August 8. 1975 

The Honorable Bevington Reed 

Commissioner 

Coordinating Board 

Texas College and University System 

P. 0. Box 12788, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Opinion No. H- 662 

Re: Extent of notice required by the 

Open Meetings Act. 

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 Accident 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 necessity, 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 request therefor containing all pertinent information has 

previously been filed at the headquarters of the governmental 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 provisions 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 considered: 

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 business; 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 discussion 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 similar 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 discussed. General phrases such as “new business, ” “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 Meetings Act is subject to judicial invalidation. 

p. 290 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General of Texas 
The Honorable Bevington Reed - Page 4 (H-662) 

APPROVED: 

7Lli5Ldb 

Opinion Committee 

jad: 

p. 2902