Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1975 )

August 8. 1975
The Honorable Bevington Reed Opinion No. H- 662
Commissioner
Coordinating Board Re: Extent of notice required by the
Texas College and University System Open Meetings Act.
P. 0. Box 12788, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Dear Dr. Reed:
You have asked how detailed a notice of a public meeting is required to
be under section 3A of the Texas Open Meetings Act, article 6252-17, V. T. C. S.
Section 3A provides in part:
(a) Written notice of the date, hour, place, and
subject of each meeting held by a governmental body
shall be given before the meeting as prescribed by
this section.
’ (h) ‘Notice of a meeting must be posted in a place
readily accessible to the general public at all times
for at least 72 hours preceding the scheduled time of
the meeting, except that not.ice of a meeting of a state
board, commission, department, or officer having
statewide jurisdiction, other than the Industrial Acci-
dent Board or the governing board of an institution of
higher education, must be posted by the Secretary of
State for at least seven days preceding the day of the
meeting. In case of emergency or urgent public neces-
sity, which shall be expressed in the notice, it shall
be sufficient if the notice is posted two hours before
the meeting is convened. Provided further, that where
a meeting has been called with noitce thereof posted in
accordance with this subsection, additional subjects
may be added to the agenda for such meeting by posting
a supplemental notice, in which the emergency or urgent
public necessity requiring consideration of such additional
subjects is expressed. In the event of an emergency
meeting, or in the event any subject is added to the agenda
in a supplemental notice posted for a meeting other than an
emergency meeting, it shall be sufficient if the notice or
supplemental notice is posted two hours before the meeting
p. 2899
The Honorable Bevington Reed - Page 2 (H-662)
is convened, and the presiding officer or the member
calling such emergency meeting or posting supplemental
notice to the agenda for any other meeting shall, if re-
quest therefor containing all pertinent information has
previously been filed at the headquarters of the govern-
mental body, give notice by telephone or telegraph to
any news media requesting such notice and consenting
to pay any and all expenses incurred by the governmental
body in providing such special notice. The notice pro-
visions for legislative committee meetings shall be as
provided by the rules of the house and senate.
Subsection (h) was amended by the 64th Legislature and is reproduced above in the
new version which will become effective on September 1, 1975.
The nature of notice required to be posted was first addressed in Attorney
General Opinion M-494 (1969) which indicated:
The notice should specifically set out any special or
unusual matters to be considered or any matter in
which the public has a particular interest, as well
as general statements concerning routine matters.
Of course, an itemized agenda of all matters to be
considered would be in strict compliance with the
requirements of the statutes.
In Attorney General Opinion H-419 (1974) we indicated that notice that
a governmental body would meet to ratify action taken at an earlier meeting of a
specified date did not apprise the public of what was to be discussed.
More recently,the validity of notice for a public meeting was considered
by the Texas Supreme Court in Lower Colorado River Authority v. City of San
Marcos, 523 S. W. 2d 641 (Tex. Sup. 1975). That case involved the notice provided
foremeeting of the Lower Colorado River Authority on October 19, 1972. The
notice was timely posted in the proper place and indicated the subjects to be con-
sidered:
Subjects to be considered at such meeting will include
minutes of the last prior meeting; expense statements;
transfers of funds; purchase orders, personnel and wage
changes; investment agreements; grants or acceptances of
easements, rights-of-way, land, or other property rights;
contracts and related documents involving Authority busi-
ness; and such other matters concerning the Authority’s
operations as may be presented for consideration. (Tr. at 75).
At that meeting the LCRA increased retail electrical rates charged in the
City of San Marcos.
p. 2900
The Honorable Bevington Reed - Page 3 (H-662)
The Supreme Court indicated:
The first effort to increase rates was made at a
meeting of the Board of Directors on October 19,
1972. The notice of that meeting made no reference
to rates. . . .
. . . .
The notice of the 1972 meeting did not comply with
the open meeting law, Article 6252-17, $ 3A, in so far
as the subject of rates is concerned, and the trial court
properly held invalid the action of the Board at that
meeting purporting to increase rates. We approve the
holding in Toyah Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Pecos-Barstow Ind.
Sch. Dist., Tex Civ. App., 466 S. W. 2d 377 (no writ),
that a violation of the open meeting law subjects the
action taken to judicial invalidation. Lower Colorado
River Authority, supra at 646.
Given the holding of the Texas Supreme Court and the two earlier
opinions of this Office., we believe the minimum requirement of the law is that
notice of a meeting of a governmental body be sufficiently specific to apprise
the public in general terms of each subject to be discussed. Each item of dis-
cussion should be listed and any additions to the subjects to be considered arising
after the original notice has been posted should be included in a supplemental notice
which complies with the requirements of section 3A(h) of the Act. Notice of a
meeting to discuss “new business, ” “old business, ” “regular business, ” “other
business which may come before the board, ” “routine business” and other simi-
lar generalities which do not specify a subject does not comply with the Act. Action
taken by a governmental body when adequate notice was not given subjects the
action to judicial invalidation. Lower Colorado River Authority, supra; To ah
Independent School District v. Pecos-Barstow Independent School District, 4Ib6 4 S.W.
2d 377 (Tex. Civ. App. --San Antonio 1971, no writ).
SUMMARY
Notice of a meeting of a governmental
body must be sufficiently specific to apprise
the public of the subjects which will be dis-
cussed. General phrases such as “new busi-
ness, ” “old business, ” “regular business, ”
“routine business” and “other business which
may come before the board” will not comply
with the Act. Action at a meeting which is
not held in compliance with the Open Meet-
ings Act is subject to judicial invalidation.
JOHN L. HILL
p. 290 Attorney General of Texas
The Honorable Bevington Reed - Page 4 (H-662)
APPROVED:
7Lli5Ldb
Opinion Committee
jad:
p. 2902