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 ofnotice required bythe Open Meetings Act.

Dear Dr. Reed:

You have asked how detailed anotice ofapublic meeting is required to be under section 3A ofthe Texas Open Meetings Act, article 6252-17, V. T. C.S.

Section 3A provides inpart:

(a) Written notice ofthe 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 ofameeting must be posted in aplace readily accessible to the general public at all times for atleast 72hours preceding the scheduled time of the meeting, except that not.ice ofameeting ofa state board, commission, department, or officer having statewide jurisdiction, other than the Industrial Accident Board or the governing board ofan institution of higher education, must be posted by the Secretary of State for at least seven days preceding the day ofthe meeting. In case of emergency or urgent public necessity, which shall be expressed in the notice, it shall be sufficient ifthe notice is posted two hours before the meeting is convened. Provided further, that where ameeting has been called with noitce thereof posted in accordance with this subsection, additional subjects may be added tothe agenda for such meeting by posting a supplemental notice, inwhich the emergency or urgent public necessity requiring consideration of such additional subjects is expressed. Inthe event ofan emergency meeting, or inthe event any subject is added to the agenda in a supplemental notice posted for ameeting other than an emergency meeting, it shall be sufficient ifthe notice or supplemental notice is posted two hours before the meeting

p. 2899The 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 ofthe governmental body, give notice by telephone or telegraph to any news media requesting such notice and consenting to pay any and all expenses incurred bythe governmental body in providing such special notice. The notice provisions for legislative committee meetings shall be as provided by the rules ofthe house and senate. Subsection (h) was amended by the 64th Legislature and is reproduced above inthe new version which will become effective on September 1, 1975.

The nature ofnotice required tobe posted was first addressed inAttorney 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 aparticular interest, as well as general statements concerning routine matters. Of course, an itemized agenda ofall matters to be considered would be in strict compliance with the requirements ofthe statutes. InAttorney General Opinion H-419 (1974) we indicated that notice that agovernmental body would meet to ratify action taken at an earlier meeting ofa specified date did not apprise the public ofwhat was tobe discussed.

More recently,the validity ofnotice for apublic meeting was considered by the Texas Supreme Court in Lower Colorado River Authority v. City ofSan Marcos, 523S.W. 2d 641 (Tex. Sup. 1975). That case involved the notice provided foremeeting ofthe Lower Colorado River Authority on October 19, 1972. The notice was timely posted inthe proper place and indicated the subjects to be considered: Subjects tobe considered at such meeting will include

minutes ofthe last prior meeting; expense statements; transfers offunds; 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 inthe City ofSan Marcos.
p. 2900The Honorable Bevington Reed - Page 3 (H-662)

The Supreme Court indicated:

The first effort to increase rates was made ata meeting ofthe Board ofDirectors on October 19, 1972. The notice ofthat meeting made no reference to rates.
. . .

. . . . The notice ofthe 1972 meeting did not comply with the open meeting law, Article 6252-17, $ 3A, in sofar as the subject of rates is concerned, and the trial court properly held invalid the action ofthe Board atthat 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 aviolation ofthe open meeting law subjects the action taken tojudicial invalidation. Lower Colorado River Authority, supra at 646. Given the holding ofthe Texas Supreme Court and the two earlier opinions ofthis Office., we believe the minimum requirement ofthe law is that notice ofameeting ofa governmental body be sufficiently specific toapprise the public in general terms of each subject to be discussed. Each item ofdiscussion 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) ofthe Act. Notice ofa 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 tojudicial invalidation. Lower Colorado River Authority, supra; To ah 4Ib6 S.W. Independent School District v. Pecos-Barstow Independent School District, 4 2d 377 (Tex. Civ. App. --San Antonio 1971, nowrit). SUMMARY Notice ofameeting ofa governmental body must be sufficiently specific to apprise the public ofthe 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 ameeting which is not held in compliance with the Open Meetings Act is subject tojudicial invalidation.

p. 290 JOHN L. HILL

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

APPROVED:

7Lli5Ldb

Opinion Committee jad:

p. 2902