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 ofcitizens 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 onthe agenda for an indefinite period oftime and continue to listen to opinions and advise regarding this subject. Wehave been advised by you ofthe following facts:

“The Commissioner’s Court ofFort BendsCounty, 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 onthe Agenda and such person would then be recognized during the meeting ofthe 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. 877The Honorable C. A. Dickerson, page 2 (H-188)

The Act requires that notice of ameeting of aCommissioners Court be posted inthe county courthouse giving the date, the place, and the subject ofthe 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 tobe one that the public was permitted **to** attend. “Open to the public ‘Idoes not mean that the public may choose the items to be discussed or that they may discuss subjects onthe agenda. Itmerely means that the public may attend the meetings. The purpose ofthe 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, nowrit). See Attorney General Opinion H-3 (1973). So long as the requirements ofArticle 6252-17, V. T. C.S., are met and the right of citizens to apply totheir .government for redress of grievance by “petition, address or remonstrance” is not abridged (Article 1, §27, Constitution of Texas), itis our opinion that a Commissioners Court need not provide a public forum for every citizen wishing to express an opinion ona matter. However, in deciding what matters to consider, or which speakers to hear, itmust not unreasonably discr~iminate. Reasonable restraints onthe number, length, and frequency ofpresentations are permissible. SUMMARY

A commissioners court may limit the number of persons itwill hear on aparticular subject and the frequency with which they may appear, so long as its regulation does not abridge constitutionally guaranteed rights offreedom of speech and to petition. nor unfairly discriminate **among** views seeking expression. 

# u Attorney General of Texas

p* 878The Honorable C. A. Dickerson, page 3 (H-188)

APPR V :

&LJ?$?

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman Opinion Committee

p. a79