S.W.3d at 461. 149 See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.001(2). 150 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. GA-0896 (2011) at 2, JC-0307 (2000) at 5, DM-95 (1992) at 5. 151 TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.001(4)(A). 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 19 Meetings (3) The meeting must involve formal action or deliberation between a quorum of members.152 (4) The discussion or action must involve public business or public policy. (5) The entity must have supervision or control over that public business or policy.153 Statewide governmental bodies that have supervision or control over public business or policy are subject to the Act, and so are the local governmental bodies expressly named in the definition of “governmental body.”154 In contrast, a group of public officers and employees in a county who met to share information about jail conditions did not supervise or control public business or public policy and thus was not subject to the Act.155 A purely advisory body, which has no authority over public business or policy, is not subject to the Act,156 unless a governmental body routinely adopts or “rubber stamps” the recommendations of the advisory body.157 See Part V.E. C. Gathering at Which a Quorum Receives Information from or Provides Information to a Third Party Subsection 551.001(4)(B) defines “meeting” as follows: (B) except as otherwise provided by this subdivision, a gathering: (i) that is conducted by the governmental body or for which the governmental body is responsible; (ii) at which a quorum of members of the governmental body is present; (iii) that has been called by the governmental body; and (iv) at which the members receive information from, give information to, ask questions of, or receive questions from any third person, including an employee of the governmental body, about the public business or public policy over which the governmental body has supervision or control. 152 Deliberation between a quorum and a third party now satisfies this part of the test. See id. § 551.001(2). 153 Gulf Reg’l Educ. Television Affiliates v. Univ. of Houston, 746 S.W.2d 803, 809 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, writ denied) (citing Attorney General Opinion H-772 (1976)); see also Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA- 0232 (2004) at 3–5 (relying on quoted test to determine that student fee advisory committee established under Education Code section 54.5031 is not subject to the Act). 154 See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.001(3). 155 See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0504 (2007) at 3. 156 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. H-994 (1977) at 2 (concluding that committee appointed to study process of choosing university president and to make recommendations to Board of Regents likely is not subject to the Act), H-772 (1976) at 6 (concluding that meeting of group of employees, such as general faculty of university, is not subject to the Act), H-467 (1974) at 3 (concluding that city library board, which is advisory only, is not subject to the Act). 157 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. H-467 (1974) at 4, H-438 (1974) at 3–4. 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 20 Meetings The term does not include the gathering of a quorum of a governmental body at a social function unrelated to the public business that is conducted by the body, or the attendance by a quorum of a governmental body at a regional, state, or national convention or workshop, ceremonial event, press conference, or the attendance by a quorum of a governmental body at a candidate forum, appearance, or debate to inform the electorate, if formal action is not taken and any discussion of public business is incidental to the social function, convention, workshop, ceremonial event, press conference, forum, appearance, or debate. The term includes a session of a governmental body.158 Subsection 551.001(4)(A) applies when a quorum of a governmental body engages in deliberations, either among the members of the quorum or between the quorum and a third party.159 Subsection 551.001(4)(B) reaches gatherings of a quorum of a governmental body even when the members of the quorum do not participate in deliberations among themselves or with third parties.160 Under the circumstances described by subsection 551.001(4)(B), the governmental body may be subject to the Act when it merely listens to a third party speak at a gathering the governmental body conducts or for which the governmental body is responsible.161 D. Informal or Social Meetings When a quorum of the members of a governmental body assembles in an informal setting, such as a social occasion, it will be subject to the requirements of the Act if the members engage in a verbal exchange about public business or policy. The Act’s definition of a meeting expressly excludes gatherings of a “quorum of a governmental body at a social function unrelated to the public business that is conducted by the body[.]”162 The definition also excludes from its reach the attendance by a quorum at certain other events such as a regional, state or national convention or workshop, ceremonial events, press conferences, and a candidate forum, appearance, or debate to inform the electorate.163 In both instances, there is no “meeting” under the Act “if formal action is not taken and any discussion of public business is incidental to the social function, convention, workshop, ceremonial event, [or] press conference[.]”164 158 TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.001(4)(B). 159 Id. § 551.001(4)(A); but see Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0989 (2013) at 2 (concluding that a private consultation between a member of a governmental body and an employee that does not take place within the hearing of a quorum of other members does not constitute a meeting under subsection 551.001(4)). 160 Cf. Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. JC-0248 (2000) at 2 (concluding that quorum of state agency board may testify at public hearing conducted by another agency), JC-0203 (2000) at 4 (concluding that quorum of members of standing committee of hospital district may attend public speech and comment on matters of hospital district business within supervision of committee). 161 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-2000) at 3–4 (discussing the Act’s application when quorum of governmental body listens to members of the public in a session commonly known as a “public comment” session, “public forum” or “open mike” session). 162 TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.001(4)(B). 163 See id. 164 Id. (emphasis added). 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 21 Meetings E. Discussions Among a Quorum through a Series of Communications On occasion, a governmental body has tried to avoid complying with the Act by deliberating about public business without a quorum being physically present in one place and claiming that this was not a “meeting” within the Act.165 Conducting secret deliberations and voting over the telephone, when no statute authorized this, was one such method.166 Section 551.143 as originally written prohibited machinations to avoid complying with the Act by criminalizing multiple meetings in numbers less than a quorum to “conspire to circumvent the Act.” One example of such a so-called walking quorum was described by Esperanza Peace and Justice Center v. City of San Antonio.167 Amended section 551.143 now prohibits discussion about an item of public business among a quorum of a governmental body through a series of communications. Section 551.143 provides that it is a criminal offense for a member of a governmental body to knowingly engage “in at least one communication among a series of communications that each occur outside of a meeting” and that “concern an issue within the jurisdiction of the governmental body in which the members engaging in the individual communications constitute fewer than a quorum of members but the members engaging in the series of communications constitute a quorum of members[.]”168 The member must know at the time he or she engaged in the communication that the series of communications “involved or would involve a quorum” and would “constitute a deliberation once a quorum of members engaged in the series of communications.”169 Section 551.006 authorizes members of a governmental body to communicate through an online message board or similar internet application.170 A governmental body utilizing an electronic message board may have only one such board and it can be used by only members of the governmental body and their authorized staff.171 The online message board must be prominently displayed on the governmental body’s primary internet web page and no more than one click away from that page.172 A governmental body that removes a communication from the online message board that has been posted for at least 30 days must maintain the posting for a period of six years, and the communication is public information under the Public Information Act.173 Most importantly, a governmental body may not vote or take any action by communication on an online message board.174 165 One court of appeals stated that “[o]ne board member asking another board member her opinion on a matter does not constitute a deliberation of public business.” Foreman v. Whitty, 392 S.W.3d 265, 277 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.). 166 See Hitt v. Mabry, 687 S.W.2d 791, 793, 796 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1985, no writ). 167 Esperanza Peace & Just. Ctr. v. City of San Antonio, 316 F. Supp. 2d. 433 (W.D. Tex. 2001). 168 See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.143(a)(1). 169 Id. § 551.143(a)(2). 170 Id. § 551.006. 171 Id. § 551.006(b), (c) (providing that a posting by a staff member must include the staff member’s name and title). 172 Id. § 551.006(b). 173 Id. § 551.006(d). 174 Id. § 551.006(e). 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 22 Meetings F. Meetings Using Telephone, Videoconference, and the Internet A governmental body may not conduct meetings subject to the Act by telephone or videoconference unless a statute expressly authorizes it to do so.175 1. Telephone Meetings The Act authorizes governmental bodies to conduct meetings by telephone conference call under limited circumstances and subject to procedures that may include special requirements for notice, record-keeping and two-way communication between meeting locations.176 A governmental body may hold an open or closed meeting by telephone conference call if: (1) an emergency or public necessity exists within the meaning of Section 551.045 of this chapter; and (2) the convening at one location of a quorum of the governmental body is difficult or impossible; or (3) the meeting is held by an advisory board.177 The emergency telephone meeting is subject to the notice requirements applicable to other meetings held under the Act. The open portions of the meeting are required to be audible to the public at the location specified in the notice and must be recorded. The provision also requires the location of the meeting to be set up to provide two-way communication during the entire conference call and the identity of each party to the conference call to be clearly stated prior to speaking.178 The Act authorizes the governing board of an institution of higher education, water districts whose territory includes land in three or more counties, the Board for Lease of University Lands, or the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to meet by telephone conference call if the meeting is a special called meeting, immediate action is required, and it is difficult or impossible to convene a quorum at one location.179 The Texas Board of Criminal Justice may hold an emergency meeting by telephone conference call,180 and, at the call of its presiding officer, the Board of Pardons and Paroles may hold a hearing on clemency matters by telephone conference call.181 The Act permits 175 See generally Hitt, 687 S.W.2d at 796; Elizondo v. Williams, 643 S.W.2d 765, 766–67 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1982, no writ) (telephone meetings); Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. DM-207 (1993) at 3 (videoconference meeting); but see Harris Cnty. Emergency Serv. Dist. No. 1 v. Harris Cnty. Emergency Corps., 999 S.W.2d 163, 169 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (concluding that telephone discussion by fewer than a quorum of board members about placing items on the agenda, without evidence of intent, did not violate the Act. 176 TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 551.121–.126,.129–.131 (authorizing meetings by telephone conference call under specified circumstances). 177 Id. § 551.125(b); see Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0379 (2005) at 2–3 (addressing Government Code subsection 551.125(b)(3)). 178 TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.125(b)–(f). 179 Id. § 551.121(c). 180 Id. § 551.123. 181 Id. § 551.124. 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 23 Meetings the board of trustees of the Teacher Retirement System to hold an open or closed meeting by telephone conference call if a quorum of the board is present at one location and other requirements of the Act are followed.182 Section 551.091 authorizes certain county commissioners courts to hold an “open or closed meeting, including a telephone conference call, solely to deliberate about disaster or emergency conditions and related public safety matters that require an immediate response without complying with the requirements” of chapter 551.183 The commissioners court must be in a county “for which the governor has issued an executive order or proclamation declaring a state of disaster or emergency” and “in which transportation to the meeting location is dangerous or difficult as a result of the disaster or emergency.”184 Statutes other than the Act authorize some governing bodies to meet by telephone conference call under limited circumstances. For example, if the joint chairs of the Legislative Budget Board are physically present at a meeting, and the meeting is held in Austin, any number of the other board members may attend by use of telephone conference call, videoconference call, or other similar telecommunication device.185 A governmental body may consult with its attorney by telephone conference call, videoconference call or communications over the internet, unless the attorney is an employee of the governmental body.186 If the governmental body deducts employment taxes from the attorney’s compensation, the attorney is an employee of the governmental body.187 The restriction against remote communications with an employee attorney does not apply to the governing board of an institution of higher education or the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.188 2. Videoconference Call Meetings The Act also authorizes governmental bodies to conduct meetings by videoconference call and, unlike with telephone meetings, does not limit that authority to emergency circumstances.189 Section 551.127 authorizes a member or employee of a governmental body to participate remotely in a meeting of the governmental body through a videoconference call if there is live video and 182 Id. § 551.130. 183 Id. § 551.091(b). Section 551.091 expires on September 1, 2027. See id. § 551.091(e). 184 Id. § 551.091(a). 185 TEX. GOV’T CODE § 322.003(d); see also TEX. AGRIC. CODE §§ 41.205(b) (Texas Grain Producer Indemnity Board), 62.0021(a) (State Seed and Plant Board); TEX. FIN. CODE § 11.106(c) (Finance Commission); TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 501.139(b) (Correctional Managed Health Care Committee), 436.054 (Texas Military Preparedness Commission). 186 TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.129(a), (d). 187 Id. § 551.129(e). 188 Id. § 551.129(f). 189 Id. § 551.127. 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 24 Meetings audio feed of the remote participant that is broadcast live at the meeting and the feed complies with the other provisions of section 551.127.190 As a preliminary matter, a meeting held by videoconference call must meet the regular notice requirements of the Act.191 In addition, section 551.127 authorizes two logistical scenarios depending on the territorial jurisdiction of the governmental body and requires that the notice specify a particular location of the meeting and who will be physically present there, as follows: A state governmental body or a governmental body that extends into three or more counties may meet by videoconference call only if the member of the governmental body presiding over the meeting is physically present at one location of the meeting. 192 The notice must specify that location, which must be open to the public during the open portions of the meeting, as well as state the intent to have the member of the governmental body presiding over the meeting present there.193 For all other governmental bodies, the Act authorizes a meeting by videoconference call only if a full quorum of the governmental body is physically present at one location of the meeting.194 In that instance, the notice must specify that location, as well as the intent to have a quorum present there.195 The location where the presiding member is physically present must be open to the public during the open portions of the meeting.196 Beyond notice and location, the Act specifies certain technical requirements. The meeting location where the quorum or presiding member is present as well as each remote location from which a member participates “shall have two-way audio and video communication with each other location during the entire meeting.”197 The Act requires that, while speaking, each participant’s face must be clearly visible and the voice audible to each other participant and to the members of the public in attendance at the location where the quorum or presiding member is present and any other location of the meeting that is open to the public.198 The Act additionally requires that each open portion of the meeting is to be visible and audible to the public at the meeting location where the 190 Id. § 551.127(a-1); see id. § 551.127(a) (“[T]his chapter does not prohibit a governmental body from holding an open or closed meeting by videoconference call.”). Subsection 81.001(b) of the Local Government Code, which provides that the county judge, if present, is the presiding officer of the county commissioners court, does not apply to a meeting held by videoconference. See TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 81.001(b). The subsection ensures that a county judge may remotely participate in a videoconference meeting while another member of the commissioners court presides over the meeting at the physical location accessible to the public. 191 TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.127(d). 192 Id. § 551.127(c). 193 Id. § 551.127(e). 194 Id. § 551.127(b). 195 Id. § 551.127(e). 196 Id. 197 Id. § 551.127(h). “The audio and video signals perceptible by members of the public at each location of the meeting described by Subsection (h) must be of sufficient quality so that members of the public at each location can observe the demeanor and hear the voice of each participant in the open portion of the meeting.” Id. § 551.127(j). 198 Id. § 551.127(h). 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 25 Meetings quorum or presiding member is present and that at any time that the meeting is no longer visible and audible to the public, the meeting must be recessed until the problem is resolved.199 The meeting must be adjourned if the problem is not resolved in six hours.200 The Act tasks the Department of Information Resources to specify minimum standards for the audio and video signals required at a videoconference meeting and the quality of the signals at each location of the meeting must meet or exceed those standards.201 Generally speaking, a remote participant “shall be counted as present at the meeting for all purposes.”202 However, if the audio or video communication is lost for any portion of the meeting, the remote participant is considered absent during that time.203 Should this occur, the governmental body may continue the meeting only as follows: (1) If the meeting is being held by a statewide body or one that extends into three or more counties, there must continue to be a quorum participating in the meeting. (2) If the meeting is held by another governmental body, a full quorum must remain physically present at the meeting location.204 Section 551.127 also requires the governmental body to “make at least an audio recording of the meeting” and to make the recording available to the public.205 And section 551.127 expressly permits a governmental body to allow a member of the public to testify at a meeting from a remote location by videoconference call.206 Relating to certain special districts subject to specific chapters of the Water Code and with a population of 500 or more, subsection 551.1283(e) provides that “[n]othing in this chapter shall prohibit a district from allowing a person to watch or listen to a board meeting by video or telephone conference call.”207 3. Meetings Broadcast over the Internet Section 551.128 of the Act provides that with certain exceptions a governmental body has discretion to broadcast an open meeting over the internet and sets out the requirements for a broadcast.208 The exceptions referred to in section 551.128(b-1) make the broadcast of open meetings over the internet mandatory for a transit authority or department, an elected school district board of trustees for a school district with a student enrollment of 10,000 or more, an elected governing body of a home-rule municipality that has a population of 50,000 or more, and a county commissioners court in a county with a population of 125,000 or more.209 199 See id. § 551.127(f). 200 Id. 201 Id. § 551.127(i); see 1 TEX. ADMIN. CODE §§ 209.1–.33 (Tex. Dept. of Info. Res., Minimum Standards for Meetings Held by Videoconference). The Department of Information Resources has published guidelines at https://pubext.dir.texas.gov/portal/internal/resources/DocumentLibrary/Videoconferencing%20Guidelines.pdf. 202 See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.127(a-2). 203 See id. § 551.127(a-3). 204 See id. 205 Id. § 551.127(g). 206 See id. § 551.127(k). 207 See id. § 551.1283(e). 208 Id. § 551.128(b). 209 Id. § 551.128(b-1). 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 26 Meetings A governmental body required to broadcast its open meetings over the internet under section 551.128(b-1) must make a video and audio recording of “each regularly scheduled open meeting that is not a work session or a special called meeting” and must make the recording available not later than seven days after the date of the meeting.210 And the governmental body must maintain an archived recording of the meeting on the internet “for not less than two years after the date the recording was first made available.”211 Subsection 551.128(b-1) further requires an elected school district board of trustees of a school district with an enrollment of 10,000 or more to make an audio or video recording of any work session or special called meeting at which the board of trustees “votes on any matter or allows public comment or testimony.”212 Subsection 551.128(b-2) provides that a governmental body is not required to establish a separate internet site but may make the archived recording available “on an existing Internet site, including a publicly accessible video- sharing or social networking site.”213 Similarly, section 472.036 of the Transportation Code requires a metropolitan planning organization that serves one or more counties with a population of 350,000 to broadcast over the internet each open meeting held by the policy board of the metropolitan planning organization.214 Certain junior college districts and general academic teaching institutions are required under sections 551.1281 and 551.1282 to broadcast their open meetings in the manner provided by section 551.128.215 An internet broadcast does not substitute for conducting an in-person meeting but provides an additional way of disseminating the meeting. Outside of the Act, certain entities may have specific provisions imposing broadcasting requirements.216 210 Id. § 551.128(b-1)(1), (b-4)(1). 211 Id. § 551.128(b-4)(2). 212 See id. § 551.128(b-1)(B). 213 See id. § 551.128(b-2). 214 See TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 472.036. 215 See TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 551.1281–.1282. 216 See id. § 531.0165 (imposing broadcasting and recording requirements on the Health and Human Services Commission and related entities). 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 27 Notice Requirements VII. Notice Requirements A. Content The Act requires written notice of all meetings. Section 551.041 of the Act provides: A governmental body shall give written notice of the date, hour, place, and subject of each meeting held by the governmental body.217 A governmental body must give the public advance notice of the subjects it will consider in an open meeting or a closed executive session.218 The Act does not require the notice of a closed meeting to cite the section or subsection numbers of provisions authorizing the closed meeting.219 No judicial decision or attorney general opinion states that a governmental body must indicate in the notice whether a subject will be discussed in open or closed session,220 but some governmental bodies do include this information. If the notices posted for a governmental body’s meetings consistently distinguish between subjects for public deliberation and subjects for executive session deliberation, an abrupt departure from this practice may raise a question as to the adequacy of the notice.221 Governmental actions taken in violation of the notice requirements of the Act are voidable. 222 If some actions taken at a meeting do not violate the notice requirements while others do, only the actions in violation of the Act are voidable.223 (For a discussion of the voidability of the governmental body’s actions, refer to Part XI.C. of this Handbook). B. Sufficiency The notice must be sufficient to apprise the general public of the subjects to be considered during the meeting. In City of San Antonio v. Fourth Court of Appeals,224 the Texas Supreme Court considered whether the following item in the notice posted for a city council meeting gave sufficient notice of the subject to be discussed: 217 Id. § 551.041. 218 Cox Enters., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs., 706 S.W.2d 956, 958 (Tex. 1986); Porth v. Morgan, 622 S.W.2d 470, 475–76 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.); but see TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.091(b), (c) (authorizing county commissioners court in limited circumstances involving a governor-declared disaster or emergency to hold a meeting “without complying with the requirements” of chapter 551 but requiring such county to post “reasonable public notice” to the “extent practicable under the circumstances.”). 219 See Rettberg v. Tex. Dep’t of Health, 873 S.W.2d 408, 411–12 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994, no writ); Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0511 (2007) at 4. 220 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0057 (1999) at 5; Tex. Att’y Gen. LO-90-27 (1990) at 1. 221 Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JC-0057 (1999) at 5; see also Mares v. Tex. Webb Cnty., No. 5:18-CV-121, 2020 WL 619902, at *4–5 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2020) (discussing a county’s retreat from its custom of providing adequate notice). 222 TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.141. 223 Point Isabel Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Hinojosa, 797 S.W.2d 176, 182–83 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, writ denied). 224 City of San Antonio v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 820 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. 1991). 2024 Open Meetings Handbook Office of the Attorney General 28 Notice Requirements An Ordinance determining the necessity for and authorizing the condemnation of certain property in County Blocks 4180, 4181, 4188, and 4297 in Southwest Bexar County for the construction of the Applewhite Water Supply Project.225 A property owner argued that this notice item violated the subject requirement of the statutory predecessor to section 551.041 because it did “not describe the condemnation ordinance, and in particular the land to be condemned by that ordinance, in sufficient detail” to notify an owner reading the description that the city was considering condemning the owner’s land.226 The Texas Supreme Court rejected the argument that the notice be sufficiently detailed to notify specific owners that their tracts might be condemned. The Court explained that the “Open Meetings Act is not a legislative scheme for service of process; it has no due process implications.”227 Its purpose was to provide public access to and increase public knowledge of the governmental decision- making process.228 The Court held that the condemnation notice complied with the Act because the notice apprised the public at large in general terms that the city would consider the condemnation of certain property in a specific area for purposes of the Applewhite project. The Court also noted that the description would notify a landowner of property in the four listed blocks that the property might be condemned, even though it was insufficient to notify an owner that his or her tracts in particular were proposed for condemnation.229 In City of San Antonio v. Fourth Court of Appeals, the Texas Supreme Court reviewed its earlier decisions on notice.230 In Texas Turnpike Authority v. City of Fort Worth,231 the Court had addressed the sufficiency of the following notice for a meeting at which the turnpike authority board adopted a resolution approving the expansion of a turnpike: “Consider request... to determine feasibility of a bond issue to expand and enlarge [the turnpike].”232 Prior resolutions of the board had reflected the board’s intent to make the turnpike a free road once existing bonds were paid. The Court found the notice sufficient, refuting the arguments that the notice should have included a copy of the proposed resolution, that the notice should have indicated the board’s proposed action was at variance with its prior intent, or that the notice should have stated all the consequences that might result from the proposed action.233 225 Id. at 764. 226 Id. 227 Id. at 765 (quoting Acker v. Tex. Water Comm’n, 790 S.W.2d 299, 300 (Tex. 1990)); see Rettberg, 873 S.W.2d at 413 (holding that the Act does not entitle the executive secretary of a state agency to special notice of a meeting where his employment was terminated); Stockdale v. Meno, 867 S.W.2d 123, 125 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993, writ denied) (holding that Act does not entitle a teacher whose contract was terminated to more specific notice than notice that would inform the public at large). 228 Fourth Court of Appeals, 820 S.W.2d at 765. 229 Id. at 765–66. 230 Id. at 765. 231 Tex. Tpk. Auth. v. City of Fort Worth, 554 S.W.2d 675 (Tex. 1977). 232 Id. at 676. 233 Id.; see also Charlie Thomas Ford, Inc., v. A.C. Collins Ford, Inc., 912 S.W.2d 271, 274 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, writ dism’d) (holding that notice stating “Proposals for Decision and Other Actions–License and Other Cases” was sufficient to apprise the public that Motor Vehicle Commission would consider proposals for decision in dealer-licensing cases); Washington v. Burley, 930 F. Supp. 2d 790, 807 (S.D. Tex. 2013) 2024 Open Meetings

Open Meetings Act Handbook 2024 PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue