Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1974 )

October 31, 1974
The Honorable Neil Caldwell Opinion No. H- 438
Chairman, Appropriationa Committee
House of Repreesntativea Re: Whether the Athletic
Austin, Texas 78701 Council of the Univereity
of Twp at Austin in
required to meet in public
Dear Representative Caldwell: by the Opgq ,Meetlnga Act
You ark our opinion ae to whether meeting0 of the Athletic Council of
the Univerlrity of Texas at Austin are eubject to the provlsioea of the Open
Meetings Act, Art. 6252-17, V. T. C. S.
.
The governmknt of the state university rystem is vested in the Board of
Regents. Sections 65.11 et seq., Texas Education Code. In dtochargiag
ita dutieo, the Board of Regent8 hae created the Athletic C&oci~ to adnrinie-
‘tear alI mattere pertaining to intercollegiate athletics at the Univorrity of
Texas at Au&in, The functions and compoeition of the Athletic Ceuacil are
’ described in the current General Information Bulletin of the Univefdty (at
p. 138, Appendix A):
The Intercollegiate Athletic Council administerr,
eubject to all the Univereity regulations relating thereto
and the jurisdtction of the General Faculty, the Prertdent,
and the Board of Regenta, a 11 athletic games, meetr. exht-
btttono, or contertr with other colleges or outeide organi-
zationr;bad: io, all matters connected tith the conduct of
intercollegiate athletics and extramural rrports except the
enforcement of eligibility rulee, which i6 within the control
of the Faculty Committee on Intercollegiate Athletic*.
The Intercollegiate Athletic Council is composed if
(a) one member of the Student@’ Aaoociation appointed\
annually and properly certified, as officially provided i,
by’the Studentr’ Aoaociation; (b) one member of the Ex-‘\,,
Studenta’ Aesociation ap,pointed annually and properly ;,
p. 2024
The Honorable Neil Caldwell, page 2 (H-438)
certified, as officially provided by the Rx-Students
Association; (c) the five members of the General
Faculty Standing Committee on Intercollegiate
Athletics appointed annually by the President of the
University with the approval of the Board of
Regents; and (d) two members at large appointed
by the Board of,Regents and properly certified.
The general duty of the Intercollegiate Athletic
Council is to conduct intercollegiate and extramural
sports in an honorable, beneficial, and economical
manner, subordinating theee activities to the intel-
lectual activities of the University and co-ordinating
them helpfully’with intramural sports, requtred ‘: ’
physical instruction, ‘.physical education, and the ’
Health Center.
The Legislature enacted the Open Meetings Act in order toaooure the
public an opportunity to be informed concerning the transaetibn of public
business. Attorney General Opinion H-238 (1974). Its pro\iirioar are
mandatory and are to be construed liberally,in order to effkict itempurpore.
Toyah Independent School Dist. v. Pecos-Barstow Independent School
Diet., 466 S. W. 2d 377~ (Tex. Civ.App. --San Antonio 1971, no writ). Stiject
to certain specified exceptions, the Act requires every regular, special,
or called meeting or session of every governmental body to be open to the
public.
“Governmental body” ia defined in Sec. l(c) of the Act au followe:
‘Governmental body’ meana any board, commission,
department, committee, or agency within the exeeu-
tive or legislative department of the state, which is
under the direction of one or mdre elected or appointed
members; and every Commissionero Court and city ’ “’
council in the state, and every deliberative body hating
rule-making or quasi-judicial power and classified as a
department, agency, or political subdivision of a county
i
p. 2025
-~
,-. -
. =
The Honorable Neil Caldwell, page 3 (H-438) E.~‘,~, ,::
or city; and the board of trustees of every school
district, and every county board of echo01 trusteea
and county board of education: and the governing
board of every special district heretofore or here-
after cr.eated by law.
The Athletic Council ir an entity “within the executive . . . department of
.tbe. itate which is under the direction of one or more elected or apptied
memberr; ” e, Attorney General Opinion M-136 (1967). AE suoh tt
meets the statutory definition of “governmental body.” L . . ;. /
“Meeting” is defined in section l(a) of the Act aa followe:
‘Meetingl.meane any deliberation behveen a
quorum of members of a governmental body at .. , I
which any public bueineee or public policy over ,I
which the governmental body ha? eqerviaion or. .
control ie discussed or considered, or at which
any formal q#ion.ie taken.
The University contends, inter alia, that the definition of meeting #ervee
to exclude the Athletic Council from the coverage of the Open Meetings Act
since, according to the Univerrrity, the Council has no authority to take
formal action with regard to public business or public pqlicy.
The true extent of the Athletic Council’rr authority over intercollegiate
athletica in a subject of diapute. Under Board of Regent regulationa all
actions of the Council are merely recommendations which muet be. reviewed
and approved by the University administration or the Board before becoming
effective. In briefs, the University has contended that none of the Bo+rd’s
authority haa been delegated to the Council and that the Couacil doer not in
fact conduct any Univerlrity bueinee.6.
On the other hand evidence has been presented to us indicating that the
Council doeo in fact exercirre considerable independent authority t%er inter-
collegiate athletics. According to Athletic Council minntar, its basine&a
i8 cla#rified aa (1) that not requiring administrative approval; (2) that I%-
quiring ratification by the administration; and (3) that requiring approval
by the Board. Furthermore, it has been alleged that actions taken by the
Council are in fact final decisione because in almost every instance they
are approved by the adminietration or the Board pro forma, without dir-
cuarion.
p. 2026
The Honorable Neil Caldwell, page 4 (H-438)
-7
We do not believe it is necessary for purpoeea of your inquiry to
determine how far the Athletic Council’s authoritative control extends
in fact. It is sufficient under the definition of “meeting” that the deli-
berations involve public business over which the governmental body
has supervision. Control alone ie sufficient to cause the operation of
the Act, but it is not required. We feel obliged to conclude that the
Council is a “governmental body,” and oince the meeting6 are normally
for the purpose of considering public bustnear over which it haa super-
vision, such meetings are subject to the requirements of the Open
Meeting0 Act. ” ..: .,~,
“‘~SJJMMAR’Y
The Athletic Council of the Univereity of Texae
at Austin ie a governwental body which euperviees
public buainese and as such rnua~t comply withthe ~1 “’
requirementa of theQpenMeetingaAct.
Very truly yours,
.; .,.,
.~ .I,. .:. .. . .
Attorney General of T&umaa’ “.T.~L
DAVID hf. KENDALL, Chairman
Opinion Committee
r
p. 2027