Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1968 )

January 4, 1968
Honorable V. Murray Jordan Opinion No. M-180
County Attorney
McCulZoch County Re: Whether under S.B. 94, Acts
Brady, Texas 60th Legislature, Regular
Session, Ch. 271, p.
(codlf led as Article &&-1’7,
V.C.S.) the phrase “open to
the public ” ‘requires the
county commissioners court
to allow live radio broad-
cast of Its meetings or to
permlt the taping thereof
Df?ar Mr. Jordan: for broadcast: at a later time.
In your request for an opinion from this office you
state the following:
“The Commlssioners I Court of McCulloch
County, Texas, has asked that I request an
opinion of your office as to the meaning of
Senate Bill Number 94, passed May 23, 1967,
concerning public meetings of governmental
bodies.
“The particular Inquiry requested concerns
the meaning of the phrase ‘open to the public’
as used in Section 1 (a) of the Act. A local
radio station has stated that It intends to
broadcast live over the radio the actual pro-
ceedings of the Commissioners1 Court, and in
the alternative it intends to tape record the
meetings and broadcasb them at a later time
over the radio.
“The question the Court would like answered
1s whether or not the phrase ‘open to the public’
encompasses the requirement that the Court allow,
first, the live broadcast of its meeting and,
Hon. V. Murray Jordan, page 2 (M-I&O)
second, the taping of Its meeting for broad-
cast at a later tl~me. If the Court requires
the removal of broadcasting and/or recording
equipment, would it be a violation of the terms
of said Act.
“Please consider that Court meetings are
generally Informal with far ranging topics dis-
cussed In such an atmosphere that actual broad-
cast of the proceedings would tend to limit
free discussion by both commissioners and per-
sons appearing before the Court. As far as I
know, the Court sessions have always been open
to all members of the public lncludlng press
and radlo without any problem of llmltlng free
discourse. ”
Senate Bill 94, Acts 60th Legislature, Regular Se:sslon,
Ch. 271, p. 597 (codified as Article 6252-17, Vernon’s Civl:t
Statutes), provides that ever’y meeting of every governmental body
shall be open to the public. The caption to this statute pro-
vides that It Is an act to prohibit governmental bodies from
holding meetings which are closed to the public.
The commissioners court Is the active governing body
of the county; while Its authority over the county’s business
is limited to that speclflcally conferred by the Constitution
and the statutes, where a right Is thus conferred or obligation
Imposed, said court has Implied authorlty to exercise a broad
discretion to accomplish the pui-poses intended. Dodson v. Mb!rshali,.
118 S.W.2d 621 (Tex.Clv.App. 1938, error dlsm.). At page bBr
court stated:
?Jnder the provisions of the Constitution
and the statutes above quoted, we think It clear.
that the commissioners’ court Is charged with the
duty of providing a courthouse and has at least
Implied authority to regulate the use thereof
within reasonable bounds. . . .”
In 15 Tex.Jur.2d 265, Counties, Section 37, It is
stated that a commissioners court has Implied authority to do
what may be necessary in the exercise of the duties or powers
expressly conferred on It, and the expression ‘county business’
Is to be given a broad and liberal construction so as not to
defeat the purposes of the law. Said court shall have all such
other powers and ,jurlsdlctlon, and shall perform all other duties.,
as are now or may hereafter be prescribed by law. Article 2351,
Section 15, Vernon’s Civil Statutes.
Where a right is conferred or obligation imposed on
the commlssloners court it has implied authority to exercise a
'-862-
. .
*
,
lion. V. Murray ,Jordan, page 3 (M-180)
broad discretion to accomplish the purposes intended. Anderson
v. Wood, 137 Tex. 201, 152 S.W.2d lo84 (1941).
In Southwestern Broadcastin Co. v. 011 Center Broad-
casting Co., 210 S W 2d ?30 (Texd~l?T4”``%~ ref n r e
thecourt held thai an Independent school dlst:‘lct has the rigit
to prevent a broadcasting company from transmitting radio broad-
casts from the school district football field. At page 234, the
court held as follows:
11
1 . . If the Dlstrlct does not deslr#e KOSA
to broadcast from the football field which it owns,
and has a right to exclusive possession and control,
It has a rjght to prevent such conduct. In case
the party falls to cease such conduct, It has the
?lght to use such force as It fiicj’ necessary to
+zject him I’rom the field. . .-. -
“In our opinion, the appellants have no grounds
to complain of a temporary lnjunctlon that forbids
them from broadcasting from premises In the ex-
clusive control of the District and which enjoins
them from using the field equipment which the Tele-
phone Company has no right to maintain 0’;1 the. field
against the will of the District. . . .
The commissioners court has the authority to make
reas,>nable rules and regulations concerning its meetings and has
the authority to prevent the live radio broadcast of Its meet-
ings or the taping thereof for broadcast at a Inter time. The
prevention of such,,broadcazt would not keep ths meett.lngs .from
being open to the public. Ester, v. Texas, 91 U.S. 532 (1965)
SUMMARY
The phrase “open to the publl~c” conta l.lied In
Senate B1.11 94, Acts 60th Legislature, flcKlllar
,SnIsion, Ch. 271, p. 537 (codified as Art i~cle
6252-17, \‘c:rnon’s Civil Statutes), does not re-
qulre the c?mmlssloners court to allow the live
broadcast ol? its meetings or to permit the ta.plng
thereof for broadcast at a later time.
y truly yours,
-863-