ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

GREG ABBOTT 

December lo,2004 

The Honorable Jo& R. Rodriguez 

El Paso County Attorney 

County Courthouse 

500 East San Antonio, Room 503 

El Paso, Texas 79901 

Opinion No. GA-0280 

Re: Whether the Border Health Institute is a state 

agency for various purposes (RQ-0229-GA) 

Dear Mr. Rodriguez: 

You ask whether the Border Health Institute created under Texas Education Code chapter 

15 1 “generally qualities as a state agency, and whether it: (1) is entitled to sovereign immunity; (2) 

must comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act; (3) must complywith the Texas Public Information 

Act; (4) must follow state procurement and contracting rules; (5) must follow civil service rules; and 

(6) must obtain non-profit corporation status to be able to solicit funding.“’ 

I. Background 

The Seventy-sixth Legislature established the Border Health Institute (the “BHI”) in 1999 

as a “collaboration or consortium of independent public and private entities.” TEX. EDUC. CODE 

/INN. @ 15 1.001-.002(a) (Vemon2002). Section 151.002 provides for the establishment ofthe BHI 

and describes its purpose: 

(a) The Border Health Institute is established in the city of El 

Paso. 

(b) The institute shall operate in a manner that facilitates and 

assists the activities of international, national, regional, or local healthrelated institutions working in the Texas-Mexico border region to: 

(1) create and fund centers or component 

units within the institute to facilitate research in fields 

of study affecting public health in the border region, 

including researchrelated to diabetes, Hispanic health 

‘Letter fromHonorable Jest R. Rodriguez, El Paso County Attorney, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney 

General (May 17,2004) (on tile with the Opinion Committee, also avdable af http://www.oag.state.tx.us) [hereinafter 

pequest Letter]. 
The Honorable Jose R. Rodriguez - Page 2 (GA-0280) 

issues, infectious diseases, emerging infections, 

environmental health issues, and children’s health 

issues; 

(2) deliver health care or provide health 

education to persons living in the border region; and 

(3) conduct and facilitate research in fields of 

study affecting public health in the border region, 

includingresearchrelated to diabetes, Hispanic health 

issues, infectious diseases, emerging infections, 

environmental health issues, and children’s health 

issues. 

Id. 5 15 1.002(a)-(b). The bill analysis corroborates that the purpose of the BHI “is to deliver health 

care or provide health education to persons living in the border region and conduct research in fields 

of study affecting public health, including research related to infectious diseases, diabetes, 

environmental health issues, and children’s health issues.” HOUSE COMM. ON HIGHER EDUC., BILL 

AI\IALYSlS, Tex. H.B. 2025,76th Leg., R.S. (1999). 

The initial governing board of the BHI was composed of the chief executive officer or 

president, or their designees, of the following nine institutions: 

(1) The University of Texas at El Paso; 

(2) Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso; 

(3) El Paso Community College District; 

(4) R. E. Thomason General Hospital; 

(5) El Paso City/County Health District; 

(6) The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 

School of Public Health: 

(7) El Paso County Medical Society; 

(8) Paso de1 Norte Health Foundation; and 

(9) The Texas Department of Health. 

TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. $9 151.003(a), .004(a) (Vernon 2002). The governing board is authorized 

to adopt procedures for “changing, adding, or removing entities as members of the institute and 

creating development or advisory boards for the institute.” Id. 5 151.003(b). At present, the 

following institutions hold voting positions on the BHI board 
The Honorable Jose R. Rodriguez - Page 3 (GA-0280) 

. El Paso City-County Health and Environmental District 

. El Paso Community College 

. El Paso County Medical Society 

. Texas Department of Health 

. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso 

. Thomason Hospital 

. University of Texas at El Paso 

. University of Texas, Houston, School of Public Health, 

El Paso Campus 

See TEX. DEP’T OF HEALTH, BORDER HEALTH INSTITUTE, available af http://www.rlO.tdh.state 

.tx.uslobhbhi/bhi.htm (last visited Oct. 6,2004). TheBHI governing board is required to adopt rules 

governing operations and deliberations of the board and the institute, and the governing board may 

hire an executive director and staff necessary to operate the institute. See TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. 

3 15 1.004(b)-(c) (Vernon 2002). The governing board is required to meet at least once a year “to 

review the progress of the institute and to determine the institute’s future actions and operational 

plans.” Id. 5 15 1.004(d). 

Section 15 1.005 of the Education Code describes the funding for the BHI and provides: 

(a) In addition to any amount appropriated by the legislature, 

the institute may apply for and accept funds from the federal 

government or any other public or private entity. The institute or any 

member ofthe institute may also solicit and accept pledges, gifts, and 

endowments from private sources on the institute’s behalf. A pledge, 

gift, or endowment solicited under this section must be consistent 

with the purposes of the institute. 

(b) The governing board of the institute shall manage and 

approve disbursements of appropriations, funds, pledges, gifts, and 

endowments that are the property of the institute. 

(c) The governing board of the institute shall manage any 

capital improvements constructed, owned, or leased by the institute 

and any real property acquired by the institute. 

Id. 5 151.005(a)-(c). Under section 151.006, physical facilities to be used in research projects, 

provision of health care, and education programs may be “provided [to the BHI] by a public or 

private entity or by a cooperative, consortium, or joint venture consisting of public or private 
The Honorable Jose R. Rodriguez - Page 4 (GA-0280) 

entities.” Id. 5 151.006. Additionally, a physical facility “may be constructed, maintained, or 

operated with funds the institute receives under Section 15 1.005 and any funds appropriated for that 

purpose.” Id. 

A bill analysis prepared by the House Research Organization in 1999 notes that “[i]n 

December 1998, the University of Texas System and Texas Tech University signed a collaborative 

agreement dedicated to creating a future health campus in El Paso. Establishing the Border Health 

Institute would be the next logical step.” HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, BILL ANALYSIS, Tex. 

H.B. 2025,76th Leg., R.S. (1999). The Texas Department ofHealth’s website described the status 

of the BHI in early 2003. See TEX. DEP’T OF HEALTH, BORDER HEALTH INSTITUTE, available at 

http://www.rl O.tdh.state.tx.us/obhibhiibhi.htm (last visited Sept. 4,2004). Although the legislature 

in 2003 did not fund the remaining two-year program of the Texas Tech Health Sciences Center, it 

did nevertheless provide funding for the BHI as part of its appropriation to the University of Texas 

at El Paso. A line item appropriation in the 2003 General Appropriations Act for the University of 

Texas at El Paso listed $284,375 for the “Border Community Health Education Institute” for both 

fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005. See General Appropriations Act, Act of June 1,2003,78th 

Leg., R.S., ch. 1330, art. 111.78, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 5023, 5339. 

The BHI is required to provide an “annual audited financial statement and a status report of 

each project undertaken” to each member of the governing board and to each member of the 

legislature “whose district includes any portion of a county where the [BHI] is established or 

operating.” TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 15 1.008 (Vernon 2002). Moreover, the BHI governing board, 

“in consultation with the institute’s members,” is required to develop a ten-year strategic plan “to 

guide and evaluate the institute’s progress toward achieving the purposes of the institute under 

Section 15 1.002.” Id. § 15 1 .Ol O(a). Each even-numbered year, not later than December 15, the BHI 

governing board must submit to the legislature and to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating 

Board “a report concerning the strategic plan including any recommendation for legislative 

action.” Id. 5 15 1 .Ol O(d). Those institutions that are subject to the oversight and rules of the Texas 

Higher Education Coordinating Board under chapter 61 of the Education Code “remain subject to 

that supervision and those rules as those institutions participate in the institute and its activities.” 

Id. 8 15 1.009. The member institutions subject to Coordinating Board oversight are the University 

of Texas at El Paso, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso, the University of 

Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health, and the El Paso Community 

College District. See id. 55 61.003, .051. 

II. Status of the BHI: State Agencv or Political Subdivision? 

The BHI is one of a number of entities that combine both state and local characteristics. See, 

e.g., Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. JM-424 (1986) at 2 (community centers); Tex. Att’y Gen. LO-95-024, 

at 4 (Coastal Coordination Council). Its nine original statutorily-proscribed member institutions 

included seven public agencies and two private entities. Its present composition includes six public 

and two private members. The BHI is created by statute and its duties prescribed thereby. It may 

receive appropriated as well as federal funds. It is required to submit reports to the legislature 

and to the Higher Education Coordinating Board in even-numbered years. It appears to be a 

governmental body for all purposes. 
The Honorable Jo& R. Rodriguez - Page 5 (GA-0280) 

The more difficult question is whether the BHI is a state or local governmental entity. In 

Guaranty Petroleum Corporation v. Armstrong, 609 S.W.2d 529 (Tex. 1980), the Supreme Court 

of Texas considered whether a navigation district constituted a “political subdivision” or a “board 

or agency of the state.” The court declared: 

A political subdivision differs from a department[,] board or 

agency of the State. A political subdivision has jurisdiction over a 

portion of the State; a department, board or agency of the State 

exercises its jurisdiction throughout the State. Members of the 

governing body of apolitical subdivision are elected in local elections 

or are appointed by locally elected officials; those who govern 

departments, boards or agencies of the State are elected in statewide 

elections or are appointed by State officials. Political subdivisions 

have the power to assess and collect taxes; departments, boards and 

agencies do not have that power. Our examination of a number of 

statutes shows that the legislature has consistently recognized these 

distinctions between departments, boards or agencies on the one hand 

and political subdivisions on the other. 

Id. at 53 1. The court ultimately concluded that the Brownsville Navigation District was a “political 

subdivision” rather than a “department, board or agency of the State.” Id. at 530. 

In Lohec v. Galveston County Commissioner’s Court, 841 S.W.2d 361 (Tex. 1992), the 

Supreme Court of Texas, in considering the status of the Galveston County Beach Park Board, cited 

the Guaranty Petroleum case and emphasized that “[clounty beach park boards lack state-wide 

jurisdiction, a trait required of entities recognized as departments, boards, or agencies of the state.” 

Id. at 364. Moreover, “[tlhere is no indication that county beach park boards are encompassed by 

[the state purchasing statute’s] definition of a ‘state agency’ as one ‘in the executive branch of state 

government.“’ Id. Thus, the court concluded that the beach park board was an entity of county 

government. See id. at 365-66. As the dissenting opinion points out, however, the majority seems 

to have relied most heavily for its conclusion on the observation that, if county beach park boards 

are not deemed to be an organ of county government, they would be “independent and autonomous 

entities which are exempt from any meaninghI oversight.” Id. at 366. 

Finally, in a very recent case, the Supreme Court reiterated the test for determining whether 

an entity is a “state agency.” In Texas Department of Transportation Y. City of Sunset Valley, No. 

03-0041,200$ WL 2125670, at *4 (Tex. Sept. 24,2004) (not yet reported), the Court, in considering 

an argument that a municipality was a “state agency,” stated as follows: 

[W]e have long recognized a distinction between agencies of the 

State, which generally exercise statewide jurisdiction, and political 

subdivisions like municipalities, which have limited geographic 

jurisdiction. SeeMonsanto Co. Y. Cornerstonesbfun. Util. Dist., 865 

S.W.2d 937, 939-40 (Tex. 1993) (“[A] political subdivision differs 

from a[n] . . agency of the State. A political subdivision has 

jurisdiction over a portion of the State; a[n] agency of the State 
The Honorable Jose R. Rodriguez - Page 6 (GA-0280) 

exercises its jurisdiction throughout the State. [T]he legislature 

has consistently recognized these distinctions between agencies 

on the one hand and political subdivisions on the other.“). 

The difficulty in applying the Guaranty Petroleum, Lohec, and Sunset Valley standards 

becomes apparent when considering the status of the BHI. The BHI has much more tenuous ties 

with local government than does a navigation district or a county beach park board. A majority of 

its members represent institutions ofhigher education located in places as geographically diverse as 

El Paso, Lubbock, and Houston. The purpose of the BHI is, inter alia, to deliver health care, provide 

health education, and to assist the activities of various health-related institutions “working in the 

Texas-Mexico border region,” a region that stretches from El Paso to Brownsville. Finally, the BHI 

is required to submit biemial reports to the legislature and to the Higher Education Coordinating 

Board. On the other hand, under the jurisdictional test of Guaranty Petroleum and Lohec, the BHI 

clearly fails to qualify as a state agency within the executive branch of state government. Its 

jurisdiction is limited to “aportion ofthe state” rather than to the state as a whole. Furthermore, its 

membership bears the indicia of neither state agency nor political subdivision: members are not 

elected or appointed either by local officials or state officials. BHI membership was initially fixed 

by its enabling legislation. It is at present determined by the board members themselves. We must 

conclude that, in its present composition, the BHI is neither political subdivision nor state agency. 

Rather, it occupies that nebulous territory between those two extremes, partaking of the qualities of 

both, but never fully either. 

III. Ouestions and Analvsis 

Although we cannot determine the precise status of the BHI for all purposes, we can discern 

the applicability of particular statutes to that entity. 

A. Sovereign Immunity 

You first ask whether the BHI is entitled to sovereign immunity. As we have 

indicated, the BHI is neither political subdivision or state agency. While the entitlement to sovereign 

immunity ofboth state and local governmental entities is well established in Texas law, no judicial 

decision has considered its applicability to hybrid entities such as the BHI. We will, consequently, 

briefly review the law regarding sovereign immunity as applied to both state and local entities. We 

caution, however, that we cannot determine as a matter of law whether the BHI is entitled to any 

kind of sovereign immunity. The legislature has simply failed to provide any guidance in this matter. 

The following discussion is therefore predicated on the assumption that the general principle of 

sovereign immunity is applicable to the BHI. 

Initially, we note that the Supreme Court of Texas has distinguished between immunity from 

suit and immunity from liability. See Fed. Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401,405 (Tex. 1997). 

“Zmmunityfrom suit bars a suit against the State unless the State expressly gives its consent to the 

suit,” while “[i]mmunityfrom liability protects the State from judgments even ifthe Legislature has 

expressly given consent to the suit.” Id. 
The Honorable Jose R. Rodriguez - Page 7 (GA-0280) 

With regard to tort liability, the legislature has partially waived sovereign immunity for both 

the state and its political subdivisions. The Texas Tort Claims Act, chapter 101 of the Civil Practice 

and Remedies Code, broadly defines “governmental unit” to include “any other institution, agency, 

or organ of government the status and authorityofwhich are derived from the Constitution ofTexas 

or fkom laws passed by the legislature under the constitution.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. &REM. CODE ANN. 

5 101,001(3)(D) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). TheBHI, as acreature ofstatute, is thus a“govemmenta1 

unit” for purposes of the Tort Claims Act. 

Section 10 1.025 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides: 

(a) Sovereign immunity to suit is waived and abolished to the extent 

of liability created by this chapter. 

(b) A person having a claim under this chapter may sue a 

governmental unit for damages allowed by this chapter. 

Id. 9 101.025 (Vernon 1997). Liability ofthe state government under the Tort Claims Act “is limited 

to money damages in a maximum amount of $250,000 for each person and $500,000 for each single 

occurrence for bodily injury or death and $100,000 for each single occurrence for injury to or 

destruction of property.” Id. 5 101.023(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). A unit of local government’s 

liability “is limited to money damages in a maximum amount of $100,000 for each person and 

$300,000 for each single occurrence for bodily injury or death and $100,000 for each single 

occurrence for injury to or destruction ofproperty.” Id. 5 101.023(b). Because we have determined 

that the BHI is neither a state governmental agency nor a local governmental entity, but rather a 

hybrid ofthe two, we cannot say with assurance which tort liability limitation would apply. We may 

conclude, however, that the BHI is entitled to sovereign immunity in tort cases, except to the extent 

such immunity is waived by statute. 

With regard to contractual liability, the Texas Supreme Court said in Federal Sign that when 

it contracts with private citizens, the State “waives only immunity from liability.” Fed. Sign, 95 1 

S.W.2d at 408. On the other hand, “a private citizen must have legislative consent to sue the State 

on a breach of contract claim. The act ofcontracting does not waive the State’s immunityfrom suit.” 

Id. As to local governmental entities, “[t]he general authority of counties and other local 

governments to sue and be sued generally acts as a statutory consent to suit although not a waiver 

of sovereign immunity.” 35 DAVID BROOKS, COUNTY AND SPECIAL DISTRICT LAW 5 2.2 n.5 (2d 

ed. 2002) (statutes and cases cited therein). 

The BHI is not, as we have indicated, either a state or local governmental entity. Federal 

Sign could be read, however, to imply that no governmental entity is immune from liability on a 

valid contract. We may also infer from that case that the BHI retains immunity from suit unless and 

until permission to sue is granted by the legislature. As previously noted, most local governmental 

entities have the statutory authority to sue and be sued. No such authority is granted to the BHI in 

its enabling legislation. In our view, therefore, the legislature has not waived the BHI’s immunity 

from suit for breach of contract. Accordingly, a party aggrieved by its contract with the BHI must 

seek legislative permission to sue that entity. 
The Honorable Jose R. Rodriguez - Page 8 (GA-0280) 

B. The Open Meetings Act 

You next ask whether the BHI is subject to the Texas Open Meetings Act (the 

“OMA”). See Request Letter, supru note 1, at 1, 5-7; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. $5 551.001-,146 

(Vernon 1994 & Supp. 2004-05) (Open Meetings Act). The OMA provides that “[elvery regular, 

special, or called meeting of a governmental body shall be open to the public, except as provided by 

this chapter.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 5 55 1.002 (Vernon 1994). “Governmental body” is defined 

for purposes of the OMA as follows: 

(A) aboard, commission, department, committee, or agency 

within the executive or legislative branch of state government that is 

directed by one or more elected or appointed officials; 

(B) a county commissioners court in the state; 

(C) a municipal governing body in the state; 

(D) a deliberative body that has rulemaking or quasi-judicial 

power and that is classified as a department, agency, or political 

subdivision of a county or municipality; 

(E) a school district board of trustees; 

03 a county board of school trustees; 

(G) a county board of education; 

(H) the governing board of a special district created by law; 

(I) a local workforce development board created under Section 2308.253; 

(J) anonprotitcorporationthatiseligible toreceivefundsunderthefederal 

community services block grant program and that is authorized by this state to serve 

a geographic area of the state; and 

(K) a nonprofit corporation organized under Chapter 67, 

Water Code, that provides water supply or wastewater service, or 

both, and is exempt from ad valorem taxation under Section 11.30, 

Tax Code. 

Id. 5 551.001(3) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). We have already determined that the BHI is not an 

“agency within the executive or legislative branch of state government,” and that it does not qualify 

as any kind of local governmental body. In addition, it is not a nonprofit corporation under 

subdivisions (J) and (K) of section 551.001(3). These conclusions do not mean, however, that the 

BHI is exempt from the Open Meetings Act. 

III Sierra Club v. Austin Transportation Study Policy Advisory Committee, 746 S. W.2d 298 

(Tex. App.-Austin 1988, writ denied), the court of appeals considered the applicability ofthe OMA 
The Honorable Jose R. Rodriguez - Page 9 (GA-0280) 

to the AustinTransportation StudyPolicy Advisory Committee (“ATSPAC”), “aseventeen-member 

body composed of state, county, regional, and municipal public officials.” Id. at 300. Although not 

legislatively created, ATSPAC had been designated a “Metropolitan Planning Organization” under 

federal law, and was an “official body designated by the governor.” Id. at 300-01. The ATSPAC 

played “a vital role in deciding which highway projects are planned, built and funded in the Austin 

urban area.” Id. The court concluded that although the ATSPAC was not a “special district” in the 

usual sense, it functioned as such for purposes of the OMA. Id. at 301. 

Like the ATSPAC, the BHI is primarily composed of representatives of public entities. In 

addition, its enabling statute indicates that it performs governmental functions, particularly those of 

providing health care and health education to persons living in the border region. The BHI, unlike 

ATSPAC, was created by statute. Both receive appropriated and federal funds, even if indirectly. 

As the court noted in Sierra Club, the language of the OMA “clearly reveals the Legislature’s 

intention to give it broad coverage.” Id. at 300. It “broadly applies to any meeting by a quorum of 

the members of a governmental body which meets to discuss any public business or policy, with 

certain exceptions.” Id. (emphasis added). As a result, we believe that the BHI exhibits the kind of 

qualities sufficient to bring it within the category of a “special district” for purposes of the OMA. 

See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. $ 551,001(3)(H) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05); see also Sierra Club, 746 

S.W.2d at 301. We conclude that chapter 551 ofthe Government Code, the Open Meetings Act, is 

applicable to meetings of the governing board of the BHI. 

C. The Public Information Act 

Your next question is whether the BHI must comply with the Texas Public 

Information Act. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 7-8; TEX. GOV’TCODEANN. $4 551.001-,353 

(Vernon 1994 & Supp. 2004-05) (Public Information Act). Section 552.002 of the Government 

Code defines public information as “information that is collected, assembled, or maintained under 

a law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by a governmental 

body. . or. . for a governmental body and the governmental body owns the information or has a 

right of access to it.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 5 552.002 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Section 552.003 

defines governmental body, in part, as follows: 

(viii) the governing board of a special district; 

. 

(xii) the part, section, or portion of an organization, 

corporation, commission, committee, institution, or agency that 

spends or that is supported by public funds; 

Id. 8 552.003(1)(A)(viii), (xii). W e h ave already concluded that the BHI is a “special district” for 

OMA purposes under the test of Sierra Club. We need not, however, extend the Sierra Club case 

beyond its scope, because the BHI is “an organization. that spends or that is supported by public 

funds.” We conclude that the BHI is a “governmental body” under the terms of chapter 552 of the 

Government Code, and thus subject to the Public Information Act. 
The Honorable Jo& R. Rodriguez - Page 10 (GA-0280) 

D. State Procurement and Contracting Rules 

You also ask whether the BHI “must follow state procurement and contracting rules.” 

Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1, 8. Under the State Purchasing and General Services Act, a state 

agency is defined as: 

(A) a department, commission, board, office, or other agency 

in the executive branch of state government created by the state 

constitution or a state statute: 

(C) a university system or an institution of higher education 

as defined by Section 61.003, Education Code, except a public junior 

college. 

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 2151.002 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Chapter 2155 of the Government 

Codes sets forth the state purchasing rules and procedures that a state agency must follow. See id. 

$5 2155.001.,448 (Vernon 2000 & Supp. 2004-05). Because we have determined that the BHI is 

not a state agency within the executive branch of government nor a university system or institution 

of higher education, we conclude that the BHI is not required to follow state procurement and 

contracting rules. 

E. Civil Service 

You further question whether the BHI must follow civil service rules. See Request 

Letter, sup-a note 1, at 1,s. Civil service systems may be created under chapters 143 and 158 of the 

Local Government Code for municipalities and counties. See TEX. LOC. GOV’TCODE ANN. chs. 143, 

158 (Vernon 1999 & Supp. 2004-05). There is no such system for employees of state agencies or 

educational entities. Because we have concluded that the BHI is neither a state agency nor a local 

governmental entity, we are aware of no statute that would require the BHI to follow civil service 

rules. 

F. Nonprofit Corporation Status 

You finally ask whether the BHI must obtain nonprofit corporation status in order to 

solicit funding. See Request Letter, sup-a note 1, at 1, 8. The BHI is, as we have indicated, a 

creature of statute. Unlike, for example, the Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation, it is not 

deemed a nonprofit corporation by its enabling legislation. See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. MW-295 

(1981). The BHI may, by statute, receive appropriated funds and federal funds, as well as funds from 

any public or private entity. See TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. 3 151.005(a)-(c) (Vernon 2002). Its 

governing board or any member “may. solicit and accept pledges, gifts, and endowments from 

private sources on the institute’s behalf.” Id. § 151.005(a). Because its funding is specifically 

described by its enabling legislation, and its solicitation of f?mds is specifically permitted, the BHI 

need not obtain nonprofit corporation status in order to solicit funding. 
The Honorable Jose R. Rodriguez - Page 11 (GA-0280) 

SUMMARY 

The Border Health Institute is neither a state agency 

within the executive branch of state government nor a local 

political subdivision. The BHI may or may not be entitled to 

sovereign immunity. It must comply with the Open Meetings 

Act and the Public Information Act. It is not required to follow 

state procurement and contracting rules, nor is it subject to civil 

service rules. The BHI need not obtain nonprofit corporation 

status because it has statutory authority to solicit funding from 

public and private sources. 

Yours very truly, 

&- G OTT 

Attorney General of Texas 

BARRY R. MCBEE 

First Assistant Attorney General 

DON R. WILLETT 

Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel 

NANCY S. FULLER 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Rick Gilpin 

Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee