Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

The Honorable. C. A. Dickerson Opinion No. H- lgg
County Attorney
Fort Bend County Re: Obligation of Commissioners
Richmond, Texas 77469 Court to repeatedly include
item on agenda at the request
of citizens who wish to
speak to it.
Dear Mr. Dickerson:
You have requested an opinion concerning the.obligation of.a
commissioners court to continue to place the Fort Bend.County Library
System on the agenda for an indefinite period of time and continue to
listen to opinions and advise regarding this subject. Wehave been advised
by you of the following facts:
“The Commissioner’s Court of Fort Bends County,
Texas, has for a period exceeding seven consecutive weeks
allowed any citizen wishing to express his or her opinion
and advice in regard to the Fort Bend County Library system
to express such feeling to the Court by getting on the Agenda
and such person would then be recognized during the meeting
of the Commissioner’s Court and his or her opinion heard. ‘I
Article 6252-17, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes, the Open Meetings
Act, requires in its Section l(a) that “every regular, special, or called
meeting or session of every governmental body shall be open to the public. ”
A Commissioners Court is within the definition of “governmental body” and
the Act is’ applicable. Article 6252-17, $ l(b).
p. 877
The Honorable C. A. Dickerson, page 2 (H-188)
The Act requires that notice of a meeting of a Commissioners
Court be posted in the county courthouse giving the date, the place, and
the subject of the meet.ing, Article 6252-17, $ 3A.
Attorney General Opinion M-220 (1968) dealt with the meaning of
“open to the public”. It concluded that the Legislature intended an open
meeting to be one that the public was permitted to attend. “Open to the
public ‘I does not mean that the public may choose the items to be discussed
or that they may discuss subjects on the agenda. It merely means that the
public may attend the meetings. The purpose of the statute is to a.ssur.e
that the public has the opportutnity to be informed concerning the transactions
of public business. Toyah Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Pecos-Barstow Ind. Sch. Dist.,
466 S. W. 2d 377 (Tex. Civ. App., San Antonio, 1971, no writ). See
Attorney General Opinion H-3 (1973).
So long as the requirements of Article 6252-17, V. T. C. S. , are met
and the right of citizens to apply to their .government for redress of
grievance by “petition, address or remonstrance” is not abridged (Article 1,
§ 27, Constitution of Texas), it is our opinion that a Commissioners Court
need not provide a public forum for every citizen wishing to express an
opinion on a matter. However, in deciding what matters to consider, or
which speakers to hear, it must not unreasonably discr~iminate. Reasonable
restraints on the number, length, and frequency of presentations are
permissible.
SUMMARY
A commissioners court may limit the number of
persons it will hear on a particular subject and the frequency
with which they may appear, so long as its regulation does
not abridge constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of
speech and to petition. nor unfairly discriminate among views
seeking expression.
u Attorney General of Texas
p* 878
The Honorable C. A. Dickerson, page 3 (H-188)
APPR V :
&LJ?$?
DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman
Opinion Committee
p. a79