The Honorable. C. A. Dickerson 

County Attorney 

Fort Bend County 

Richmond, Texas 77469 

Opinion No. H- lgg 

Re: Obligation of Commissioners 

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