DAN MORALES 

ATTcmNEY GENERAL 

@ffice of tip! !Zittotnep Qaeneral 

fitate of atxas 

Homable Tracey Bright 

Ector Cuunty Attorney 

CountyChrbutqRoom201 

Odessa, Texas 79761 

June 1s. 1993 

Opinion No. DM-228 

Be: whether a county wmmissioner msy 

raise an issoe fbr disausion &es the 

Wm!Idssi0nersWurthsst8kW6nalwtion 

on it and related questions (RQ-204) 

Dear Ms. Bright: 

You inquire about the prowdures for raising an issue for disatssion at 8 meeting of 

the commissioners court. YOU state that the cOmmissioners Court of&tor County took 

rfindvoteonaInendmaltstolnordiMnw wnwming sexually oriented businesses at a 

BIwthg 6om which one commissioner wss absent. See genemJ& Local Govt &de oh. 

243 (dcipal and WUDQ urthority to m&ate location of sexually oriented business). 

opponentsof~ 8lndmemwishtohrvethewurt reconsider them. Questions bwe 

8CsW 011 whether this UWter UUy be placed on the qendq or whether the wmmissioners 

lMYdiSWSSitWithOUtllWhgitphCCdOtltkrgcnda. 

You ask: 

(1) Inrsubqwntmsaing,anrCwmriuionar8isemissuefor 

diswssionifthe-onersCourtIlaspreviouslyts,kenfinal 

actionontbematter7 

Thefacttbatthe anwdssionerswurthsstJEQl6ntllwtiononrmendmentstoan 

ordiwcedoesnotprevattithmamendhgtbeordimweintbefbtureoren&ngin 

discussion that may lead to an amahatt. Se August A. Busch & Co. v. csrfioki, 135 

S.W. 244 (Tat. Cii. App. 1911, wtit refd) (commissioners court has power to rescind an 

ordcrmadeinitr~~~,inrohruvertedrightsuenotimpaired); 

Gdliqgswah Cat+ v. h@rs, 35 S.W. 414 (TUL Cii. App. 18%. a0 wit) 

conrmistiomrpcorrrtmryrtlaytime~ormodifymolutionKniagcountyjudge’s 

~~r~~~olavicqvbenjudgehd~~~~tbutaloy);src~chntv. 

Tmant Couq Chiki We&we Unif, 509 S.W.2d 378.381 (Tar. Cii. App.-Fort Worth 

1974, no writ) (kgislature may as a general matter repeal any statute at will). The 

p. 1183 
HonorebleTmcey Bright - Page 2 (OH-228) 

wmmissiooers court is abject to the Open Meetiogs Act, ae V.T.C.S. art. 6252-17, 

gl(c),uditr~murtw~~withtherequinmmtooftbeopen~Act. 

Witten ootke of the ‘dete, hour, place, end subject of each meetit& hld by the 

ammirdoaarcolntmustbegivalw~the~hrccordrncewithrectian3Aof 

the act arbject to tbe follohg exception: 

Tberapdmmtfbrnotice . ..doesnot8ppiytoolattwsaboot 

whichspea!&twlinfolmationorrrecituiwofarirtingpolicyis 

hmisbediomspoosetominquirymsdertsucbmeetin&wbetber 

aachitquiryisaudebyrmembaoftbegenemlpublicorbyr 

tlanbmoftbe govamedbody. Anydeliiqdirarrri~or 

decisioowitbrespwttotberubjwtrboutwbi&inqobyw8smrde 

&eUbelimitedtorproposeltophccsucbsubjectontbeegeoddtbr 

ralbsequeHtmeuingofsuchSowrmwntal body for which notice 

basbeeopmidedinwolplilocewitbtbisAct. 

V.T.C.S. ut. 6252-17. 8 3A(a).l !&ion 3A of the Open Meuings Act allows a wunty 

camohsiooatomJEeminquirydmiogtbemeetingrbout~intbmutioooraistiog 

policythudoesoot8ppearontbemeetiognotice,buttbewur&maynotdiswsstbe 

subjectexwptwitbintbeMrrow limitssetoutillKctioo3A 

Inrd~yourquertionlboutPrtboritytoptanrbjectranthc~forr 

wtmnissionaswllrlmeetiae,weurumethntJInrbjectsontlleylmdrofthelbating 

~rlrorawt~theplblicaotiwofe~providedia -withscuioo3A 

of the Open Meetings Act.’ Attorney General Opiioo lM-63 (1983) determined that the 

~judgewunotruthorizedtooontroltbewnt~ofthergmdqcvcnthoughr 

statute desiwed him the presiding officer ofthe court. Local Gov’t Code 0 81.001(b) 

(formerly V.T.C.S. article 2342 (1925)). The opinioo io Hclnsbro v. Neidrhqfer, 83 

S.W.2d 685 (Tex. Cii. App.-Beaumont 1935, no writ) suppotts this wnclusion. It held 

thatrwuntyjudgewassu&cttorwtitofmadamus wbere&refiuedtorewgoizea 

motiondulyproposedandsewndedatr coowimiooerswort~. Tbewultstated 

~8countyjudge~rllowthemanbarofthecwrttorubmitmotionrtorvoteof 

the court. Xd. rt 685. Attorney Gemal Opinion JM-63 coach&d that the wmmisioners 

p. 1184 
Honorable Tracey Bright - Page 3 (DH-228) 

wurtasawhoiehastheauthoritytodetennheitsownagenda. &eTex.Const.ut.V. 

518 M-Y commiuiowrscwrtsblludsepoweruldjurirdictionoverwuoty 

hsiness); &n’t code 0 311.013; Cumles v. LouglJin, 214 S.W.2d 451 (Tcx. 1948). It 

Jlodltedtht’[e]rchmankrofthtcarrl...murtkparnittedtoplrcewthirlleenda 

aoyitanofbisc4msiog.’ AltomeyGamlopinioom4-63u3. Tbus$rwunty 

wmmissionerm3yphcermatterontheagendaforrmeeting. 

Thiswncblsioodoesnotmedotbatrwmmissiooerswlotuonot~ptr 

pro&we fbr phcing items on the gada. The set effkct of any procedure adopted, 

howmr,armotbeto~~ermemkrofthecourt~p~mitcmwmig~ 

sotb~itouybediswssedpublicly. Wbilevoteswwypartiwhrmatt~mrybeoubjwt 

to tosjority rule, we aooot condone the implaneotuioo of any procedure that would 

effeaively preclude a duly elected reprexntative on tbe wmmissioncrswurt6om8ta 

oioimm providiog a public forum for discussion of any partiadar issue. 

Youdsoa!k 

(3) MayRo&n’sRvlrsofOrdrrkusedtogovall~oninthc 

commirsioouscourtoleetiogs? 

(4)IfrtrratiKmaykuredtoregulatethcoonductofmectiagq 

mostitbefomlauyadoptedastbewotrolliogwdmrityin 

cbmmbsiooerscourc, 

sections 81.005 and 81.006 of the Local GovammtCdeaddresstbetiw, 

loution,mdquonunrequirrmentsofwmmiuioncncourt~.Thccourtirlro 

aubjecttotheOpettMeetingsAct,butwebavehmdwstatutesettingout 

wmpreknsive procuhs for the wnduct of wmndssioners wurt mectiqs. 

TbCW moissiooerswmofrwootybasonlythosepowrcstbatmupmsslyor 

bynecersuyimplicrtionIpuaeditbythcconrtitutioa~thertltutcs,butLhrbrord 

dkretion in exercising expressly w&red powers. Gmaks, 214 S.W.2d 451; An&rsun 

v. Wood, 152 S.W.2d 1084 (Tar. 1941). A wmmissioners court may 8dopt re8aonable 

rulestht~coasirtmtwitbrelmntprwirionroft~togovantheoonductofitr 

mwtiogs. See gtmcml!y Attorney General Opiiw H-188 (1973). Iftbe coodsd0DCrS 

courtwishes~meetingstokw~~rccordingtoRobcrl’sRvlrsojOrdcrorof 

those provisions of a treatise that are wnsistent with law, and to require wmpliww with 

thorepro~o~~rllmcmbasofthecorut,thewurtmuptfomullyvoteto~optthe 

plWiSi00. 

p. 1185 
Honor&le T~cay Bright - 1’8ge 4 W-228) 

SUMMARY 

Tkwooniuionerscourtouycoosirnretodiscossmis8uehr 

allbsqemeetiogevaltlKnlgbithupmiaulyt8kal6o8l~ 

OSlit#gldddtb9tOpiCOfdiSWSSiWlUSbWOpropatyOOtiWd. 

dharitytoprep8retbe~forr~isvestedi”* 

l3imlbiooersoourturwbole,uldnothtbecarntyjod~. An 

individwl txmmisdonerm8ypi8ceitemrofhis~singontbc 

w- como&sioners wmt my adopt reasonable rules 

WllSi!UWtWitbnlcvlntStUOt~UldWUStiMidproviriOBStO 

pwa7litsolwdngs. IftbewurtwisbesitsmwtingstobegovaDed 

bytbeprovisioosofrtnrtirethatmam8istaltwithlaw,ittmJst 

votetofonnrltyadoptthoseprovisiomasitscoattmUiaSattho~. 

DAN MORALES 

Attomq Omerd of Texas 

WILL PRYOR 

Fii AssistJnt Anomey oeod 

MARYKELLER 

DeputyAttomeyG?aenlfortiguion 

RENEAHlcKs 

State Soticitor 

MADELEINE B. JOHNSON 

chsir,opioion~ 

p. 1186