Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1985 )

The Attorney Geneyd of Texas
JIM MATTOX SepFember 3,'i985
Attorney General !
Supreme Cowl Bulldin
Honorable Tim R. Ta:r:Lor Opinion No. .JM-351
P. 0. BOX 125d9 Titus County Attorney
Austin. TX. 7971% 2549 P. 0. Box 862 Re: Whether a comissioners court
512,4752501 Mt. Pleasant, Texas 75455 may bar video cameras from a public
Telex 91W57C1357
meeting held under article 6252-17,
Telecopier 51214750255
V.T.C.S.
714 Jackson. Sulle 7WJ Dear Ur. Taylor:
Dallas, TX. 75202.4509
21417428944
Pou ask whethter article 6252-17. V.T.C.S.. the Texas Open
Meetings Act, requires the commissioners court of Titus County to
4924 Alberta Ave.. Suite 180 allow videotaping of its meetings.
El Paso, TX. 79905.2793
915/533-3494 The Open I4eetin:gs Act provides in part:
All OX any part of the proceedings in auy
I Texas. Suite 700
Houston, TX. 77002-3111 public meeting of any governmental body as defined
71312236999 hereinabow may be recorded by any person in
attendance by means of a tape recorder or any
other means of sonic reproduction.
806 Broadway, Suite 312
Lubbock, TX. 79401.3479
909/747-5239
V.T.C.S. art. 6252*-1~7. CZ(1). This provision first appeared in the
1973 revision of the Open Meetings Act. Acts 1973. 63rd Leg., ch. 31,
12(i) at 46. The 1967 version of the Open Meetings Act did not
4309 N. Tenth, Suite S expressly permit a,%youe to tape-record public meetings. Acts 1967,
McAllen, TX. 79501-1595
60th Leg., ch. 271 at 597. A 1968 Attorney General Opinion considered
51219524547
whether the act required a cormPissioners court to allow its meetings
to be broadcast ljve over the radio and taped for later broadcast.
200 Maln Plaza. Suite 400 Attoruey General Opinion M-180 (1968) determined that the phrase "open
San Antonio. TX. 792052797
to the public" in section l(a) of formar article 6252-17, V.T.C.S.,
51212254191
did not require the? connissioners court to permit the live broadcast
of its meetings or the taping thereof for later broadcast. See
An Equal OppOrtunilYl V.T.C.S. art. 62 5:2-17, 52(a) (present codification of quoted
Aflirmstlvs Action Employer language). The cowissloners court had authority to mske reasonable
rules and regulations for %ts meetings and could prohibit the
broadcast or tape-recording of Its meetings. Attorney General Opinion
n-180 (1968).
A Texas court has considered whether a school trustee had a
statutory right to tape-record executive session proceedings of the
board of trustees. In Zsmora v. Edgewood Independent School District,
p. 1602
Honorable Tim R. Taylor - Paglt 2 (JM-351)
592 S.W.Zd 649 (Tax. Civ. Al~p. - Beaumont 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
the court determined that thtc trustee had no right to tape-record
those proceedings over the objection of a majority of board.members.
The court stated as follows: i.
We are of the opinion that significance should
be attached to the fact. that the Legislature
specifically authorized the use of tape recorders
at public meetings while it made uo similar
provisions for use-at executive sessions of the
same public body. Lacking any definitive or
helpful interpretations of the statute, we Invoke
one of the maxims of statutory construction.
(Footnote deleted).
592 S.W.Zd at 649. The cot,xt stated the rule expressio unlus est
exclusio alterius: The exprEssion of a specific llxitatiou excludes
all others. It continued as follows:
Having speclfic~illy approved the use of the
recording devices :Ln the public meetings, the
Legislature necessnrily denied the use of such
devices in executive sessions.
-Id. at 650.
Attorney General Opinion M-180 and Zamora v. Edgewood Independent
School District support the proposition that the Open Meetings Act
includes uo implied right to tape-record meetings. Any such right
must be based on express legislative authorization. These authorities
also support the conclusior. that the Open Meetings Act does not
lmpliedly permit a member of the public to videotape public meetings.
The 1973 addition of scmtion 2(i) to the act expressly granted
members of the public the right to record meetings by a means of sonic
reproduction. The dictionary, defines “sonic” as follows: “utilizing,
produced by, or relating t13 sound waves.” Webster’s Third Nev
International Dictionary 2 173361). (Emphasis added). This
provision does not give mevimra of the public a right to videotape
meetings. In the absence of :%specific provision permitting a member
of the public to record its meetings by videotape, the comuissloners
court may prevent the videotqing of its meetings held pursuant to the
Open Meetings Act. See gt,nerally Attorney Generals Opinion R-188
(1973). The commissioners ctxrtrtmay allov its public meetings to be
videotaped, but the Open Hee,c:Lngs Act does not entitle members of the
public to videotape the meetj.n.gs over the objections of the court.
p. 1603
Honorable Tim R. Taylor - Page! 3 (JM-351)
jiU M M AR Y
Article 6252-17, V.T.C.S.. the Texas Open
Meetings Act, does not require the commissioners
court of Titus County to allow videotaping of its
meetings.
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General
DAVID R. RICBARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney &neral
ROBERTGRAY
Special Assistant Attorney Gewral
RICR GILPIN
Chairman. Opinion Committee
Prepared by Susan Garrison
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gllpin, Chairman
Jon Bible
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Tony Guillory
Jim Moellinger
Jennifer Riggs
Nancy Sutton
Sarah Woelk
Bruce Youngblood
p. 1604