### ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE

STATE OF TEXAS

NO. PD-_______-18

CRAIG DOYAL, Petitioner

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Respondent

ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE NINTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

CAUSE NO . 09-17-00123-CR

APPELLEE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW



### RUSTY HARDIN State Bar No. 08972800

CATHY COCHRAN State Bar No. 09499700

ANDY DRUMHELLER State Bar No. 00793642

NAOMI HOWARD State Bar No. 24092541

Attorneys for Petitioner, CRAIG DOYAL RUSTY HARDIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP 5 Houston Center 1401 McKinney Street, Suite 2250 Houston, Texas 77010 Telephone: (713) 652-9000 Facsimile: (713) 652-9800 Email: rhardin@rustyhardin.com Email: ccochran@rustyhardin.com Email: adrumheller@rustyhardin.com Email: nhoward@rustyhardin.com PD-0254-18 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 3/7/2018 3:49 PM Accepted 3/8/2018 11:47 AM DEANA WILLIAMSON

CLERKii 

### IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Petitioner: CRAIG DOYAL

Attorneys at Trial and for Appellee/Petitioner:

RUSTY HARDIN CATHY COCHRAN ANDY DRUMHELLER NAOMI HOWARD 1401 McKinney Street, Suite 2250 Houston, Texas 77010

Prosecutors Pro Tem for the State at Trial and for Appellant/Respondent:

CHRISTOPHER DOWNEY The Downey Law Firm 2814 Hamilton Street Houston, Texas 77004

DAVID CUNNINGHAM 2814 Hamilton Street Houston, Texas 77004

JOSEPH R. LARSEN Gregor * 

### Cassidy, PLLC 700 Louisiana, Suite 3950 Houston, Texas 77002

Trial Court : THE HONORABLE RANDY CLAPP Visiting Judge, sitting by appointment in the 221 st 

### Judicial District, Montgomery County

Ninth Court of Appeals Panel of Justices : HON. STEVE McKEITHEN, CHIEF JUSTICE (Author of Opinion) HON. HOLLIS HORTON, JUSTICE HON. LEANNE JOHNSON, JUSTICEiii 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...........................................v

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

I. Did the court of appeals err in concluding that §551.143 did not violate the First Amendment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A. Reasons for Review .......................................1

B. Overview ...............................................2

C. What the Court of Appeals Held .............................3

D. How the Court of Appeals Erred .............................4

1. The court of appeals erred in finding that discussion of public matters was equivalent to disorderly conduct and unprotected expression under the First Amendment. ..................4

2. The court of appeals dismi ssed Supreme Court precedent and follow ed a Fifth Circuit opinion interpreting a different TOMA statute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3. The court of appeals ignored substantial examples of the overbreadth of §551.143. .............................9iv 

### II. Did the court of appeals err in finding that §551.143 was not void for vagueness? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

A. Reasons for Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

B. The Hearing in the Trial Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

C. What the Court of Appeals Held . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

D. How the Court of Appeals Erred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

PRAYER FOR RELIEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

APPENDIX NO. 1, State v. Doyal , __S.W.3d__, 2018WL761011 (Tex. App.—Beaumont, February 7, 2018) ( designated for publication )

APPENDIX NO. 2, A PPELLEE 

### ’ S 

### B RIEF 

### , Cause No. 04-17-00123-CR

APPENDIX NO. 3, D EFENDANT 

### D OYAL 

### ’ S 

### M OTION TO 

### D ISMISS 

### , Cause No. 16-06- 07315-CR

APPENDIX NO. 4 , C HAPTER 

### 551 OF 

### T EXAS 

### G OVERNMENT 

### C ODE 

### , “T EXAS 

### O PEN 

### M EETINGS 

### A CT 

### ”v 

### INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Asgeirsson v. Abbott , 696 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,6,7

Broadrick v. Oklahoma , 413 U.S. 601 (1973). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,4,5,6

Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n , 558 U.S. 310 (2010)

................................................ 1,7,8,14

Cohen v. California , 403 U.S. 15 (1971) ......................................................6

Ex parte Lo , 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) .........................................1

Ex parte Mitcham , __S.W.3d__, 2018WL847655 (Tex. Crim. App. February 14, 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,9,10

Ex parte Perry , 483 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,8,12,13

Ex parte Poe , 491 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,5,6,15

Faust v. State , 491 S.W.3d 733 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Grayned v. Rockford , 408 U.S. 104 (1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,14,19

Kolender v. Lawson , 461 U.S. 352 (1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,17vi 

### Long v. State , 931 S.W.2d 285 (Tex. Crim. App.1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,19

Martinez v. State, 323 S.W.3d 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) .........................................8

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz. , 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,3,7

Ross v. State , 531 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017) (pet. granted, January 28, 2018) ........5

State v. Doyal, __S.W.3d__, 2018WL761011 (Tex. App.—Beaumont, February 7, 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim

State v. Johnson , 475 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,14

State v. Markovich , 77 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

United States v. Alvarez , 567 U.S. 709 (2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

United States v. Stevens , 559 U.S. 460 (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,9,11

Wagner v. State , __S.W.3d__, 2018WL849164 (Tex. Crim. App. February 14, 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,19

Other Authority

O P



### . T EX



### . A TT 

### ’ Y 

### G EN 

### ., No. GA-0326 (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18vii 

### Constitutions and Statutes Referenced

U.S. C ONST 

### . amend. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim

T EX



### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### §551.001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

T EX



### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### §551.143 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim

T EX



### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### §551.144 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,3,11,12

T EX



### . R. A PP



### . P. 66.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,2,13,141 Unless otherwise noted, all references to statutes are to the Texas Government Code.

viii 

### STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Oral argument is essential to the full development of the First Amendment

issues in this case of firs t impression. Although all fifty states have open meeting

laws, no jurisdiction has a criminal conspi racy statute like §551.143 (part of Chapter

551 of the Texas Government Code–t he Texas Open Meetings Act), 1 

### and apparently

there has never been a successful criminal conviction for a “walking quorum” or

“daisy chain” violation of an open meetings law. The constitutionality and

interpretation of §551.143 of the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) are issues of

enormous practical consequence to member s of governmental bodies, large and small,

across the state who are subject to criminal prosecution under its provisions.2 For a more complete recounting of the Montgomery County road bond saga, See A PPENDIX 3, Defendant Doyal’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, pp.3-6.

ix 

### STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Montgomery County citizens wanted relie f from traffic congestion, but after

local Tea Party organizations defeated the May 2015 road bond package,

Commissioners Court was loathe to even discuss the topic. By that August,

representatives of the Texas Patriots PAC realized that the county’s traffic problems

had reached a crisis, and they request ed a meeting with County Judge Doyal.

Facilitated by Marc Davenpor t, Judge Doyal and Commi ssioner Charlie Riley met

with the PAC, and afterwards Judge D oyal held a press conference announcing that

he would designate time on the Commissione rs Court agenda for discussion of a

proposal for a revised road bond to be included on the November ballot. After

discussion and public comment at the August 22 nd 

### open meeting, the Commissioners

Court voted unanimously to put the re vised road bond package on the November

ballot. The compromise was a success, and the voters passed the new road bond by

60%, whereas the May proposal had failed by 60%. 2



### A specially appointed prosecutor late r indicted County Judge Craig Doyal,

along with Commissioners Charlie Riley and Jim Clark and political consultant Marc

Davenport, for the offense of “knowingly c onspir[ing] to circumvent Title 5 Subtitle

A Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code (hereinafter referred to as the Texas3 The Petitioner will cite to the clerk’s record as C.R. The reporter’s record will be cited as 1 R.R., et seq

.

x 

### Open Meetings Act), by meeting in a number less than a quorum for the purpose of

secret deliberations in violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act, to-wit: by engaging

in a verbal exchange concer ning an issue within the jurisdiction of the Montgomery

County Commissioners Court, namely, the c ontents of the potential structure of a

November 2015 Montgomery County Road Bond” (C.R. 6). 3



### Judge Doyal filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that

§551.143: (1) placed unconstitutional burdens on Free Speech and failed to withstand

strict scrutiny; (2) was unconstitutionally overbroad; and (3) vague and ambiguous.

(C.R. 45). The trial court held a four-d ay hearing to determine whether §551.143 of

TOMA was facially unconstitu tional. He heard from witnesses for both the defense

and the State and, after considering the arguments of counsel and the testimony of

eight witnesses, including expe rts, the trial court signed an order granting the motion

to dismiss (C.R. 79). The Ninth Court of App eals issued its opinion, reversed the order

of the trial court dismissing the indict ments, and remanded the case for further

proceedings in State v. Doyal, __S.W.3d__, 2018WL761011 (Tex. App.—Beaumont,

February 7, 2018). See A PPENDIX 

### 1.1 

### I.

Did the court of appeals err in concluding that § 551.143 did not violate the First Amendment?

A. Reasons for Review

First, §551.143 of TOMA raises an impor tant question of st ate and federal law

that this Court has never addressed. See T EX



### . R. A PP



### . P. 66.3(b). Until now, Texas

public officials could only guess at what speech might be prohibited or wonder

whether this law, by burdening political sp eech, violates the First Amendment.

Second, the court of appeals’ finding that §551.143 of TOMA is a legitimate

restriction on First Amendment rights is in conflict with this Court’s decisions in Ex

parte Lo , 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) , State v. Johnson , 475 S.W.3d 860

(Tex. Crim. App. 2015), Ex parte Perry , 483 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016), and

most recently, Wagner v. State , __S.W.3d__, 2018WL849164 (Tex. Crim. App.

February 14, 2018). It also conflicts with the United States Supreme Court’s decisions

in Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm ’ n , 558 U.S. 310 (2010), and Reed v. Town

of Gilbert, Ariz. , 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015). The conflict is particularly problematic

because there is so little case law discu ssing criminal liability under the Texas Open

Meetings Act, yet §551.143 affects thousands of public officials on a daily basis. See

T EX



### . R. A PP



### . P. 66.3(c).2 

### Third, the lower court’s holdi ng that §551.143 of TOMA does not

unconstitutionally restrict speech has so far departed from the proper course of judicial

proceedings as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power. See T EX



### . R.

A PP



### . P. 66.3(f).

B. Overview

Every aspect of this case involves speech. Judge Doyal was charged because

of who he is alleged to have talked to and what he is alle ged to have talked about. The

allegations in this offense cannot be proven without looking into the content of Judge

Doyal’s speech.

Chapter 551 of the Government Code (T exas Open Meetings Act or TOMA)

has the laudable goal of promoting transp arency in government meetings. Section

551.144 prohibits closed meetings and im poses penalties for discussions by a quorum

of a governmental body about public business without following TOMA

requirements. But §551.143 floods the waterfront by prohibiting members of

governing bodies from meeting in numbers of less than a quorum for the purpose of

secret deliberations “on matters within the jurisdiction of the governing body or public

business.” Section 551. 143’s driftnet approach tangles up too much protected speech

because it is not narrowly tailored like §551.144 and does not pass strict scrutiny.3 

### C. What the Court of Appeals Held

The Ninth Court of Appeals characterized §551.143 as a content-neutral law

restricting conduct and applied me re “rational basis” scrutiny. Doyal,

2018WL761011,*2. The court rejected Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz. , as controlling

authority and instead relied on Broadrick v. Oklahoma , 413 U.S. 601 (1973), to

conclude that Section 551. 143 addressed only conduct and did not deserve any First

Amendment protection as speech. The court equated Judge Doyal’s claim with that

of one of its earlier cases, Ex parte Poe , 491 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. App.—Beaumont

2016). In Poe , the appellant challenged the constitutionality of a statute prohibiting

display of a firearm in public, but the court in Poe (and apparently in the present case)

found that the “the statute punishes conduct . . . rather than protected expression, and

that the statute bears a rational relations hip to the State’s legitimate interest in

protecting its citizens from harm.” Doyal, 2018WL761011,*2.

The court of appeals also held th at the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Asgeirsson v.

Abbott , 696 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2012), a civil case looking at the constitutionality of

a different criminal statute in TOMA, §551.144, was still valid law after Reed and

provided the proper First Amendment analysis of §551.143. Doyal,

2018WL761011,*3-4. Finally, the court held that §551.143’s overbreadth was not real

and substantial when compared to its plai nly legitimate sweep and that Judge Doyal4 

### did not satisfy his burden to show that the provision was unconstitutionally overbroad.

Doyal, 2018WL761011,*5.

D. How the Court of Appeals Erred

The court of appeals erred because it fa iled to follow the Supreme Court’s First

Amendment jurisprudence and this Court’s analysis of First Amendment cases on an

issue of statewide importance to member s of governing bodies of every size, from

rural water boards to me tropolitan city councils.

1. The court of appeals erred in finding that discussion of public matters was equivalent to disorderly conduct and unprotected expression under the First Amendment

.
The court of appeals, without sugges tion from any party, classified §551.143

as a restriction on conduct rather than speech:

We conclude that, unlike the circumstances in Reed , which involved the particular type of speech or message on signs, section 551.143 of TOMA is directed at conduct, i.e., the act of conspiring to circumvent TOMA by meeting in less than a quorum for th e purpose of secret deliberations in violation of TOMA. It is not the content of the deliberations that is targeted by section 551.143; rather , section 551.143 targets the act of knowingly conspiring to engage in de liberations that circumvent the requirements of TOMA. Doyal, 2018WL761011,*4.

The court cited Broadrick v. Oklahoma as authority that conduct receives no First

Amendment protection: “[I]f the statute punishes conduct and not speech, we apply

a rational basis level of revi ew to determine if the statute has a rational relationship4 Although this Court refused Poe’s PDR, it recently granted the State’s PDR in Ross v. State

, 531 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017) (pet . granted, January 28, 2018), which addressed the split in Texas intermediate courts concerni ng whether the “displaying a firearm” statute is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. The Court s hould grant review in this case as well because the distinction between “conduct” and “speech” in the context of the First Amendment is vitally important to members of governmental bodies across the state.

5 

### to a legitimate state purpose.” Doyal, 2018WL761011,*2. Broadrick involved the

Hatch Act and partisan political conduct of soliciting funds by public employees.

But this is not a case about fundraising “conduct.” It is a case in which the law

clearly restricts the content of what members of a governmental body say to one

another. As the Supreme Court explained in Broadrick , a facial challenge is

particularly appropriate where a statute re gulates “only spoken words,” implicates the

right of association, or acts as a prior restraint as §551.143 does. See 413 U.S. at

612-13.

The lower court pointed to its own “instructive” decision in Ex parte Poe for

support of its holding that Doyal’s conduct is s ubject to “rational basis” analysis rather

than strict scrutiny. In Poe , the court held that a statute prohibiting the display of a

firearm in public was conduct, not speech , and the proscription on displaying a firearm

was rationally related to a legitimate government interest in public safety. But

displaying a firearm in public is simply not analogous to discussing public business

in meetings of less than a quorum. Th e latter involves pure speech, the former

involves pure conduct. 46 

### The Beaumont court is simply mistaken that §551.143 targets “not the content

of the deliberations [but] the act of knowi ngly conspiring to enga ge in deliberations.”

Speech is the heart of “deliberations,” a nd punishing an agreement to deliberate does

not magically convert speech into conduct. See Cohen v. California , 403 U.S. 15, 18

(1971) (“The only ‘conduct’ which the State sought to punish is the fact of

communication.”).

2. The court of appeals dismissed Supreme Court precedent and follow ed a Fifth Circuit opinion interpreting a different TOMA
statute.

After relying on Broadrick and its own Poe case to decide that §551.143 was not

speech but conduct, the court then adopted the “content-neutral” analysis used in

Asgeirsson v. Abbott , to hold that §551.143 was not unconstitutionally overbroad or

vague. Asgeirsson is not controlling authority, has been abrogated by multiple

Supreme Court decisions, does not use prop er intermediate-scrutiny analysis, and

analyzes a different criminal statute under TOMA. R eliance on Asgeirsson is

misplaced.

The Asgeirsson decision was based on this reasoning: A regulation is not content-based, however, merely because the applicability of the regulation depends on the content of the speech. A statute that appears content-ba sed on its face may still be deemed content-neutral if it is justified w ithout regard to the content of its speech. 696 F.3d at 460.7 

### The Supreme Court’s Reed decision was based on this reasoning:
[T]he crucial first step in the conten t-neutrality analysis [is] determining whether the law is content neutral on its face. A law that is content based on its face is subject to strict scrutiny regardless of the government's benign motive, content-neutral justifi cation, or lack of “animus toward the ideas contained” in the regulated speech.135 S.Ct. at 2228; see also United States v. Stevens , 559 U.S. 460 (2010); Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n , 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

The court of appeals should have applied Reed ’s overbreadth analysis; instead it

rejected that Supreme Court case merely because it did not discuss Asgeirsson. Doyal,

2018WL761011,*4. Of course not, the Supreme Court had different fish to fry. The

Beaumont court, nonetheless, held that §551.143 was content-neutral since “[t]he

Asgeirsson court held that a regulation is not content-based merely because the

applicability of the regulation depends on the content of the speech.” Doyal,

2018WL761011,*3. That is explicitly contradicted by Reed :

[I]t is well established that “[t]he First Amendment's hostility to content-based regulation extends not only to restrictions on particular viewpoints, but also to prohibition of public discussion of an entire topic.” Thus, a speech regulation targeted at specific subject matter is
content based even if it does not discriminate among viewpoints within that subject matter. For example, a law banning the use of sound trucks for political speech—and only political speech—would be a content-based regulation, even if it imposed no limits on the political viewpoints that could be e xpressed. 135 S. Ct. at 2230 ( internal citations
omitted ).5 Martinez v. State , 323 S.W.3d 493, 505 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

6 Ex parte Perry , 483 S.W.3d 884, 913 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).

7 Ex parte Mitcham , __S.W.3d__, 2018WL847655 (Tex. Crim. App. February 14, 2018) (concurring op.).

8 The Supreme Court warned against restricti ng the speech of an entire group of speakers in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n

, and this Court has also recognized that limiting the speech or expression of an entire group did not render a statute content-neutral. Martinez , 323 S.W.3d at 505 (“That all gang hand signs, not just t hose used by the VC street gang, were prohibited does not render that prohibition content-neutral.”).

8 

### Recent Supreme Court decisions uphold restrictions on speech only in very

limited circumstances because content-base d restrictions are reviewed under strict

scrutiny. This Court has also found statutes overly broad when they restrict whole

classes of speakers, 5 

### the statute criminalized activity that was adequately restricted by

other penal statutes, 6 

### or the statute swept up substantially more protected than

unprotected activity. 7



### Section 551.143 restricts the speech of a whole class of speakers, “members of

a governmental body,” and an entire subject ma tter, “an issue within the jurisdiction

of the governmental body or any public business.” 8 

### That means that the statute is a

content-based restriction of expression. It is subject to strict scrutiny.

The court of appeals reached the wrong result because it failed to apply the

correct “strict scrutiny” standard. It held th at Judge Doyal had failed to “prove that the

statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad,” Doyal, 2018WL761011,*5, but,

under strict scrutiny, it is the State’s duty to shoulder that burden of proof.9 

### 3. The court of appeals ignored substantial examples of the overbreadth of § 551.143.

The court of appeals would allow rest riction of speech based on the salutary

effects of TOMA and to encourage transparency in public meetings. Doyal,

2018WL761011,*5. United States v. Stevens warned against weighing such public

interests against free speech:

The Government thus proposes that a claim of categorical exclusion should be considered under a simple balancing test: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.” As a free-floating test fo r First Amendment coverage, that sentence is startling and dangerous. The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to cat egories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. 559 U.S. 460, 470 (2010) ( internal citations omitted ).

The Beaumont court’s categori cal balancing of the value of transparency against

Free Speech whenever members of governme ntal bodies speak in numbers less than

a quorum about public issues is likewise “startling and dangerous.”

The court of appeals stated that “[b]efor e a statute will be invalidated on its face

as overbroad, the overbreadth must be real and substantial when ‘judged in relation

to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.’” Doyal, 2018WL761011,*2. But Judge

Newell recently reaffirmed the proper te st for constitutional overbreadth in Ex parte

Mitcham :10 

### Overbreadth analysis already allows that a statute that is capable of being applied constitutionally may nevert heless be unconstituti onal if it could also be used to criminalize prot ected speech....Examples of a statute’s plainly legitimate sweep do not tell us how far beyond that legitimate sweep the statute reaches. 2018WL 847655,*1 (Newell, J., concurring).

When it comes to protected speech, the legitimate sweep must be no broader

than the precise grab of the compelling need that gives rise to the statute. “The First

Amendment requires that the Government's chosen restriction on the speech at issue

be “actually necessary” to achieve its inte rest. There must be a direct causal link

between the restriction imposed and the injury to be prevented.” United States v.

Alvarez , 567 U.S. 709, 725 (2012) ( internal citations omitted ). And this Court has

explained:

In order to demonstrate that a challe nged restriction is narrowly tailored, the government must demonstrate that the restriction “serve[s] a substantial state interest in ‘a direct and effective way.’” Faust v. State

, 491 S.W.3d 733, 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).

Section 551.143 has not been show n to directly and effectively i ncrease

governmental transparency or prevent closed meetings. There have been no reported

previous criminal prosecutions in Texas in the more than forty years of §551.143’s

existence. If violations of TOMA were so frequent and egregious as to require stiff

criminal sanctions, we should have heard of it before. And if this statute served such

a compelling governmental need, it would sure ly apply to the Texas Legislature and

the U. S. Senate, but it does not.11 

### The witnesses testifying at the pretrial hearing gave numerous examples of their

own or other officials’ innocent discussi ons with other officials and citizens that

would be covered by §551.143's broad language. Some of those examples are cited

in Judge Doyal’s original brief, A PPENDIX 

### 3, pp.34-36, a nd many more in

Commissioner Riley’s brief, A PPELLEE 

### R ILEY 

### ’ S 

### B RIEF TO 

### N INTH 

### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS 

### ,
pp.7-22.

These members of local governmental bodies are at the mercy of rogue or

special prosecutors because §551.143 is so broad. As the Supreme Court warned,

“[T]he First Amendment protects against th e Government; it does not leave us at the

mercy of noblesse oblige. We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely

because the Government promised to use it responsibly.” Stevens , 559 U.S. at 480

(2010).

And TOMA already has a criminal liability statute—§551.144—which serves

the purpose of transparency and deterring closed meetings. Section 551.143 sweeps

up far more protected, innocent speech than actual criminal conduct. As Presiding

Judge Keller explained, “With legitimate applications flowing solely, or almost

entirely, from conduct proscribed by other stat utes, it could be said that the challenged

statute has no life of its own.” Ex parte Perry , 483 S.W.3d at 913. Section 551.143 has

no real life of its own. TOMA has ample remedies for violations: any action taken9 

### § 551.141.

10 

### § 551.142.

12 

### during an improper meeting is voidable; 9 

### an aggrieved person may obtain an

injunction in a declaratory judgment action; 10 

### and criminal sanctions may be sought

for a “closed meeting” under §551.144.

The alarm sounded by media proponents in this case is that the public would

be shut out of important decision-ma king by its government. But §551.144 safeguards

TOMA’s goal of open meetings and §551.143’s overbreadth cannot be justified. The

public-spirited citizens who serve their communities in governmental bodies (many

of them without pay) should be free to express themselves informally to other

members one-on-one or in small groups without fear that they will be swept up in the

wide net of §551.143. Because this is an issue of statewide importance to

officeholders in governmental bodies, concrete guidance from this Court is

imperative.

II.

Did the court of appeals err in finding that § 551.143 was not void for vagueness?
A. Reasons for Review

A vague criminal statute that encroach es on free speech violates due process

because it fails to give fair warning of wh at is prohibited, encourages arbitrary and13 

### discriminatory enforcement, and ha s a chilling effect on free expression. Grayned v.

City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09 (1972). All vague ly worded laws create a trap

for the unwary, but §551.143 creates uniquely s teep stakes because the mere

indictment of a public official has political , as well as personal, consequences that

range from loss of public trust to loss of public office. As a constitutional matter,

public officials must be put clearly on no tice of precisely wh at speech they are

statutorily prohibited from engaging in because even the perception of criminal

conduct damages both the body politic and the individual person. Ex parte Perry , 483

S.W.3d at 898.

First, because this Court has never a ddressed the meaning of the statutory

language in §551.143, it should grant Judge Doyal’s petition a nd conduct a proper

analysis of this criminal law which places so many Texas public officials in potential

peril of prosecution. See T EX



### . R. A PP



### . P. 66.3 (b).

Second, the court of appeals’ conclu sion that §551.143 gives adequate notice to

the average person is based on reinterpreting the statute, wh ich is in conflict with this

Court’s statutory construction principles in Long v. State , 931 S.W.2d 285 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1996), and State v. Johnson , 475 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. Crim . App. 2015), as well

as the Supreme Court’s void -for-vagueness body of law in Grayned v. Rockford , 408

U.S. 104 (1972), Kolender v. Lawson , 461 U.S. 352 (1983), and Citizens United v.14 

### Fed. Election Comm'n , 558 U.S. 310 (2010). This Court should review the Beaumont

court’s opinion to resolve that conflict. See T EX



### . R. A PP



### . P. 66.3(c).

Third, the intermediate court’s opinion, rather than clarifying the language of

§551.143’s criminal liability (a statute for which there is little judicial guidance),

actually muddies the waters by inserting language in to the statute and ignoring

contradictory statutory language. That court’s statutory analysis calls for this Court’s

review. See T EX



### . R. A PP



### . P. 66.3(f).

B. The Hearing in the Trial Court

The experienced trial judge heard num erous witnesses before deciding that

§551.143 was unconstitutionally va gue. Not only did he hear testimony from experts

on the Open Meetings Act and the First Am endment, but he also heard testimony from

various Texas public officials. Those offi cials admitted they struggled to understand

the restrictions imposed by §551.143, and th ey were afraid to speak to fellow

members about public business and sometim es even feared being seen together

because of the possibility of being accused of trying to circumvent TOMA. (2 R.R.

222, 227,263-266, 270; 3 R.R. 111, 114, 116- 117; 5 R.R. 18, 20, 32, 37, 55).

These public officials shudder in thei r boots because they can so easily be

indicted and beggared by defe nding themselves in court, regardless of their innocent

intent. This concern chills their free speech and deters them from doing their job15 

### effectively and efficiently. Unlike Judge D oyal and his fellow public officials who

must work with their colleagues in reso lving governmental issues as they crop up,

Monday morning hindsight gives “ prosecutor[s] the ability to pick and choose” (3

R.R. 51), and they “have the power to go out and pick those whose communications

they don’t like” under §551.143 (3 R.R. 61). It was in the context of this evidence

from those who must work with TOMA on a daily basis that the trial judge held that

§551.143 is unconstitutionally vague.

C. What the Court of Appeals Held

The court of appeals held that §551. 143 could be understood from the plain

words of the statute. The Beaumont c ourt analogized Judge Doyal’s arguments

regarding the ambiguity in the meaning of “conspire,” “circumvent,” “secret,” and

“deliberations” in the context of §551.143 to the ambiguity complained of in Ex parte

Poe and the alleged ambiguity surrounding “a larm” in that case. The court quickly

dispensed with “conspire,” “circumvent,” and “secret,” stating that these words all had

plain meanings, so there was no ambiguity. Doyal, 2018WL761011,*4. The appeals

court then relied on an Attorney Genera l opinion to supply the interpretation of

“deliberations.” The court concluded that meeting in numbers less than a quorum was

a “method of forming a quorum” and that this was discerned from the plain meaning

of the words. Doyal, 2018WL761011,*5.16 

### D. How the Court of Appeals Erred

Section 551.143 is so broadly worded th at all members of a governmental body

who find themselves in the company of a ny other members of that same governmental

body should be on guard as to wh at they speak about (or even to speak at all), lest

someone construe that “meeting” as a conspiracy. This is the counsel that experts give

their governmental entity clients: “The very act of trying to keep it legal could be what

helps prove, under [§551.143] a conspiracy.” (3 R.R. 47). “You can do an awful lot

with [§551.143] in hindsight to make thi ngs look like a violati on, totally innocent

communications.” (3 R.R. 49). Because me mbers of governmental bodies can never

know exactly what speech is prohibited and in what numbers it is safe to talk, these

members often refrain from speaking altogether.

The Beaumont court’s artificial constructi on and insertion of language that is not

actually in the statute conflicts with we ll-established Supreme Court precedent: “[T]he

void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a pe nal statute define the criminal offense

with sufficient definiteness that ordi nary people can understand what conduct is

prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory

enforcement.” Kolender , 461 U.S. at 357.

Yet multiple witnesses tes tified that ordinary people serving their communities

are confused by §551.143. Mayor Charle s Jessup of Meadows Place said that17 

### §551.143 is a “very convoluted and confusing statute. . . I really don’t understand it.

. . . We try to avoid conve rsations, and the discussion of a walking quorum has come

up. We’re not sure exactly how that works, but it scares us all to death.” (2 R.R. 222).

Eric Scott, mayor of Brookshire, testifie d that §551.143 “makes me believe that they

can go to jail very easily, and no one wants to go to jail.” (2 R.R. 266). It “chills” his

ability to express himself and solicit others’ opinions. (2 R.R. 270). Mayor Jim

Kuykendall of Oak Ridge North explained that Section 551.143 “basically neuters

everybody.” (3 R.R. 111). The members don’t feel that they can talk to each other or

members of the public. (3 R.R. 114). After learning about this case, Mayor

Kuykendall is afraid he’s broken the law. He fears just being indicted would be

devastating financially. (3 R.R. 117).

Section 551.143 is vague on its face by ma king it a crime for a member of a

governmental body to “conspire” to meet in numbers of less than a quorum “to

circumvent” TOMA for the purpose of “secr et deliberations” about “public business”

or “an issue within the jurisdiction of the government body.” The court of appeals

erred when it held that “cons pire,” “circumvent,” and “s ecret” all had plain meanings

that required no special judicial interpreta tion and that “public business” deserved no

interpretation at all. The court of appeals treated those words as if there could be no18 

### confusion at all. Witness es at the hearing said otherw ise. They are the ones who know

the problems of the statute, and th ey are the ones who need answers.

But perhaps most troubling was the c ourt’s blind adoption of the Attorney

General’s opinion. The Attorney Genera l’s resolution of the conflict in §551.143,

which prohibits public officials in less than a quorum from having “deliberations,”

and §551.001, which defines “de liberations” as a verbal exchange between a quorum,

is as follows: “‘meeting in numbers le ss than a quorum’ describes a method of

forming a quorum, and a quorum formed this way may hold deliberations like any

other quorum.” O P



### . T EX



### . A TT 

### ’ Y 

### G EN 

### ., GA-0326, 4 (2005). How can less than a

quorum form a quorum? And if it takes a quorum to deliberate, how can less than a

quorum deliberate in violation of TOMA? Th e Beaumont court merely opined that the

Attorney General’s construction of the statute was discernible from a plain reading of

the words. Doyal, 2018WL761011,*5.

When a statute burdens First Amen dment rights, the vagueness doctrine

demands greater specificity than in other contexts to preserve the right of free

expression because “[u]ncertain meanings in evitably lead citizens to steer far wider

of the unlawful zone than if the boundari es of the forbidden areas were clearly

marked.” Grayned , 408 U.S. at 109. In other words, it “chills” free speech.19 

### The lower court’s analysis also conflic ts with this Court’s void-for-vagueness

analysis in Long v. State , 931 S.W.2d 285 (Tex. Cr im. App. 1996) and Wagner v.

State , __S.W.3d__, 2018WL849164 (Tex. Crim. A pp. Feb. 14, 2018). Both decisions

recognize that criminal statutes require gr eater specificity and “narrow tailoring” in

the First Amendment context. And Judge Keasler has specifically cautioned against

statutory interpretation such as the Beaumont court engaged in: “I believe a statute is

only ‘readily subject to a narrowing constructi on’ if the language already in the statute

can be construed in a narrow manner. Adding language to a statute is legislating from

the bench.” State v. Markovich , 77 S.W.3d 274, 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Keasler,

J., dissenting).

Because public officials around the state ha ve a compelling interest in clearlyworded penal statutes that govern the manne r in which they speak to one another and

conduct the business of governing, guida nce from this Court is necessary.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

For all of the reasons set out above, Judge Doyal asks this Court to grant his

petition for discretionary revi ew, reverse the judgment of the Ninth Court of Appeals,

and reinstate the judgment of the trial court.20 

### Respectfully submitted:

RUSTY HARDIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP

By: /s/ Rusty Hardin RUSTY HARDIN State Bar No. 08972800 CATHY COCHRAN State Bar No. 09499700 ANDY DRUMHELLER State Bar No. 00793642 NAOMI HOWARD State Bar No. 24092541

5 Houston Center 1401 McKinney Street, Suite 2250 Houston, Texas 77010 Telephone (713) 652-9000 Facsimile (713) 652-9800 Email: rhardin@rustyhardin.com Email: ccochran@rustyhardin.com Email: adrumheller@rustyhardin.com Email: nhoward@rustyhardin.com

Attorneys for Petitioner, CRAIG DOYAL21 

### CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Now comes Petitioner, Craig Doyal, by and through undersigned counsel, and

certifies that per T EX



### . R. A PP



### . P. 9.4(i)(2)(D), the Petitioner’s word count , as verified

by the computer program, WordPerfect, is 4,409 (of allowed 4,500) words.

/s/ Naomi Howard NAOMI HOWARD22 

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, pursuant to T EX



### . R. A PP



### . P. 9.5(b)(1) and 68.11, an

electronic copy of the above and foregoing Petition for Discretionary Review has been

electronically served on the prosecutors pro tem for the State and the State Prosecuting

Attorney via the electronic filing manager on March 7, 2018.

CHRIS DOWNEY The Downey Law Firm 2814 Hamilton Street Houston, Texas 77004 Email: chris@downeylawfirm.com

DAVID CUNNINGHAM 2814 Hamilton Street Houston, Texas 77004 Email: cunningham709@yahoo.com

JOSEPH R. LARSEN Gregor * 

### Cassidy, PLLC 700 Louisiana, Suite 3950 Houston, Texas 77002 Email: jlarsen@grfirm.com

STACEY M. SOULE State Prosecuting Attorney of Texas P.O. Box 13046 Austin, Texas 78711-3046 Email: information@spa.texas.gov

/s/ Naomi Howard NAOMI HOWARD

### APPENDIX NO.1

State v. Doyal , __S.W.3d__, 2018WL761011

(Tex. App.—Beaumont, February 7, 2018) ( designated for publication )State v. Doyal, --- S.W.3d ---- (2018)

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 2018 WL 761011 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.

NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.

Court of Appeals of Texas,
Beaumont.

The STATE of Texas, Appellant

v. Craig DOYAL, Appellee

NO. 09-17-00123-CR

| Submitted on January 24, 2018

| Opinion Delivered February 7, 2018

On Appeal from the 221st District Court, Montgomery County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 16-06-07315-CR

Attorneys and Law Firms

Christopher J. Downey , Houston, Joseph Robert Larsen , Dallas, David Cunningham, for Appellant.

Andrew Davis , as Amicus Curiae.

Naomi Howard , Houston, Russell Hardin, Anthony Douglas Drumheller , Cathy Cochran, for Appellee.

Before McKeithen , C.J., Horton and Johnson , JJ.

Opinion

OPINION

STEVE McKEITHEN , Chief Justice

*1 The State of Texas appeals the trial court's dismissal of an indictment, which alleged that appellee Craig Doyal, as a member of the Montgomery County Commissioners Court, knowingly conspired to circumvent the Texas Open Meetings Act (“TOMA”). We reverse the trial court's order dismissing the indictment and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Doyal, a member of the Montgomery County Commissioners Court, was indicted for knowingly conspiring to circumvent the provisions of TOMA by meeting in a number less than a quorum for the purpose of secret deliberations “by engaging in a verbal exchange concerning an issue within the jurisdiction of the Montgomery County Commissioners Court, namely, the contents of the potential structure of a November 2015 Montgomery County Road Bond[.]” See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 551.143 (West 2017) . Doyal filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, asserting that section
551.143 is facially unconstitutional because it violates the free speech provisions of the First Amendment and is vague and overbroad.State v. Doyal, --- S.W.3d ---- (2018)

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Doyal asserted that he, a county commissioner, and a political consultant met with representatives of a local political action committee (“PAC”) to discuss placing a road bond referendum on the November 2015 ballot, and as a result of the meeting, a memorandum of understanding was produced, in which the Texas Patriots PAC promised its political support for putting a road bond proposal on the commissioners' special meeting agenda. According to Doyal, he posted the agenda for a special meeting of the Commissioners Court, and citizens praised the commissioners' work at the special meeting and thanked them for putting a road bond on the ballot. Doyal asserted that the county attorney wrote him a letter stating that the commissioners had complied with the requirements of TOMA, and voters passed the bond in the November election. Doyal alleged that the discussions between himself, the other commissioner, the consultant, and the members of the PAC were not a meeting under TOMA and were not intended to be an agreement to conspire to avoid TOMA.

In his motion to dismiss, Doyal argued that section 551.143 of the Texas Government Code burdens free speech and is subject to strict construction. According to Doyal, the statute facially “does not make sense[ ]” because “[m]eeting in numbers of less than a quorum does not violate a statute that requires a quorum to meet in open session.” Doyal contended that because TOMA applies only to specific speech by public officials, it is a content-based penal regimen subject to review under strict scrutiny. According to Doyal's motion to dismiss, section 551.143 is constitutionally overbroad because it prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech when judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep. Doyal further asserted that section 551.143 is vague and confusing because the terms “conspire” and “secret” are not defined, and the statute fails to explain what kind of “deliberations” are covered.

*2 The State's response in the trial court asserted that section 551.143 is “both constitutional and enforceable.” According to the State, section 551.143 is content neutral because “it does not restrict speech based on specific content, but simply requires that the disclosure of the speech take place in an open forum.” The State asserted that the purpose of section 551.143 is to control the effects of closed meetings, including decreased transparency, encouragement of fraud or corruption, and increased mistrust in governmental entities. In addition, although the State argued that intermediate scrutiny is the proper standard for reviewing section 551.143 , the State contended that even if the strict scrutiny standard applied, section 551.143 meets that test because “it is narrowly tailored and serves a compelling state interest.”

The trial court held a hearing, but heard no testimony regarding the underlying facts. Rather, Doyal's witnesses offered opinion testimony regarding their interpretations of section 551.143 , the challenges it poses, and its constitutionality. The trial judge signed an order granting Doyal's motion to dismiss the indictment. No party requested the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and none were filed. The State then filed this appeal, in which it raises two issues for our consideration: (1) the trial court erred by dismissing the indictment on the ground that section 551.143 is facially unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, and (2) the trial court erred by dismissing the indictment on the ground that section 551.143 facially violates the First Amendment and is overbroad.

“Whether a statute is facially constitutional is a question of law that we review de novo. ” Ex parte Lo , 424 S.W.3d 10, 14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) . If we determine that there is a reasonable construction which will render the statute constitutional, we must uphold the statute. Tarlton v. State , 93 S.W.3d 168, 175 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd) . We presume that a statute is valid and that the Legislature did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily. Ex parte Lo , 424 S.W.3d at 14-15 . “The burden normally rests upon the person challenging the statute to establish its unconstitutionality.” Id. at 15

.

“The First Amendment which prohibits laws ‘abridging the freedom of speech’ limits the government's power to regulate speech based on its substantive content.” State v. Stubbs , 502 S.W.3d 218, 224 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. ref'd) ; see U.S. Const. amend. I . “Content-based regulations are those that distinguish favored from disfavored speech based on the idea or message expressed.” Stubbs , 502 S.W.3d at 224 . “[W]hen the government seeks to restrict and punish speech based on its content, the usual presumption of constitutionality is reversed.” Ex parte Lo , 424 S.W.3d at
15 . “Content-based regulations (those laws that distinguish favored from disfavored speech based on the ideas expressed)State v. Doyal, --- S.W.3d ---- (2018)

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 are presumptively invalid, and the government bears the burden to rebut that presumption.” Id. Accordingly, we apply strict scrutiny to content-based regulations. Id. On the other hand, if the statute punishes conduct and not speech, we apply a rational basis level of review to determine if the statute has a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma , 413 U.S. 601, 615, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973)

.

Before a statute will be invalidated on its face as overbroad, the overbreadth must be real and substantial when “judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.” Id. A statute should not be invalidated for overbreadth merely because it is possible to imagine some unconstitutional application. See In re Shaw , 204 S.W.3d 9, 15 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2006, pet. ref'd) . With respect to issues of vagueness, statutes are not necessarily unconstitutionally vague merely because the words or terms employed in the statute are not specifically defined. See Engelking v. State , 750 S.W.2d 213, 215 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) . When a statute does not define the words used therein, we give the words their plain meaning. See Parker v. State , 985 S.W.2d 460, 464 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) ; see also Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 311.011(a) (West 2013) (“Words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage.”). Under the void-for-vagueness doctrine, a statute will be invalidated if it fails to define the offense in such a manner as to give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited. See State v. Holcombe , 187 S.W.3d 496, 499 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ; see also Kolender v. Lawson , 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983)

.

*3 “TOMA requires that meetings of governmental bodies be open to the public.” Asgeirsson v. Abbott , 696 F.3d 454, 458 (5th Cir. 2012)

. Section 551.143(a) of TOMA, which makes a violation of TOMA a criminal offense, provides as follows:

(a) A member or group of members of a governmental body commits an offense if the member or

group of members knowingly conspires to circumvent this chapter by meeting in numbers less than a quorum for the purpose of secret deliberations in violation of this chapter.

Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 551.143(a) . Chapter 551 defines the term “deliberation” as “a verbal exchange during a meeting between a quorum of a governmental body, or between a quorum of a governmental body and another person, concerning an issue within the jurisdiction of the governmental body or any public business.” Id. § 551.001(2) (West Supp. 2017). In addition, chapter 551 defines “governmental body” to include a county commissioners court. Id. § 551.001(3) (B). Furthermore, chapter 551 defines a “meeting” as follows:

(A) a deliberation between a quorum of a governmental body, or between a quorum of a governmental body and another person, during which public business or public policy over which the governmental body has supervision or control is discussed or considered or during which the governmental body takes formal action; or

(B) except as otherwise provided by this subdivision, a gathering:

(i) that is conducted by the governmental body or for which the governmental body is responsible;

(ii) at which a quorum of members of the governmental body is present;

(iii) that has been called by the governmental body; and

(iv) at which the members receive information from, give information to, ask questions of, or receive questions from any third person, including an employee of the governmental body, about the public business or public policy over which the governmental body has supervision or control.

... The term does not include the gathering of a quorum of a governmental body at a social function unrelated to the public business that is conducted by the body, the attendance by a quorum of a governmental body at a regional,State v. Doyal, --- S.W.3d ---- (2018)

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 state, or national convention or workshop, ceremonial event, or press conference, if formal action is not taken and any discussion of public business is incidental to the social function, convention, workshop, ceremonial event, or press conference.

The term includes a session of a governmental body.

Id. § 551.001(4). Lastly, chapter 551 defines “quorum” as “a majority of a governmental body, unless defined differently by applicable law or rule or the charter of the governmental body.” Id. § 551.001(6).

In analyzing section 551.144 of TOMA, 2 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that “[t]ransparency is furthered by allowing the public to have access to government decisionmaking.... The private speech itself makes the government less transparent regardless of its message. The statute is therefore content-neutral.” Asgeirsson , 696 F.3d at
461-62 . The Asgeirsson court held that a regulation is not content-based merely because the applicability of the regulation depends on the content of the speech. Id. at 459 . “A statute that appears content-based on its face may still be deemed content-neutral if it is justified without regard to the content of the speech.” Id. at 459-60 . Doyal contends that Asgeirsson was abrogated by Reed v. Town of Gilbert , U.S. , 135 S.Ct. 2218, 192 L.Ed.2d 236 (2015) . He emphasizes that this Court need not follow cases from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and argues that two additional U.S. Supreme Court

cases “show that Section 551.143 does not pass constitutional muster even under intermediate scrutiny[,]” 3 and that Asgeirsson dealt with section 551.144, which is “a simple, clear statute[,]” but section 551.143 is “so vague that experts call it ‘gibberish’ and are confused about its meaning and application.”

*4 First, we note that Reed does not mention or discuss Asgeirsson , and we reject Doyal's assertion that Reed abrogated Asgeirsson

. See Reed

, 135 S.Ct. at 2218-39 . Second, in Reed , the issue facing the Supreme Court was the constitutionality of a town's “Sign Code” that prohibited the display of outdoor signs without a permit, but exempted numerous categories of signs from that requirement, including ideological signs, political signs, and temporary directional signs relating to a qualifying event. Id. at 2224-25 . In Reed , a church and its pastor wished to advertise the time and location of its Sunday church services, which were held in a variety of different locations due to financial constraints. Id. at 2225 . The church was twice cited for exceeding the time limits for displaying temporary directional signs, as well as its failure to include the date of the event on the signs. Id. The church filed suit in federal district court, arguing that the Sign Code violated its freedom of speech. Id. at 2226 . After the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the town, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Id. After concluding that the town's Sign Code was clearly not content-neutral, but instead was “content based on its face[,]” the Supreme Court held that the Sign Code could not survive strict scrutiny because the Sign Code was not narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. Id. at 2228-32

.

We conclude that, unlike the circumstances in Reed , which involved the particular type of speech or message on signs, section 551.143 of TOMA is directed at conduct, i.e. , the act of conspiring to circumvent TOMA by meeting in less than a quorum for the purpose of secret deliberations in violation of TOMA. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 551.143 ; Reed , 135 S.Ct. at 2228-32 ; Asgeirsson , 696 F.3d at 461-62 . It is not the content of the deliberations that is targeted by section 551.143 ; rather, section 551.143 targets the act of knowingly conspiring to engage in deliberations that circumvent the requirements of TOMA. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 551.143 . “The prohibition in TOMA is applicable only to private forums and is designed to encourage public discussion[.]” Asgeirsson , 696 F.3d at 461 . Therefore, we reject Doyal's contention that we must apply strict scrutiny in reviewing section 551.143

.

This Court's opinion in Ex parte Poe , 491 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. App. Beaumont 2016, pet. ref'd) , is instructive. In Ex parte
Poe , the appellant asserted that the disorderly conduct statute is facially unconstitutional due to its alleged vagueness and its alleged violation of his rights under the First, Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 350 . The statute at issue in Ex parte Poe provided that “ ‘A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly ... displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.’ ” Id. at 354 . This Court concludedState v. Doyal, --- S.W.3d ---- (2018)

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 that the statute punishes conduct (displaying a firearm in a public place in a manner calculated to cause alarm) rather than protected expression, and that the statute bears a rational relationship to the State's legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from harm. Id. We therefore rejected Poe's argument that strict scrutiny applied, and we began by presuming that the statute is valid and that the Legislature did not act arbitrarily or unreasonably in enacting it. Id. We also rejected Poe's argument that the word “alarm” was undefined and inherently subjective, and instead gave the undefined terms in the statute their plain meaning. Id.

In the case at bar, Doyal argues that section 551.143 is vague because the terms “conspire,” “circumvent,” and “secret” are not defined, and the statute does not explain what type of deliberations are covered. As was the case in Poe , the terms at issue have a plain meaning. “Conspire” is commonly understood to mean “to make an agreement with a group and in secret to do some act (as to commit treason or a crime or carry out a treacherous deed): plot together[.]” Webster's Third International Dictionary 485 (2002). “Circumvent” means “to overcome or avoid the intent, effect, or force of: anticipate and escape, check, or defeat by ingenuity or stratagem: make inoperative or nullify the purpose or power of esp. by craft or scheme[.]” Id. at 410. “Secret” means “kept from knowledge or view: concealed, hidden” and “done or undertaken with evident purpose of concealment[.]” Id. at 2052.

*5 Doyal asserts that because chapter 551 defines “deliberation” as a verbal exchange during a meeting between a quorum of members concerning an issue within the jurisdiction of the governmental body or any public business, yet section 551.143 refers to deliberations of less than a quorum, the statute is unconstitutionally vague. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 551.001(2)

, 551.143 . The Attorney General has opined that TOMA does not require that a governmental body's members be in each other's physical presence to constitute a quorum, and, therefore, section 551.143 applies to “members of a governmental body who gather in numbers that do not physically constitute a quorum at any one time but who, through successive gatherings, secretly discuss a public matter with a quorum of that body.” Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0326 p. 3 (2005)

. 4 The Attorney General explained that the definition of “deliberations” as used in section
551.143 “is consistent with its definition in section 551.001 because ‘meeting in numbers less than a quorum’ describes a method of forming a quorum, and a quorum formed this way may hold deliberations like any other quorum.” Id. at p. 4;

see Esperanza Peace & Justice Ctr. v. City of San Antonio , 316 F.Supp.2d 433, 473, 476 (W.D. Tex. 2001) . The Attorney General also opined that “[t]his construction is discernible from a plain reading of the provision.” Tex. Atty's Gen. Op. No. GA-0326 p. 4. We find the Attorney General's reasoning persuasive.

We conclude that section 551.143 describes the criminal offense with sufficient specificity that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited. See Holcombe , 187 S.W.3d at 499 . The statute provides reasonable notice of the prohibited conduct. See Holcombe , 187 S.W.3d at 499 ; see also Kolender , 461 U.S. at 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855 ; see also Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 551.143 . We conclude that the statute is reasonably related to the State's legitimate interest in assuring transparency in public proceedings. See Asgeirsson , 696 F.3d at 461-62 . The alleged overbreadth of section 551.143 is not real and substantial when judged in relation to its plainly legitimate sweep. See Broadrick , 413 U.S. at 615, 93 S.Ct.
2908 . Doyal has not satisfied his burden to prove that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. See id. We sustain the State's appellate issues, reverse the trial court's order dismissing the indictment, and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All Citations

--- S.W.3d ----, 2018 WL 761011

FootnotesState v. Doyal, --- S.W.3d ---- (2018)

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 1 Doyal is the elected County Judge of Montgomery County, and not technically a commissioner. The County Judge is a member
of Commissioners Court. Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 81.001(a) (West Supp. 2017). 2 Section 551.144 makes calling or aiding in calling a closed meeting, closing or aiding in closing a meeting to the public, or participating in a closed meeting a criminal offense. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 551.144 (West 2017)

. 3 Doyal argues that under Packingham v. North Carolina , U.S. , 137 S.Ct. 1730, 198 L.Ed.2d 273 (2017) and Matal
v. Tam , U.S. , 137 S.Ct. 1744, 198 L.Ed.2d 366 (2017)

, section 551.143 cannot survive even intermediate scrutiny. In those cases, the Supreme Court invalidated a law banning sex offenders from using social media and held that the First Amendment bars a law that prohibited disparaging trademarks. Packingham , 137 S.Ct. at 1735, 1738 ; Matal , 137 S.Ct. at
1751 . We reject the assertion that these cases render it impossible for section 551.143 to survive intermediate scrutiny. 4 We recognize the difficulties this language causes the State in its attempt to prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt; however, a statute that creates difficulty for the State in meeting its burden of proof is not unconstitutional.

End of Document © 20 8 Thomson Reuters. No c a m to or g na U.S. Government Works.

### APPENDIX NO. 2

A PPELLEE 

### ’ S 

### B RIEF 

### , Cause No. 04-17-00123-CR

### NO. 09-17-00123-CR

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

NINTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS Beaumont, Texas

STATE OF TEXAS Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CRAIG DOYAL Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the 221 st 

### Judicial District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16-06-07315-CR Hon. Randy Clapp

APPELLEE CRAIG DOYAL’S BRIEF

Rusty Hardin State Bar. No. 08972800 Cathy Cochran State Bar No. 09499700 Andy Drumheller State Bar No. 00793642 Naomi Howard State Bar No. 24092541

Attorneys for Appellee Craig Doyal R USTY 

### H ARDIN 

### & A SSOCIATES 

### , LLP 5 Houston Center 1401 McKinney, Suite 2250 Houston, Texas 77010 Telephone: (713) 652-9000 Facsimile: (713) 652-9800 Email: rhardin@rustyhardin.com Email: ccochran@rustyhardin.com Email: adrumheller@ rustyhardin.com Email: nhoward@r ustyhardin.com

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ACCEPTED 09-17-00123-CR NINTH COURT OF APPEALS BEAUMONT, TEXAS 8/21/2017 3:29 PM CAROL ANNE HARLEY

CLERK

### ii IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

The parties and counsel listed belo w are involved in this matter.

Appellant: The State of Texas

Appellee: Craig Doyal

Counsel for Appellant: Chris Downey The Downey Law Firm 2814 Hamilton Street Houston, Texas 77004

David Cunningham 2814 Hamilton Street Houston, Texas 77004

Joseph R. Larsen Sedgwick, LLP 1200 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77002

Counsel for Appellee: Rusty Hardin Cathy Cochran Andy Drumheller Naomi Howard R USTY 

### H ARDIN 

### & A SSOCIATES 

### , LLP 5 Houston Center 1401 McKinney, Suite 2250 Houston, Texas 77010

### iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIE S AND COUN SEL ........................................................... ii

TABLE OF CO NTENTS ......................................................................................... iii

INDEX OF AUT HORITIES ...................................................................................... v

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUM ENT ............................................. ix

ISSUES PRES ENTED ............................................................................................... x
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 1

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 3

ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 5

I. Because Section 551.143 is a content-based law that restricts speech, it is (1) presumed unconstitutional and (2) subject to strict scrutiny. ........................................................................................ 5

A. The Standard of Review: “Strict scrutiny” applies to all content-based statutes restricting speech. ................................... 5

B. Section 551.143 is a content-based regulation of speech. .......... 8

1. Attorney General Opinion GA-0326 (2005) rewrote Section 551. 143. ............................................................... 8

2. Section 551.143 restricts “secret deliberations.” ............ 11

3. A statute that singles out and regulates speech of a specific subject matter is a content-based limitation of speech, subject to strict scrutiny. ................................ 12

a. Reed v. Town of Gilbert clarified that Section 551.143 is a content-ba sed regulation. ................. 12
b. Reed abrogated Asgeirsson v. Abbott . .................. 15

c. The State claims that Reed

, McCullen , and Asgeirsson have been analyzed by a Texas federal court. ......................................................... 17

C. Post- Reed , courts nationwide have invalidated numerous content-based laws regulating speech. ...................................... 20

D. Even before Reed , laws restricting political speech were especially likely to be found unconstitu tional. ......................... 23

### iv II. The State has not shown that Section 551.143 passes strict scrutiny. ............................................................................................... 26

A. The State has failed to prove that Section 551.143 serves a compelling need that is not already met by other TOMA provisions. ................................................................................. 26

1. TOMA addresses important , but not compelling, governmental in terests. ................................................... 27

B. The State has failed to prove that Section 551.143 is narrowly tailo red. ...................................................................... 31

1. Section 551.143 has the demonstrated effect of chilling public official s’ free sp eech. ............................. 34

C. Section 551.143 is unconstitut ionally vague as well as overbroad. ................................................................................. 37

III. Section 551.143 does not pass even intermediate scrutiny. ................ 41

PRAYER .................................................................................................................. 45

CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC E ................................................................................ 46

CERTIFICATE OF CO MPLIANCE ....................................................................... 47

APPENDIX Defendant Craig Doyal’s Motion to Dismiss the Indi ctment ............................Tab A

### v INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Asgeirsson v. Abbott 696 F.3d 454 (5th Ci r. 2012) ......................................... passim Auspro Enterprises, LP v. Texas Dept. of Transp

. 506 S.W.3d 688 (Tex. App.—Austin 2016, pet. filed) ................................. 20 Burrage v. United States 134 S.Ct. 881 (2 014) ...................................................................................... 10 Cahaly v. Larosa 796 F.3d 399 (4th Cir. 2015) ......................................................................... 22 Champion v. Commonwealth 2017 WL 636420, __ S.W.3d ___ (K y. Feb. 16, 2017) ................................ 21
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 130 S.Ct. 876 (2 010) ...................................................................................... 16 Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dept. of State 121 F.Supp.3d 680 (W.D. Tex. 2015) ........................................................... 17 Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dept. of State 2017 WL1032309 (5th Cir., Mar. 15, 2017) ................................................. 19 Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dept. of State 838 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 18 Draego v. City of Charlotteville,Va. 2016 WL 6834025 (W.D. Va. 2016) ............................................................. 25 Esperanza Peace and Justice Cen ter v. City of San Antonio 316 F.Supp.2d 433 (W.D. Tex. 2001) .................................................... 32, 33 Ex parte Lo 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim . App. 2013) ................................................ passim
Ex parte Perry 483 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) ........................................... 6, 23, 25 Ex parte Thompson 442 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. Crim . App. 2014 ) ................................................. 6, 23

Florida State Bar v. B.J.F. 491 U.S. 524 (1 989)....................................................................................... 28

### vi Grayned v. Rockford 408 U.S. 104 (1 972)....................................................................................... 37

In re Texas Senate 36 S.W.3d 119 (Tex . 2000) ........................................................................... 28

Ind. Civil Liberties Union v. Ind. Sec’y of State No. 1:15-CV-01356-SEB-DML (D. Ind. 2015) ............................................ 22 Jenevein v. Willing 493 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2007) ......................................................................... 24 Long v. State 931 S.W.2d 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) ............................................... 23, 37 Mabry v. Union Parish School Board 974 So.2d 787 (La. App. 2014) ..................................................................... 10
Manzi v. State 88 S.W.3d 240 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2002) .......................................................... 3

Matal v. Tam 2017 WL 2621315 (June 19, 2017) .................................................... 5, 41, 42 Mays v. State 476 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2015) ........................................................ 3 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n 514 U.S. 334 (1 995)....................................................................................... 24 Mnyofu v. Board of Education of Rich Township High School Dist. 227 2016 Westlaw 13197336 (N.D. Ill. 2016) ..................................................... 25 Norton v. City of Springfield 768 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 21 Norton v. City of Springfield 806 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2015) ......................................................................... 21 Packingham v. North Carolina 2017 WL 2621313 (June 19, 2017) .......................................................... 5, 41 Penrod Drilling Corp. v. Williams 868 S.W.2d 294 (Tex . 1993) ......................................................................... 17 Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley 408 U.S. 92 (197 2) ......................................................................................... 15

### vii Rangra v. Brown 566 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 2009) ......................................................................... 17 Reed v. Town of Gilbert 135 S.Ct. 2218 (201 5) ............................................................................ passim

Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. 475 U.S. 41 (198 6) ......................................................................................... 17 Republican Party of Minnesota v. White 536 U.S. 765 (2 002)....................................................................................... 24

Rideout v. Gardner 123 F. Supp. 3d 218 ( D.N.H. 2015) .............................................................. 22

Rosemond v. Markham 135 F.Supp.3d 574 (E.D . Ky. 2015) .............................................................. 23
Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd. 502 U.S. 105 (1 991)....................................................................................... 32 Skilling v. United States 561 U. S. 358 (2010) ....................................................................................... 9 State v. Bishop 787 S.E.2d 814 (N.C . 2016) .......................................................................... 22 Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus 814 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 24

Thomas v. Schroer 2017 WL 1208672 (W.D. Tex. March 31, 2017) .......................................... 20 Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. FCC 512 U.S. 622 (1 994)......................................................................................... 7

United States v. Bass 404 U. S. 336 (1 971) ..................................................................................... 10

United States v. Salerno 481 U.S. 739 (1 987)......................................................................................... 6 Ward v. Rock Against Racism 491 U.S. 781 (19 89).................................................................................. 7, 17 Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party 552 U.S. 442 (2 008)......................................................................................... 6

### viii Washington v. Glucksberg 521 U.S. 702 (1 997)......................................................................................... 6 Working America, Inc. v. City of Bloomington 142 F.Supp.3d 823 (D. Minn. 2015) ............................................................. 22

Other Authorities

Adam Winkler, Fatal in Theory and Strict in Fact : An Empirical Analysis of Strict Scrutiny, 59 V ANDERBILT 

### L. R EV 

### . 793 (20 06)................................................. 7 C. Robert Heath & Emily Willms Rogers, Did the Attorney General Shine Light on the Confusion in Texas’ Sunshine La w? Interpreting Open Meetings Act Provision § 551.143 , 7 T EX



### . T ECH



### . A DMIN



### . L.J. 97, 99 (2006) ................ 8, 31
Carlos Doroteo, The Texas Open Meetings Act: An Old-Fashioned, Wild-West, First Amendment Shoot-Out , 56 S. T EX



### . L. R EV 

### . 675, 708 (2015) .................. 9 Devon Helfmeyer, Do Public Officials Leave Th eir Constitutional Rights at the Ballot Box? A commentary on th e Texas Open Meetings Act, 15 T EX



### . J. C IVIL 

### L IB



### . & C IVIL 

### R IGHTS 

### 205, 227-28 (2010) ..................................... 29, 30 Hugh Hansen, Symposium: Most Important Free Speech Case in Many Years ; http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06 /symposium-important-free-speechcase-many-years/ ........................................................................................... 42 Sam Kinch, Sharpstown Stock-Fraud Scandal , The Handbook of Texas Online ..... 9
Scott Houston, Texas Open Meetings Act: Constitutional? , 13 T EX



### . T ECH



### . A DMIN



### . L.J. 79, 100 (2011) ........................................................................................... 8

### ix STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Oral argument is essential to the full development of the constitutional issue

in this case of first impression in the Unite d States. Although all fifty states have

open meeting laws, no jurisdiction has a crim inal conspiracy statute like Section

551.143, and apparently there has never been a successful criminal conviction for a

“walking quorum” or “daisy chain” violation of an open meetings law. This is an

issue of grave practical importance to Te xas officials subject to the Texas Open

Meetings Act (TOMA).

### x ISSUES PRESENTED

I. Because Section 551.143 is a content-base d law that restricts speech, it is (1) presumed unconstitutional and (2) subject to strict scrutiny.

II. The State has not shown that Sec tion 551.143 passes strict scrutiny.

III. Section 551.143 does not pass even inte rmediate scrutiny under the Supreme Court’s most recent cases.

### 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS

In 2015, Montgomery County was choking with traffic. Residents were

demanding road relief from county commissi oners. Despite public outcry, a road

bond proposal on the May 2015 ballot failed to pass, in part, because the Texas

Patriots PAC, a local Tea Party group, actively campaigned against it. The

commissioners continued to hear complaints about traffic, but were reluctant to

risk another road bond ballot defeat. In August 2015, the PAC indicated they

would be willing to support a road bond package if thei r fiscal concerns were

addressed. Representatives of the PA C requested a meeting with County Judge

Doyal. Facilitated by Marc Davenport, Judge Doyal and Commissioner Riley met

with the PAC to hear proposals for recons idering a road bond proposal. After the

meeting, the PAC, Judge Doyal, and Co mmissioner Riley held a press conference

announcing the results of the meeting, and Judge Doyal announced that he was

placing a revised road bond on the ag enda for consideration by the full

Commissioners’ Court. After discussion and public comment, the Commissioners’

Court voted unanimously to put a new ro ad bond on the November ballot. Two

months later, voters passed the road bo nd by 60%, whereas the May proposal had

failed by 60%. 1

1 See Appendix A , Motion to Dismiss, pp. 4-6 for additional background facts.

### 2 The State filed criminal charges against Montgomery County Judge Craig

Doyal, Commissioners Charley Riley a nd Jim Clark, and Marc Davenport, a

political consultant, for purportedly conspi ring to violate the Texas Open Meetings

Act (TOMA).

After an evidentiary hearing, the tria l judge granted Judge Doyal’s Motion to

Dismiss because Government Code, Secti on 551.143, violated the Free-Speech

Clause of the First Amendment.

Judge Doyal agrees with the State that whether Section 551.143 passes

constitutional muster is a question of la w, not a question of fact. The hearing on

the motion to dismiss gave the State an opportunity to present evidence to prove

that this penal law served a compelli ng governmental need and was narrowly

tailored to serve only that compelling need . Judge Doyal and his fellow defendants

offered evidence that the statute is bot h overbroad (covers too much protected

speech) and under-inclusive (d oes not cover the most im portant public officials)

and was unconstitutionally vague.

In the interest of brevity, the witne sses’ testimony is referred to only at

relevant points in this brief. 2

2 To the extent that the lega l issues are supported by witnes ses’ testimony or credibility assessments, appellate courts defer to the tr ial judge who, as Johnny-on-the-Spot, is best situated to make those judgments. Thus, all fact s are viewed in the light most favorable to the

### 3 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The purpose of the Texas Open Mee tings Act (TOMA) is to increase

governmental transparency, discourage fra ud and corruption, and decrease public

mistrust of government. Judge Doyal respects and embraces transparency in

governmental affairs. He does not cha llenge TOMA as a “sunshine” statutory

scheme to ensure openness.

However, one single conspiracy stat ute within that Act—Section 551.143—

is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. It is a c ontent-based regulation of

speech which restricts “secret deliberations ,” i.e. speech, about “public business”

by public officials gathering in less than a quorum outside of a properly posted

open meeting. It acts as a blunderbuss when a stiletto is needed. By its vagueness

and breadth, it “chills” the free speech rights of public officials.

As a content-based law that restricts speech, Section 551.143 is presumed

unconstitutional and is subject to strict scrutiny. Under Reed v. Town of Gilbert

,
135 S.Ct. 2218 (2015), the Supreme Court’ s most recent relevant case, a law

regulating speech is “content-based” if that law “applies to particular speech

because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.” Id. at 2227. As

the Court of Criminal Appeals has explaine d, “[i]f it is necessary to look at the

party prevailing in the trial court. See Mays v. State , 476 S.W.3d 454, 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015); Manzi v. State , 88 S.W.3d 240, 254 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Cochran. J, concurring).

### 4 content of the speech to decide if the sp eaker violated the law, then the regulation

is content-based.” Ex parte Lo , 424 S.W.3d 10, 15 n.12 (T ex. Crim. App. 2013).

Section 551.143 is a cont ent-based statute because one must know what

public officials are saying when they gather in less than a quorum. If they are

talking about “public busin ess” or “an issue within the jurisdiction of the

governmental body,” then Section 551.143 a pplies. If they are talking about

baseball or the weather, then Section 551.143 does not apply.

The State has failed to show that Sec tion 551.143 passes strict scrutiny. It

has failed to show that this specific st atute (as opposed to TOMA as a general

scheme) (1) serves a compelling governmental interest; (2) is necessary to protect

that interest which cannot be adequately protected by other means, and (3) is

narrowly tailored to serve on ly that compelling interest, i.e., that it does not

prohibit more speech than is necessary.

The State relies almost exclusively upon a pre- Reed Fifth Circuit case,

Asgeirsson v. Abbott , 696 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2012), in arguing that Section 551.143

is a “content-neutral” law subj ect to intermediate scrutiny.

First, Asgeirsson was abrogated by Reed , which contradicted its premise and

reasoning.

### 5 Second, this court need not follow Fifth Circuit cases, but it must follow the

precedent of the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Third, even if Asgeirsson were still good law and th e controlling precedent,

the most recent Supreme Court cases, Packingham v. North Carolina, 2017 WL

2621313 (June 19, 2017), and Matal v. Tam, 2017 WL 2621315 (June 19, 2017),

show that Section 551.143 does not pass constitutional muster even under

intermediate scrutiny.

Fourth, and most important, Asgeirsson dealt with Secti on 551.144, which is

a simple, clear statute: Public officials– look around you; if th ere’s a quorum, you

must conduct a properly posted open mee ting under TOMA. S ection 155.143, on

the other hand, is so vague that experts call it “gibberish” and are confused about

its meaning and application.

ARGUMENT

I. 

### Because Section 551.143 is a content-based law that restricts speech, it is (1) presumed unconstitutional and (2) subject to strict scrutiny.

A. 

### The Standard of Review: “Strict scrutiny” applies to all contentbased statutes restricting speech.

Appellate courts review de novo whether a statute is facially constitutional.

Ex parte Lo , 424 S.W.3d 10, 14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). When someone attacks

the constitutionality of a statute, courts us ually begin with the presumption that the

statute is valid and that the legislatur e has not acted unreasonably or arbitrarily. Id.

### 6 at 15. Normally, the burden rests on the person challenging the law to establish its

unconstitutionality. Id . But when the State seeks to restrict or punish speech based

on its content, that usual presumption is reversed. Id. 3



### Content-based regulations are presum ptively invalid, and the State must

rebut that presumption. Id. 4 

### Courts apply the "most exacting scrutiny to

3 The State argues that the Supreme Court disfavors f acial challenges and quotes Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party , 552 U.S. 442, 450-51 (2008). That case involved a lawsuit filed immediately after Wash ington enacted a “modified blanket primary” system in which candidates could express thei r political party preference on the ballot regardless of whether the party approved of them . The parties filed suit, claiming that this system violated their First Am endment rights of free association because voters would think the candidates were supported by the political pa rty. Unfortunately, they did not wait to see whether voters really were confused. It was al l speculation because the law had not yet been applied to any elections. There was no live controversy and no risk yet to either a candidate or a political party.

Here, however, there certainly is a case and controversy and grave ri sk. County Judge Doyal

and Commissioner Riley were charged with committing a crime under Section 551.143 and are positioned, as were John Lo and Ronald Thompson, to mount a pretrial facial challenge to its constitutionality under the First Amendment. Ex parte Lo ,424 S.W.3d at 14; Ex parte Thompson, 442 S.W.3d 325, 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) . A facial challenge to the constitutionality of a criminal statute is best made before trial so that the defendant, if he prevails, need not endure the extravagant time, expense, and anxiety that any such criminal trial entails, when the ultimate outcome is a matter of law, not fact. See Ex parte Perry , 483 S.W.3d 884, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (facial cha llenge to penal statut e on First Amendment grounds may be made–and appealed–pretrial).

4 The State has mistakenly relied on cases that do not deal with the Free Speech Clause in stating

that one who makes a facial challenge to a law “m ust show ‘that no set of circumstances exists under which [the statute] would be valid’” or that the statute lacks any “plainly legitimate sweep.” Appellant’s Brief at 22 and 30. Those cases, United States v. Salerno , 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987) (finding that Bail Reform Act which aut horized pretrial deten tion was not facially unconstitutional under the Eight Amendment), and Washington v. Glucksberg , 521 U.S. 702, 740, n. 7 (1997) (holding that Wa shington’s ban on assisted suic ide was rationally related to legitimate government interests), are irrelevant to a discussion of constitutionality under the First Amendment, which has its ow n jurisprudence and standards. See Ex parte Perry, 483

### 7 regulations that suppress, disadvantage, or impose differential burdens upon speech

because of its content." Id. (quoting Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. FCC , 512

U.S. 622, 642 (1994)).

To satisfy the strict-scrutiny standard , a law that regulates speech must be

(1) necessary to serve a compelling stat e interest and (2) narrowly drawn. Ex parte

Lo , 424 S.W.3d at 15. “A law is narrowly dr awn if it employs the least restrictive

means to achieve its goal and if there is a close nexus between the government's

compelling interest and the restriction.” Id

. 5



### But if a less restrictive means of servi ng the compelling interest could be as

effective in achieving the legitimate purpose of the statute, then the law in question

does not satisfy strict scrutiny. Id . Given this test, “It is the rare case in which a

speech restriction withstands strict scrutiny.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S.Ct.

2218, 2236 (2015). (Kagan, J., concurri ng) (citations and quotations omitted). 6

S.W.3d at 902-03 (“Under the First Amendment' s “overbreadth” doctrine, a law may be declared unconstitutional on its face, even if it might have some legitimate applications.”).

5 Regulations that are content-neutral, i.e. that regulate speech without regard to its content, are

subject to a less exacting “intermediate scrutiny” which requires that th e challenged law not be “substantially broader than necessary” to achieve the government’s important interest. Ward v. Rock Against Racism , 491 U.S. 781, 799-800 (1989).

6 Colloquially, “strict in theory, fatal in fact.” According to one source, seventy percent of all

laws subject to strict scrutiny in federal courts are struck down, while seventy-eight percent of challenged laws affecting speech are struck down. Adam Winkler, Fatal in Theory and Strict in Fact : An Empirical Analysis of Strict Scrutiny, 59 V ANDERBILT L. R EV . 793 (2006).

### 8 B. 

### Section 551.143 is a content-bas ed regulation of speech.

Section 551.143(a) states:

A member or group of members of a governmental body commits an offense if the member or group of members knowingly conspires to circumvent this chapter by meeting in numbers less than a quorum for the purpose of secret deliberations in vi olation of this chapter.

On its face, this statute does not make sense. According to one expert

witness, the statute is “gibberish.” (RR2 at 40). Gathering in numbers of less than

a quorum does not violate a statute that requires a quorum to meet in open session.

You either have a quorum or you don’t; with the form er you have open meetings,

with the latter, you have informal discussions.

1. 

### Attorney General Opinion GA -0326 (2005) rewrote Section 551.143.

From its enactment in 1973, courts, commentators, experts, and (most

importantly) public officials who try to obey this criminal law have been

confused. 7 

### So confused, that in 2004 (some thir ty years after it had originally been

7 See generally, C. Robert Heath & Emily Willms Rogers, Did the Attorney Ge neral Shine Light

on the Confusion in Texas’ Sunshine Law? In terpreting Open Meetings Act Provision § 551.143 , 7 T EX

. T ECH

. A DMIN

. L.J. 97, 99 (2006) (“Despite these attempts at clarification” by courts and attorney general opini ons “confusion persists, and local officials desiring to steer clear of violating the Act look for a bright-lin e rule that clearly defines when discussions among members of a governing body outside a formal public meeting are permissible and when they are not.”); Scott Houston, Texas Open Meetings Act: Constitutional? , 13 T EX

. T ECH

. A DMIN

. L.J. 79, 100 (2011) (“Even with vast knowledge of the act [TOMA], practitioners still have trouble advising client s. Many elected offici als ask if they can ta lk about public business with other members of the governmental bo dy outside of a properly posted meeting.

### 9 enacted but apparently never us ed in the criminal context) 8 

### Tom Maness, the longtime Jefferson County District Attorney , requested an Attorney General opinion

about it. He “had significant doubt as to the constitutionality of the statute,” there

was “significant disagreement” as to its intended meaning, an d he was concerned

that it was “void for vagueness.” 9



### The Attorney General basically re wrote the statute to prohibit:

A member or members of a governmental body who knowingly conspire to circum vent [TOMA] by gathering in numbers that do not physically constitute a quorum at any one time but who thro ugh successive gatherings create a quorum of that body for the purpose of secret deliberations in violation of [TOMA]. 10

Generally, the answer is no.”); Carlos Doroteo, The Texas Open Meetings Act: An OldFashioned, Wild-West, First Amendment Shoot-Out , 56 S. T EX

. L. R EV . 675, 708 (2015) (“The sheer complexity and confusion ar ising out of this real world ev ent [the Port of Houston board member fight] provides a st rong case that TOMA is overbroad a nd vague, since it is difficult to discern when exactly the law has been broken.”).

8 Section 551.143 was added to the original 196 7 Open Meetings Act in 1973, after the 1971

Sharpstown stock-fraud scandal. Sam Kinch, Sharpstown Stock-Fraud Scandal , The Handbook of Texas Online. In 1993, the Open Meetings Act was codified in chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code.

9 https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/opini ons/opinions/50abbott/rq/2004/pdf/RQ0291GAf

10 As one expert witness tes tified, the only way for Sectio n 551.143 to mean what the AG’s

opinion says it means is to invent a lot of new wo rds and put them in the statute (RR2 at 56). But an AG opinion cannot add new words or new de finitions to a penal statute–a law that must be strictly construed and whose provisions are inte rpreted under the Rule of Lenity to favor the defendant, not the State.

It is a “familiar principle that ‘ambiguity’ in the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved

in favor of lenity.” Skilling v. United States , 561 U. S. 358, 410 (2010). That principle prevents courts from giving the words of a criminal statute “a meaning that is different from

### 10 We are told by Attorney General Opin ion GA-0326 (2005) that the purpose of

Section 551.143 is to prev ent and punish a “walking quorum” or “daisy chain”

secret deliberation. Id. at *2. This occurs, according to the Attorney General, when

members conspire to commit a criminal offense by having secret deliberations

through serial communications with each other until a quorum is reached. Id. Of

course, that is not what the law actually says. 11 

### The Attorney General simply

found that construction “discernible” from his own reading. Id. 12

[their] ordinary, accepted meaning, and that disfavors the defendant.” Burrage v. United States , 134 S.Ct. 881, 891 (2014). And it means that when a criminal statute has two possible readings, courts do not “‘choose the harsher alternative’” unless the legislature has “‘spoken in language that is clear and definite.’” United States v. Bass , 404 U. S. 336, 347–349 (1971).

11 A Kansas civil statute does say what the Attorney General argues that Section 551.143 meant

to say. See Appendix A , Motion to Dismiss, fn. 8.

12 According to a 1990 Louisiana Attorney Gene ral Opinion, “a ‘walking quorum’ is a meeting

of a public body where different members leave the meeting and different members enter the meeting so that while an actua l quorum is never physically pres ent an actual quorum during the course of the meeting partic ipates in the discussion.” Mabry v. Union Parish School Board

, 974 So.2d 787, 789 (La. App. 2014) (quoting Op. Atty. Gen. No. 90-349, July 26, 1990). The Mabry court held that the “ca sual telephone encounters wh ere several board members individually and separately discussed the situat ion” concerning an empl oyment contract would have “to reach a much more structured level with secretive binding fo rce on at least a quorum of the membership before the Open Meetings Act would be implicated.” Id. The court explained:

[W]e find that the informal exchange of ideas and opinions preliminary to a meeting of elected officials is important for the issues of agenda setting and compromise that make a deliberative body function efficiently. For one member to have a phone conversation with anot her, wherein opinions and thoughts on a topic are expressed, does not mean or crea te a presumption that those parties’ views will be fixed in stone in solidarity before the public meeting.

### 11 2. 

### Section 551.143 restricts “secret deliberations.”

The State has not cited a single case from Texas or any other jurisdiction

involving a successful criminal convictio n under Section 551. 143 or for having a

“walking quorum” deliberation, and Judge D oyal is unable to find such a case in

any of the 50 states that have Open Meetings laws. 13



### Nonetheless, Judge Doyal assumes that what the Legislature intended to

prohibit and punish in Secti on 551.143 is some sort of “secret deliberation.” A

“deliberation” is defined as “a verb al exchange during a meeting between a

quorum of a governmental body, or betwee n a quorum of a governmental body and

another person, concerning an issue with in the jurisdiction of the governmental

body or any public business. ” Section 551.001(2). Ther efore, the law, on its face,

prohibits and punishes cer tain “verbal exchanges,” i.e., speech. Of course, Section

551.143 directly contradicts the statutor y definition of “de liberation” which

requires a quorum, but Secti on 551.143 makes it a crime fo r “deliberations” by less

than a quorum of members. Those two st atutes are impossible to reconcile. So

Id. at 790. Louisiana courts construe their open-meetings law in a common-sense manner to

provide both openness for the public and suffi cient means for public officials to obtain information and exchange views on public business.

13 See Appendix A

, Motion to Dismiss, fns. 2& 3 for an explanation of the Westlaw searches.

### 12 even beyond the First Amendment problems, the statute is unenforceable as selfcontradictory “gibberish.” It is a classic oxymoron.

But putting aside unenfor ceability, the next question is whether that speech

restriction is conten t-based. It is.

3. 

### A statute that singles out and regulates speech of a specific subject matter is a content-ba sed limitation of speech, subject to strict scrutiny.

a. 

### Reed v. Town of Gilbert clarified that Section 551.143 is a content-based regulation.

The United States Supreme Court recen tly reiterated that “content-based”

regulations of speech are subject to strict scrutiny. Reed v. Town of Gilbert , 135

S.Ct. 2218 (2015). 14 

### And, unremarkably, the Supr eme Court explained that a law

14 Reed involved a town’s sign code which divided signs that do not need city permits into three categories: “ideological” (signs “communi cating a non-commercial message or ideas”), “political,” and “temporary directional signs re lating to a qualifying event.” 135 S.Ct. at 2224. These categories are “based on the t ype of information they convey.” Id. And the code imposes more stringent restrictions on temporar y directional signs than the other two types. Id. at 2225.

A small, cash-strapped church that held services “catch-as-catch-can” at various town locations

sued because the law governing their “temporar y directional signs” was more restrictive in time, place, and manner than the other two sign categories. Although lower courts admitted that a police officer had to read the church’s si gn before he knew whether it fell into the third category, they called the law “content-neutral” by saying that the town’s “interests in regulating temporary signs are unrelat ed to the content of the sign.” Id. at 2226.

The Supreme Court in essence said, “So what ?” The law, on its face, is content-based,

regardless of (1) the legitimate reasons for enacti ng it, (2) whether it singl es out one particular idea or viewpoint for differential treatment, or (3) whether that law seems a “reasonable” time, place, and manner regulation. Id. at 2227-30. If you need to know the content of the speech or sign to know if the particular la w applies–Stop. That’s enough. The law is content-based and

### 13 regulating speech is “content-based,” if that law “applies to particular speech

because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.” Id. at 2227.

That is, does one need to know what was said before deciding the law

applies to that “verbal exchange”? If ye s, then the law is content-based on its

face. 15 

### For example, suppose two council me mbers are standing in the City Hall

rotunda, talking, gesturing, and putting th eir heads together, then one leaves and a

third council member approaches and begins to talk to the first. Does Section

551.143 apply to their “verbal exchanges”? 16 

### We don’t know until we hear what

they were discussing—maybe the weathe r (or a baseball game) or maybe a road

bond (or traffic lights).

Section 551.143 applies only to “verbal exchanges” about “an issue within

the jurisdiction of the governmental bo dy or any public business.” Section

subject to strict scrutiny. Id. (“Because the Town’s Sign Code imposes content-based restrictions on speech, those provisions can stan d only if they survive strict scrutiny”).

15 In Reed , the Supreme Court explained that a law may be content-based in either of two ways:

(1) facially by regulating speech by its topic or subject or (2) inferentially when the government’s purpose or justification for enactin g the law depends on the underlying idea or message expressed. That is, the law is facially neutral, but the motives or purpose in enacting it were content-based. 135 S.Ct. at 2228. B ecause Section 551.143 is content-based on its face, we need not address the second prong, just as the Reed Court did not need to address that second, inferential, prong.

16 The right question for the constitutional inquir y is whether the statut e applies at all, not

whether this evidence is sufficient to show that they have conspired to commit an offense under Section 551.143.

### 14 551.001(2). The applicability of Section 551.143, therefore, depends on the

subject or topic of the convers ation. If the topic is “pub lic business” (whatever that

is) or “any issue within the jurisdiction” of the city council, then Section 551.143

regulates and limits that speech. It is a classic, straight-forward example of a

content-based statute. 17 

### See Reed , 135 S.Ct. at 2227 (noting that “[s]ome facial

distinctions based on a message are obvious, defining regulated speech by

particular subject matter”); 18 

### see also Ex parte Lo , 242 S.W.3d at 15, n.12.

One must look at the content of a memb er’s “verbal expression” to decide

whether Section 551.143 applies to gatheri ngs of less-than-a-quorum; therefore,

under Reed and Lo , it is a content-based regulation of speech, and it is subject to

strict scrutiny.

17 For example, a law that prohibits one from giving any speech at Hyde Park Corner between

midnight and 6:00 a.m. is a neutral time, place, and manner restriction. However, a law that prohibits anyone (or just a public official) from giving a speech about “public business” between midnight and 6:00 a.m. is a content-ba sed statute subject to strict scrutiny, even though it might also be a reasonable ti me, place, and manner restriction.

18 Even when a regulation does not address content on its face, it is considered content-based if it

cannot be “justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech.” Reed , 135 S.Ct. at 2227.

### 15 b. 

### Reed abrogated Asgeirsson v. Abbott

.
Reed has caused heartburn in courts across America because it reiterated 19



### that if a law regulating speech is content-base d, then strict scrutiny applies. Period.

The Supreme Court explained that over the years this simple, common-sense

doctrine had been muddied by courts sugge sting that content-based regulations

weren’t subject to strict scrutiny if, for example, “the purpose and justification for

the law are neutral.” Id . at 2228 (“A law that is conten t based on its face is subject

to strict scrutiny regardless of the gov ernment’s benign motive, content-neutral

justification, or lack of ‘animus toward the ideas contained’ in the regulated

speech.”).

That is what led the Fifth Circuit astray in Asgeirsson v. Abbott , 696 F.3d

454 (5th Cir. 2012), when it upheld TOMA as a “cont ent-neutral” scheme.

Asgeirsson was decided three years before Reed clarified that strict scrutiny applies

to all content-based laws affecting speech. 20 

### The Fifth Circuit stated,

19 In Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 96 (1972), the S upreme Court invalidated a

picketing statute because it prohibited picket ing within 150 feet of schools, except for picketing that involved labor disputes. Th at was a content-based regulation in which application of the law depended on whether the picketing in ques tion dealt with the subject of labor disputes. It was an improper content-based regulation of speech. Id. Reed is not new law, it is old law, Mosley , reaffirmed.

20 See Appendix A , Motion to Dismiss, pp. 9-14, for a history of “The Alpine case” and

Asgeirsson

.

### 16 A regulation is not conten t-based, however, merely because the applicability of th e regulation depends on thecontent of the speech. A statute that appears contentbased on its face may still be deemed content-neutral if it is justified without regard to the content of its speech.

Id. at 460. 21 

### “No, no, no,” said the Supreme Court in Reed. If the applicability of

the law depends on the content of the speech , it is content-based and strict scrutiny

applies. Period. End of story.

21 The Fifth Circuit suggested that TOMA is a “disclosure” law just lik e the political campaignreporting requirements discussed in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010). A “disclosure” law is one that opens up and reveals past events. For example, campaign contributions must be “disclosed” or made public afte r the recipient accepts them. Id. at 914. We “disclose” somethi ng after it has occurred.

Similarly, the Texas Public Information Act (Texas Open Records Act), Tex. Gov’t Code

chapter 552, is a “disclosure” act requiring that all governmental bodies (the same bodies that are required to hold open meetings) make the r ecords of their prior activities and decisions open to the public upon request. For example, any public citizen or newspaper reporter may request a copy of all emails, phone logs, or mi nutes by commissioners that are kept by the county government concerning a specific topic. Although certain sections of TOMA might be considered “disclosure” statutes, e.g., the posting of an agenda to “disclose” to the public what topics had been decided upon for discussion at an open meeting, S ection 551.143 is certainly not a “disclosure” law, it is a “regulation of speech” law. (RR3 at 27-28; explaining that Citizens United is a disclosure statute, as are the time, place, and manner rules concerning a governmental meeting, but Section 551.143 is a “prohibition” statute, so Citizens United is inapplicable to it). It is the Op en Records Act that is analogous to Citizen’s United , not Section 551.143.

As the experienced trial judge noted at the hearing, if Secti on 551.143 were deemed a

“disclosure” law, then any violation would presum ably be cured if the officials disclosed and reaffirmed their prior discussions and decisions in a regularly posted open meeting (RR2 at 158-159). How could it still be a crime if public disclosure cured the violation?

Of course, the main focus in Citizens United was striking down, on First Amendment grounds, a statute that was “an outright ban, backed by crim inal sanctions” restrict ing corporate political donations made close to the time of an elect ion as a violation of free-speech rights.” Id. at 888- 89. Section 551.143. The same type of ban is at issue in Section 551.143.

### 17 The Fifth Circuit in Asgeirsson , like the Ninth Circuit in Reed , mistakenly

thought that even if a statute was conten t-based on its face, other justifications

could save it from strict scrutiny. 22 

### But now the Fifth Circuit, like the Ninth

Circuit, this court, and the Court of Cr iminal Appeals (which had predicted the

Reed holding in its 2013 Ex parte Lo decision), 23 

### must, under the Supremacy

Clause, follow the United States Supreme Court. 24



### c. 

### The State claims that Reed , McCullen , and Asgeirsson have been analyzed by a Texas federal court.

The State in its brief cites Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dept. of State , 121

F.Supp.3d 680 (W.D. Tex. 2015), a federal district court case, as support for its

22 In all fairness, the Supreme Court may have led courts astray in such cases as Ward v. Rock

Against Racism , 491 U.S. 781, 799-800 (1989) (noting that “[t]he principal inquiry in determining content neutrality, in speech cases generally and in time, place, or manner cases in particular, is whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys”), and Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. , 475 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1986) (upholding a zoning ordinance and suggesting that, in some instances, a law that appears content-based on its face might still be deemed content-neutral if it were justified without regard to the content of the speech such as “secondary e ffects”). But as the Supreme Court explained as it distinguished Ward in Reed , “an innocuous justific ation cannot transform a facially content-based la w into one that is conten t-neutral.” 135 S.Ct. at 2228.

23 The Fifth Circuit itself had accurately predicted the Reed result and reasoning in Rangra , its first TOMA decision. Rangra v. Brown , 566 F.3d 515, 521 (5th Ci r. 2009) (“A speech regulation is content-based if it defines the regulated speech by reference to its content”; agreeing that the criminal provisions of TOMA are “content-based regula tions that require the state to satisfy the strict-scrutiny test in order to uphold them.”). Reed resurrected Rangra and abrogated Asgeirsson

. See Appendix A , Motion to Dismiss, pp. 9-14.

24 See Penrod Drilling Corp. v. Williams , 868 S.W.2d 294, 296 (Tex. 1993) (Texas courts “are

obligated to follow only higher Texas courts a nd the United States Supreme Court.”).

### 18 contention that Asgeirsson is still valid after Reed . Appellant’s Brief at 38-39. The

State claims that Reed

, McCullen , and Asgeirsson were all analyzed by the district

court when it denied injunctive relief base d on, among other factors, the substantial

likelihood of the plaintiff’s First Amen dment claim succeeding on the merits.

While the district court made such an analysis, the Fifth Circuit did not approve it.

Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dept. of State , 838 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2016). The

majority of the three-judge panel of the Fi fth Circuit in its review of the district

court’s denial of injunc tive relief expressly declin ed to address the First

Amendment. 25 

### The panel focused instead on th e balancing of harm test for

granting injunctive relief.

However, Judge Edith Jones declared, “I dissent from this court’s failure to

treat the issues raised before us with th e seriousness that direct abridgments of free

speech demand.” Id. at 461 (Jones, J., dissenting). She explained exactly how the

25 The Fifth Circuit majority asserts three times that its opinion in Defense Distributed v. U.S.

Dept. of State , 838 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2016), does not address the merits of the First Amendment claims made by the plaintiffs who were seeking injunctive relief:

 “[W]e decline to address the merits requirement.” Id . at 458.

 “We therefore affirm the district court’s de nial and decline to reach the question of

whether Plaintiff-Appellants have demonstr ated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits [of their First Amendment claim].” Id. at 460.

 “These are difficult questions, and we ta ke no position on the ultimate outcome other

than to agree with the district court that it is not yet the time to address the merits [of the First Amendment claim].” Id. at 461.

### 19 U.S. State Department violat ed Defense Distributed’s First Amendment rights and

chastised the district court for its analysis : “The district cour t, moreover, clearly

erred in gauging the level of constitutional protection to which this speech is

entitled: intermediate scrutiny is inappropri ate for the content-based restriction at

issue here. (Why the majority is unwilling to correct this obvious error for the sake

of the lower court’s getting it right on remand is a mystery).” Id. at 463.

While the majority opinion shed no light on whether Asgeirsson was still

valid law—the case wasn’t mentioned on ce—the dissent made the proper analysis

of speech regulations and looked at many of the same issues present in this case:

plain meaning of the statute, whether th e statute regulates speech, and the proper

constitutional analysis.

The State cannot claim that its reliance on Asgeirsson and intermediate

scrutiny would survive Fifth Circuit review post- Reed . Not only did Judge Jones

reject use of Asgeirsson and intermediate scrutiny fo r content-based speech

regulations, but four other Fifth Circuit judges believed that Defense Distributed

should have been granted en banc rehearing and the merits of the First Amendment

claim addressed. Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dept. of State , 2017 WL1032309

(5th Cir., Mar. 15, 2017). Judge Jennifer El rod issued a scathing dissent from the

denial of rehearing and scolded the major ity for relying on “a mere assertion of a

### 20 national security interest.” Id. at *2. In sum, the Fifth Circuit has definitely not

reaffirmed Asgeirsson after Reed.

C. 

### Post- Reed, courts nationwide have invalidated numerous contentbased laws regulating speech.

The Austin Court of Appeals has noted that many courts across the nation

were surprised by the Reed decision as they had “construed pre- Reed precedent as

allowing ‘content-based regulations [to be treated] as content neutral if the

regulations are motivated by a perm issible content-neutral purpose.’” Auspro

Enterprises, LP v. Texas Dept. of Transp ., 506 S.W.3d 688, 700 (Tex. App.—

Austin 2016, pet. filed) (invalidating portions of Texas Highway Beautification

Act as a content-based regulation of speech that was not narrowl y tailored to serve

compelling governmental interests). 26 

### Nonetheless, the Austin Court of Appeals

was constrained to follow Reed rather than an earlie r Texas Supreme Court

decision upholding the challenged law. Id. at 698-700.

26 See also Thomas v. Schroer , 2017 WL 1208672 (W.D. Tex. March 31, 2017) (noting Auspro

and agreeing that the billboard Act was subject to strict scrutiny under Reed and it was not sufficiently narrowly tailored ; held unconstitutional).

### 21 Indeed, content-based laws regula ting speech have been falling like

dominoes after Reed clarified when a law affecting speech is content-based and,

therefore, subject to strict scrutiny. 27



### For example, the Seventh Circuit had or iginally upheld an anti-panhandling

statute against a First Amendment challenge because it regulated by subject matter

rather than by viewpoint. Norton v. City of Springfield , 768 F.3d 713, 717-18 (7th

Cir. 2014). The law was called a conten t-neutral regulation of time, place, and

manner of speech prohibiting “oral reque st[s] for an immediate donation of

money,” but permitting signs and or al pleas to send money later. Id. On rehearing

after Reed , the court reversed itself and held that the Supreme Court “abolishe[d]

any distinction between c ontent regulation and subject -matter regulation” and

made it clear that “a speech regulation targ eted at specific subject matter is content

based even if it does not discriminate among viewpoints within that subject

matter.” Norton v. City of Springfield , 806 F.3d 411, 412 (7th Cir. 2015). 28

27 The cases are collected on a weekly basis at 24 A.L.R. 7 th Art. 6 (“Construction and

Application of Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz , Providing that Speech Regulation Targeted at Specific Subject Matter is Conten t-Based Even If It Does Not Discriminate Among Viewpoints Within that Subject Matter”).

28 See also Champion v. Commonwealth , 2017 WL 636420, __ S.W.3d ___ (Ky. Feb. 16, 2017)

(anti-panhandling statute struck down as a content-based unconstitutional regulation of speech).

### 22 Application of a “time, place, or manne r” doctrine to a statute that targets a

specific subject matter of speech can no longer be deemed content-neutral. Id.

Under Reed , a statute prohibiting “ballot se lfies” was struck down despite

the state’s claim that (1) the law’s purpose was to prevent “vote buying and voter

coercion,” and (2) it was a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. 29 

### So

was a South Carolina law pr ohibiting certain robocalls 30 

### and North Carolina’s

cyber-bullying law. 31 

### A Minnesota statute regulating certain door-to-door

solicitations was struck down under Reed because it required a license for the

solicitation of some, but not all, materials. 32 

### And a Kentucky law prohibiting a

29 Rideout v. Gardner , 123 F. Supp. 3d 218 (D.N.H. 2015) (“Because the law require[d]

regulators to examine the content of the speech to determine whether it include[d] impermissible subject matter,” it was subject matter-based discrimination), aff’d , 838 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2016), cert. denied 137 S.Ct. 1435 (April 3, 2017); see also

, Ind. Civil Liberties Union v. Ind. Sec’y of State , No. 1:15-CV-01356-SEB-DML, at *19 (D. Ind. 2015) (same).

30 Cahaly v. Larosa , 796 F.3d 399, 402-05 (4th Cir. 2015).

31 State v. Bishop, 787 S.E.2d 814, 817-21 (N.C. 2016) (statute that criminalized posting

“private, personal or sexual information pertai ning to a minor” was content-based; although protecting children from online bullying was a compelling interest, th e law was not narrowly tailored–criminalizing personal informati on to “annoy” a minor swept too broadly).

32 Working America, Inc. v. City of Bloomington , 142 F.Supp.3d 823 (D. Minn. 2015) (even

though city had benign motive and content-neutral justification of reduci ng fraud and criminal activity and honoring homeow ners' heightened expectation of privacy inside their own home, ordinance treated solicitors differently depend ing on function or purpose of their speech, and need to obtain license depe nded on content of message).

### 23 newspaper columnist without an in-s tate license from writing a “family

psychologist” advice column was content-based and invalid after Reed. 33



### Most of these statutes were merely civil regulations of speech, not penal

provisions that criminalized speech. Wh en determining the constitutionality of

criminal sanctions against speech, strict sc rutiny is frequently lethal in its demand

for a particularly compelling governme ntal need and an extremely narrow

tailoring. See Ex parte Perry , 483 S.W.3d at 912-17 (coerc ion of a public official

statute facially unconstitutional under Free-Speech Clause); Ex parte Thompson

,
442 S.W.3d 325, 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (improper photography statute

facially unconstitutiona l in violation of freedom of speech); Ex parte Lo , 424

S.W.3d at 14; see also Long v. State , 931 S.W.2d 285, 297 (Tex . Crim. App. 1996)

(stalking statute facially unconstitutiona l and vague because its language was too

expansive).

D. 

### Even before Reed , laws restricting political speech were especially likely to be found unconstitutional.

Political speech is at the very core of the First Amendment, and courts are

especially protective of persons exercisi ng their free-speech rights when discussing

politically controversial or public-interest issues. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections

33 Rosemond v. Markham , 135 F.Supp.3d 574, 581-85 (E.D. Ky. 2015) (attempt by state board of

psychologists to regulate parenting advice in ne wspaper was a content-based restriction which did not survive strict scrutiny under Reed ).

### 24 Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 347-48 (1995). 34 

### Both before and after Reed , no form of

speech is more protected than this core political speech which enjoys “exacting”

scrutiny, upholding restrictions only when they are narrowly tailored to serve an

“overriding state interest.” Id. at 347.

Thus, under McIntyre and Reed , an Ohio law that prohibited and punished

political false statements that include all false speech about a candidate, not just

defamatory or fraudulent remarks, wa s content-based and failed the exacting

scrutiny given political speech. 35



### Even before Reed , rules restricting the political and free speech rights of

judges were struck down bo th by the Supreme Court 36 

### and the Fifth Circuit. 37 

### It

should not be said that a Texas County J udge, who acts as the chief executive of a

34 McIntyre involved an Ohio election statute that prohibited the distribution of anonymous

campaign literature. The Supreme Court held th at the law violated th e First Amendment right to “anonymous” free speech.

35 Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus , 814 F.3d 466, 473-76 (6th Cir. 2016) (state’s political

false-statement laws were content-based; th ey burdened core political speech, were not sufficiently narrowly tailored, and di d not withstand st rict scrutiny).

36 Republican Party of Minnesota v. White , 536 U.S. 765, 781-82 (2002) (s tate’s rule prohibiting

judicial candidates from announci ng their views on disputed legal or political issues violated the free-speech rights of j udges and judicial candidates).

37 Jenevein v. Willing , 493 F.3d 551, 557-58 (5th Cir. 2007) (judiciary commission’s order

censuring Texas judge because of the content of his speech about public affairs and alleged abuses of process in a particular case violated his fr ee-speech rights).

### 25 county, or his fellow commissioners have fewer free-speech rights than a county

judge who sits on a trial bench. 38



### Similarly, laws that target “defamat ory attacks” at c ity council meetings 39



### and “criticism” of official s at school board meetings 40 

### have been struck down postReed as content-based and failing to survive strict scrutiny in the context of

political gatherings.

That is not to say that all content-based statutes re gulating speech fail strict

scrutiny. Some can survive. But the government’s power to criminalize speech,

especially political speech by public offici als discussing public business, must be

extremely limited and closely scrutinized, never assumed.

38 The State analogizes the free- speech restrictions in Sectio n 551.143 to the rules regarding ex

parte communications during a trial. That is a false analogy. It is Section 551.144 and its rules regarding an open meeting that is analogous to the rules regarding the conduct of a trial. Outside of the courtroom and outside of the op en meeting forum, both judges and members of a governmental entity still have their normal fr ee-speech rights to disc uss “public business” and controversial topics of commu nity concern. Just as judges have a right to private speech about “public business,” so do public officials. See Perry , 483 S.W.3d at 915-17 (public officials have a First Amendment right to engage in expression, even th reats, regarding their official duties).

39 Draego v. City of Charlotteville,Va. , 2016 WL 6834025, * (W.D. Va. 2016) (city's rule

banning speakers from making "defamatory atta cks on groups" at city council meetings was not content-neutral because a speaker and th e council must assess whether speech had a “character-attacki ng” content under Reed ; violated First Amendment).

40 Mnyofu v. Board of Education of Rich Township High School Dist. 227, 2016 Westlaw 13197336 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (school board violated plaintiff's First Amendment rights under Reed by preventing him from criticizing school officials during board meetings).

### 26 II. 

### The State has not shown that Sectio n 551.143 passes strict scrutiny.

Because Section 551.143 imposes content- based restrictions on speech, that

law may stand only if it survives strict sc rutiny, “which requires the Government to

prove that the restriction furthers a comp elling interest and is narrowly tailored to

achieve that interest.” Reed , 135 S.Ct. at 2231.

The State argues that the purpose of TO MA is to increase transparency of

government, discourage fraud and corruption, and decrease public mistrust of

governmental entities. Judge Doyal agrees wholeheartedly. He does not challenge

TOMA as a general open-meetings scheme . But having a benign intent will not

save a constitutionall y defective statute like Section 551.143.

A. 

### The State has failed to prove that Section 551.143 serves a compelling need that is not already met by other TOMA provisions.

The issue in this case is not TOMA. It is the one overbroad and vague

criminal conspiracy provision within th at act which has a tremendous “chilling”

effect on public officers and their c onstituents. Section 551.143 does not

effectively serve any compelling governme ntal interest, and it is not narrowly

tailored to achieve only a compelling interest.

### 27 1. 

### TOMA addresses importa nt, but not compelling, governmental interests.

The point of TOMA is to ensure th at decisions made by government entities

are made in open meetings so that citizen s may see and hear their public officials

discuss, debate, and decide upon matters w ithin their jurisdiction. That is an

important public interest, but it is not an essential or compelling one. If it were,

our two main lawmaking entities—the Un ited States Congress and the Texas

Legislature—would be subject to the same strictures. These legislative bodies are

the main focus of public concern ov er the openness and accessibility of

government entities, yet they are not required to obey and abide by these

transparency laws.

As the current Washington political s cene shows, national laws are not

always crafted or much discussed in public; a pro forma vote after secret politicalparty deliberations suffices. The Texas Legislature orig inally intended for TOMA

to apply to its own deliberations, 41 

### but, under its rulemaking authority, it exempts

itself. 42 

### A law that addresses a “compelling” governmental need should apply to

41 It was, after all, enacted in response to the legislative scandal su rrounding the Sharpstown

stock-fraud scandal and the invo lvement of Speaker Gus Mutscher as well as other lawmakers in possible bribery concerning that affair. Presumably, the Legisl ature did not wa nt legislators giving favorable treatment to bills ba sed on bribery rather than merit.

42 Ms. Jennifer Riggs, an expert on TOMA, testifie d at the motion hearing that TOMA applies to

Texas legislators, but that they “suspend the rules” of TOMA on a daily basis so that they can

### 28 all lawmaking entities, across the board , while laws that address a lesser,

“important,” governmental need may a pply selectively to some lawmaking

entities. 43 

### Only those laws that serve compe lling governmental needs could satisfy

the first strict-scrutiny prong.

TOMA’s regulatory “stick” is Section 551.144, the prohibition of “closed”

meetings which “1) prevent transparency ; (2) encourage fraud and corruption; and

(3) foster mistrust in government.” Asgeirsson , 696 F.3d at 461 (discussing the

purpose of Section 551.144). That statut e is clear and easy to understand. If a

quorum of the members of a governmental entity meets to deliberate on “public

business” or “an issue within the jurisd iction of the governmental body,” then it

must do so in a properly posted public meeting.

get their work done (RR3 at 56-57). She is correct. See In re Texas Senate , 36 S.W.3d 119, 120 (Tex. 2000) (“Section 551.003 "prohibit[s] secret meetings of the legislature, committees of the legislature, and other bodies associated with the legislature, except as specifically provided in the constitution. This provision clear ly covers the Committee of the Whole Senate. Thus, its meeting and votes cannot be secret "except as specifically provided" by the Texas Constitution.”). The Texas Constitution explicitly permits the Legislature to create its own rules and so it exempts itself from TOMA. But, as Ms. Riggs explained, the legislators do not intend to violate TOMA with their hallway conferences, logrolling, and informal vote counting, they simply want to se rve their constituents and pass need ed legislation, just as local officials try to do. (RR3 at 91).

43 See Florida State Bar v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 542 (1989) (Scalia, J ., concurring) (noting that a

law's under-inclusiveness—its fail ure to reach all speech that implicates the interest—is evidence that an interest is not compelling or “o f the highest order,” becau se it suggests that the government itself doesn't see the interest as co mpelling enough to justify a broader statute).

### 29 All 50 states have open meetings laws like TOMA, but fewer than 20 have

any criminal provisions. 44 

### No other state has a specia l conspiracy provision like

Section 551.143. It would seem peculiar that, if this conspiracy statute were

“necessary to meet a compelling” government need, not one of the other 49 states

with equally important needs for open mee ting laws considered this type of law

necessary. The State has failed to offer a ny proof as to why (1) any state with an

open-meetings law would have a compelli ng need for this type of criminalconspiracy law or (2) why Texas’s public officials are so different from those in

every other jurisdiction that they require such an overly broad criminal prod. 45



### TOMA already has ample remedies fo r violations of its provisions: any

action taken during an impr oper meeting is voidable, 46 

### an aggrieved person may

44 Texas is the only state to integrate a criminal penalty directly into its open meeting laws.

Eighteen states have some criminal penalty—usua lly a fine—for a violation of the state’s open meeting laws. Devon Helfmeyer, Do Public Officials Leave Their Constitutional Rights at the Ballot Box? A commentary on the Texas Open Meetings Act, 15 T EX

. J. C IVIL L IB

. & C IVIL R IGHTS 205, 227-28 (2010) (listing all nineteen states along with their penalties; twelve of them would permit jail as an option for intentio nally or knowingly partic ipating in a closed meeting under a statute like Section 551.144).

45 After all, making the Penal Code conspiracy provision (Section 15.02) applicable to TOMA

would punish any miscreant members who knowingly conspire to violate the law that requires an open meeting and would suffice to dete r those who try to avoid open meetings.

46 Section 551.141.

### 30 file for an injunction in a declaratory judgment action, 47 

### and criminal sanctions

may be sought for a “closed m eeting” under Section 551.144.

Other states have addressed transparen cy in government in different ways:

(1) they do not criminalize open meeting violations—civil deterrence is sufficient;

(2) they do not criminalize any meetings of less than a quorum of public officials;

or (3) they use criminal penalties only if the statutory language is explicit, not

subject to misinterpretation, and prohibit s only rotating, simu ltaneous, or serial

“walking quorums.” 48 

### Section 551.143 does not follow any of those paths. It is

not narrowly tailored to puni sh only speech which clear ly threatens a compelling

(or even important) governmental interest of open government. Instead, it sweeps

so broadly that “open meetings” experts counsel their public-official clients to

avoid talking to fellow officials outsi de of a properly pos ted open meeting. 49



### Constitutional challenges to other open meetings laws (made before Reed)

have been unsuccessful, but none of t hose cases involved a criminal penalty. 50



### After all, the purpose of open-meetings laws is not to make criminals out of public

47 Section 551.142.

48 See Helfmeyer, supra note 45 at 227-28.

49 The State pooh-poohs the testimony of the defens e experts, but fails to explain away the

several law review articles that have analyzed Section 551.143 and concluded that it is confusing, vague, and unconstitutional. See note 8 supra listing those articles.

50 Id. 229-30.

### 31 officials, but to subject their governmental decision-making to the scrutiny of the

citizens.

Two competing interests drive TOMA: “t he public’s right to know about the

workings of its governmental bodies, and the need to ensure members of

governmental bodies are informed and act efficiently.” 51 

### Both of these goals are

essential to good government; neither is mo re important or compelling than the

other. Congress and the Texas Legislature have struck the balance firmly in favor

of the rights of the public official. TO MA tilts local government slightly the other

way, but it is essential that public offici als have sufficient avenues to become wellinformed, both about their fellow officials’ concerns and those of the public. Only

the least restrictive means of achievi ng the goal of open government will pass

muster when circumscribing a public official’s free speech rights.

Section 551.143 does not meet that test.

B. 

### The State has failed to prove that Section 551.143 is narrowly tailored.

According to the First Amendment overbr eadth doctrine, a statute is facially

invalid if it prohibits a “s ubstantial” amount of protected speech “judged in relation

to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.” Ex parte Lo , 424 S.W.3d at 18. The

51 Heath & Rogers, supra note 8 at 98-99.

### 32 “narrowly tailored” prong of the strict sc rutiny test is basically the reverse of

saying that the law is overbroad or over-inclusive. 52



### In various opinions and training aids, the Attorney Gene ral has relied upon

Esperanza Peace and Justice Cen ter v. City of San Antonio , 316 F.Supp.2d 433

(W.D. Tex. 2001), its Poster Child case, in trying to explain and apply Section

551.143. In Esperanza , a federal district court held that the mayor should not have

held a series of meetings and telephone calls with council members on the evening

before the council meeting to discuss the City’s budget and to obtain a consensus

on its changes. The judge explained:

[A] meeting of less than a quorum is not a “meeting” within the Act when there is no intent to avoid the Act’s requirements. On the other ha nd, the Act would apply to meetings of groups of less than a quorum where a quorum or more of the body attempted to avoid the purpose of the Act by deliber ately meeting in groups of less than a quorum in closed sessions to discuss and/or deliberate public business, and then ratifying their actions as a quorum in a subse quent public meeting.

Id. at 476. This was a civil case seeki ng injunctive relief, not a criminal

prosecution. And clearly the purpose of the calls and “closed” meetings was to

52 See, e.g., Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Memb ers of the N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd. , 502 U.S. 105, 120-21 (1991) (“Son of Sam” law requiri ng publishers to escrow income from books written by those accused of crime was over-inc lusive because it applies to works on any subject if they include any thoughts or recollecti ons about a crime, and its broad definition of "person convicted of a crime" allows the Board to escrow the income of an author who admits in his work to committing a crime, whether he was ever actually accused or convicted).

### 33 “achieve a consensus on changes to the budget” by the entire council before the

next day’s open meeting. Id. at 442. A budget decision was made by the entire

council in a pre-meeting before the open meeting. That case is simple and

straightforward.

If only Section 551.143 were so simple. It is not. It does not require that a

quorum meet. It does not require that a quorum make a decision or achieve a

consensus. Talking about “public busin ess” by “numbers le ss than a quorum” to

purportedly “circumvent” TOMA will suffice. It is dramatically overbroad and

vague and has an in terrorem chilling effect upon both public officials and their

constituents. It does prohibit the Esperanza situation—the true daisy chain of

sequential meetings 53 

### —but it potentially prohibits much more speech that should

be free and unfettered unde r the First Amendment.

Indeed, given the “walking quorum” A ttorney General opinion, section

551.143 could criminalize public officials w ho have been approached individually

by a citizen, asked to support a bill, and to ld that a fellow official has already done

so. The “daisy chain” is created by th e citizen talking to each public official

serially and getting a positive response fro m each. Or the mayor’s secretary

53 A more narrowly tailored stat ute might prohibit “meetings in numbers of less than a quorum

for the purpose of [having] sequential or multip le secret deliberations that would together constitute a quorum and reaching a decision as a result of those sequential meetings.” See RR3 at 41).

### 34 calling each council member to ask if he would like a particular item—school

buses for example—on the agenda for the next open meeting could make a daisy

chain.

1. 

### Section 551.143 has the demonstrated effect of chilling public officials’ free speech.

At the motion hearing, witnesses e xpressed a number of concerns about

Section 551.143:

 Who does it apply to? Just memb ers of the government entity? Citizens acting with members? The statute begins with the phrase “A member or members”—does that m ean one member can conspire all by himself? Or with only one memb er and then some citizens? Or lobbyists? The city manage r? The mayor? (RR2 at 43).

 Does Section 551.143 apply when three city council members running for re-election all attend the same political house party and talk about “public business”? 54 

### What if the first two l eave, but the third arrival gets a summary of what was said? (RR2 at 64).

 Suppose a commissioner blogs about public policy–other members who read that blog might be infl uenced; could the blogger be deemed to have violated Section 551. 143? And what if the other commissioners should post a comment on the blog? “God help them.” (RR3 at 33-34).

 As Ms. Riggs noted, “The very act of trying to keep it legal could be what helps prove, under [Section 551.1 43] a conspiracy.” (RR3 at 47). “You can do an awful lot with [Secti on 551.143] in hindsight to make

54 See Atty. Gen. Op. JC-0203 (if two members of a subcommittee appear at an official

“speaking engagement” and partic ipate in a discussion of “pub lic business,” TOMA applies).

### 35 things look like a violation, tota lly innocent communications.” (RR3 at 49). 55



### The practical result if Section 551.143 is deemed constitutional is that more

and more government would be conducted by staff member s, city managers, and

the board’s executive director (RR2 at 76). They are the keep ers of information

and, unlike elected or appointed official s, may discuss public business with each

other and the citizenry without concern fo r TOMA if they share that information

with the responsible public offi cials only in an open meeting.

As the mayors testified at the hearing, Section 551.143 scares them:

 Mayor Charles Jessup of Meadows Pl ace said that Section 551.143 is a “very convoluted and confusing stat ute. . . I really don’t understand it. . . . We try to avoid conversati ons, and the discussion of a walking quorum has come up. We’re not sure exactly how that works, but it scares us all to d eath.” (RR2 at 222).

 He admitted that he had “been in a position this week three times alone of possible violation of [T OMA]” and then he explained the innocent circumstances. (RR2 at 227).

 Eric Scott, the mayor of Brookshire , testified that he had attended the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and he thinks that Section 551.143 “actually stoppe d good governance” because he

55 Charlie Zech, a lawyer who advises public entiti es and boards, explained how members are in

jeopardy if two of them want to have a talk about a public matter. They meet in a quiet room so that a third member will not join them and create a prohibited quorum. They are intentionally avoiding the Act, but is that in fa ct a “conspiracy to circumvent” the Act, even though it is perfectly innocent (RR4 at 85). Is the attempt to co mply with the law by avoiding meetings in which a quorum would be present, in fact, evidence of circumventing the law and, therefore, of violating it?

### 36 cannot have a “free flow of comm unication and exchange of ideas” with his fellow council members or citizens. (RR2 at 263-264).

 Section 551.143 “makes me believe that they can go to jail very easily, and no one wants to go to ja il.” (RR2 at 266). It “chills” his ability to express himself and solic it others’ opinions (RR2 at 270).

 Mayor Jim Kuykendall of Oak Ridge North explained that Section 551.143 “basically neuters everybod y.” (RR3 at111). The city manager puts items on the agenda and gives the city council members information. The members do not feel that they can talk to each other or members of the public outside of a properly posted open meeting (RR3 at 114). The law makes him a “figurehead,” because the city manager is the real boss, but she could be in trouble for talking to each member. (R R3 at 116-117).

 After learning about this case, Mayor Kuykendall is afraid he has broken the law. He fears just bein g indicted would be devastating financially (RR3 at 117).

 Even the State’s witness, former Houston City Councilman James Rodriguez, stated that he has ne ver “knowingly” been a part of a “rolling quorum”; he repeatedly us ed the term “err on the side of caution” because he doesn’t want to be charged with a TOMA crime. (RR5 at 18, 20, 32, 37, 55).

All of these public officials agreed th at, because of their fear of being

charged with a crime under Section 551.143, they “erred on the side of caution.”

That confusing, vague criminal c onspiracy law “chilled” their speech.

Criminalizing innocuous, fact-finding discussions and inquiries by public

officials would lead to anemic governme nt. This law discourages not only

discussion between public officials, but between public officials and members of

the public because that citizen might then talk individually to a quorum of the

### 37 council. Imagine what would happen if th is criminal law were applied to the

members of Congress or th e Texas Legislature.

C. 

### Section 551.143 is unconstitutionally vague as well as overbroad.

According to both Supreme Court 56 

### and Court of Criminal Appeals 57



### precedent, criminal laws must be sufficiently clear in at least three respects.

 First, a person of ordinary in telligence must have a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited. Long , 931 S.W.2d at 287.

 Second, the law must establish clear guidelines for law enforcement. Id.

 Third, when First Amendment free doms are implicated, the law must be sufficiently definite to avoid chilling protected expression. Id

. The demand for clarity is paramount . When a statute burdens First

Amendment rights, the vague ness doctrine demands greater specificity than in

other contexts to adequately preserve the right of free expression because

"[u]ncertain meanings inevitably lead c itizens to steer far wider of the unlawful

zone than if the boundaries of the fo rbidden areas were clearly marked." Grayned

,
408 U.S. at 109. In other words, it “chills” free speech.

56 Grayned v. Rockford , 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972).

57 Long v. State , 931 S.W.2d 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (provision of harassment statute

referring to conduct that was likely to “annoy” or “alarm” wa s vague and reasonable person standard could not be read into it; entir e statute declared unconstitutional under First Amendment).

### 38 Section 551.143 is unclear and vague on its face by making it a crime for a

member (or members) of a governmental b ody to “conspire” to meet in numbers of

less than a quorum “to circumvent” TOMA for the purpose of “secret

deliberations” about “public business” or “an issue within the jurisdiction of the

government body.”

First, what is the meaning of “conspire” in this statute? Conspire as defined

in Section 15.02 of the Penal Code? Some sort of common-law meaning of

conspire? Merely an agreement to meet to discuss public business? Or an

agreement to meet with the purpose to have “secret de liberations”? Or with the

intent to circumvent TOMA?

What does “circumvent” mean in this co ntext? Does it mean circumvent as

in attempting to violate the law or does it mean attempting to comply with the law

by making sure that members always have legitimate discussions about “public

business” in numbers of less than a quorum ? (RR2 at 43). If members A and B are

discussing road bonds when member C walks over, is it evidence of circumventing

or complying with TOMA when A says , “Go away, C, we don’t want a quorum

talking about road bonds”?

“Deliberation” means “a verbal exchange ,” and a verbal exchange is defined

as “oral, not written,” but does this sec tion include written ema ils, text messages,

### 39 or blogs? (RR2 at 54). Does it incl ude comments on one member’s blog by other

members?

And because the very definition of “d eliberation” in TOMA depends upon

the presence of a quorum, how can it be said that gatherings of less than a quorum

can have a “deliberation”?

What is the distinction between a verb al exchange about “public business”

and one about “an issue within the juri sdiction of the governmental body”? Does

“public business” forbid a city council me mber from discussing the federal health

care bill with a quorum of the council outsid e of an open meeting? Or expressing

his views about health care bills at a pub lic forum with his fellow council members

and a federal senator?

What, under Section 551.143, does the word “secret” mean ? Does it mean

that only the “conspirators” are present? If the gathering of a quorum is not

“noticed” under TOMA, is it a “secret” meeting even if it is held in Times Square

at High Noon? (RR3 at 24-25). Or a 4 th 

### of July picnic with two council members

present and giving speeches about buying sc hool busses, knowing that the press

and public will circulate their words to th e other three council members before the

open meeting the next day?

### 40 That vagueness of language and lack of statutory precision leads to arbitrary

enforcement. As the hearing witnesses explained, such Monday morning hindsight

gives “a prosecutor the ability to pi ck and choose” and leads to selective

enforcement (RR3 at 51). Prosecutors “h ave the power to go out and pick those

whose communications they don’t lik e” under Section 551.143 (RR3 at 61). 58 

### For

that reason, lawyers advise their public-offic ial clients to not talk to other members

of their governmental entity except in a properly posted open meeting. And public

officials shudder in their b oots because they could so easily be indicted and be

beggared by defending themselves in court, regardless of their innocent intent.

This concern chills their free-speech a nd deters them from doing their job

effectively and efficiently.

In sum, Section 551.143 is unconstituti onally overbroad and impermissibly

vague. Therefore, this court should affirm the order of the experienced trial judge

granting Judge Doyal’s motion to dismiss.

58 Charlie Zech, an attorney advising public entitie s and boards, agreed that the enforcement of

Section 551.143 “just depends on how aggressive or ambitious your district attorney is” because the law itself “gives no guidance” about “what conduct is being prohibited.” (RR4 at 20, 22). He tells members not to talk to each other outside of an open meeting, even thought that has a “chilling effect” on th eir First Amendment rights. “J ail is going to have a chilling effect on anything, but especially when you don’t know how, why, or when you will go to jail.” (RR4 at 29).

### 41 III. 

### Section 551.143 does not pass even intermediate scrutiny.

Even if some court could hold that Section 551.143 is content-neutral and

intermediate scrutiny applie d, two brand new Supreme C ourt cases show that this

statute is unconstitutional under that st andard also. This law, like those in

Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S.Ct. 1730 (2017), and Matal v. Tam , 137

S.Ct. 1744 (2017), violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

To survive intermediate scrutiny, a law must be “narrowly tailored to serve a

significant governmental interest.” Packingham , 137 S.Ct. at 1736. That is, “the

law must not ‘burden substa ntially more speech than is necessary to further the

government’s legitimate interest.’” Id.

In Packingham , the Supreme Court invalidated a law banning sex offenders

from using social media. 59 

### The Court stated that a “fundamental principle of the

First Amendment” was that everyone shoul d “have access to pl aces where they can

speak and listen, and then, after refl ection, speak and listen once more.” Id. at

1732. The Internet is now ubiquitous and courts should “exerc ise extreme caution

before suggesting that the First Amendmen t provides scant protection for access”

59 Lester Packingham pled guilty in 2002 of taking indecent liberties with a child. In 2010, he

got in trouble again when he posted on Faceb ook to thank God for having a traffic ticket dismissed. After a police officer saw his post, Packingham was charged and convicted under a North Carolina law that makes it a felony for a co nvicted sex offender to use social-networking websites that allow minors to create an account.

### 42 to social-networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. Id. That law was overly

broad because it barred sex of fenders from accessing much mo re than just prurient

sexual materials. The State had failed to meet “its burden to show that this

sweeping law is necessary or legitimate to serve” the purpose of keeping convicted

sex offenders away from vulnerable victims. Id. at 1737. The government “may

not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech,” but that was

what the North Carolina law di d. It swept too broadly. Id . at1738.

Similarly, in Matal v. Tam , one of the most important recent free speech

cases, 60 

### the Court held that the First Amendment bars a law prohibiting

“disparaging” trademarks. 61 

### People are free to express ideas that offend others. Id.

at 1751. First, the argument that tr ademarks are “government” speech and,

therefore, the First Amendment did not a pply was just wrong. The government did

not dream up the trademarks, i.e ., the speech; it tried to control other people’s

speech. Id. Second, even if the tradem arks were commercial speech, the

60 Hugh Hansen, Symposium: Most Important Free Speech Case in Many Years ;

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/symposium- important-free-speech-case-many-years/

61 Simon Tam asked the U.S. Patent and Trademar k Office (PTO) to register the name of his

band: The Slants. Tam and the band members agreed that the term “slants” is often regarded as derogatory to Asians (like themselves), but they wanted to “reclaim” the term and erase its negative connotations. The PTO rejected Tam’s request and ci ted a provision of federal trademark law barring the PTO from registering tr ademarks that may “disparage” other people, whether they are dead or alive.

### 43 “disparagement” clause was not sufficien tly narrow to adva nce “a substantial

interest.” Id. at 1764-65. 62 

### And the disparagement clause sweeps too broadly

because it applies to all disparaging tr ademarks, including those that disparage

racists or sexists. “It is not an anti-di scrimination clause,” but instead “a happytalk clause.” Id. at 1765.

This year’s two Supreme Court free-sp eech cases show that even when

courts apply intermediate scrutiny, rather than strict scrutiny, the law in question

may not be broader than necessary to accomplish the important governmental

objective. Section 551.143 does not b ecome any less broad or any less vague

under intermediate scrutiny than under strict scrutiny.

The State argues that, because the Fifth Circuit, in Asgeirsson , upheld the

constitutionality of Section 551.144 under intermediate sc rutiny, this court should

uphold the constitutionality of Section 551. 143 under that same analysis. The

State assumes that all TOMA statutes are f ungible: If one is constitutional, all are.

Not true.

62 The government said the disparagement clause was necessary to protect “the orderly flow of

commerce” and to prevent “underrepresented gr oups” from being inundated with “demeaning messages in commercial advertising.” But th at boils down to preventing offensive speech which may be “hateful . . . but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought we hate.” Id.

### 44 For example, in Ex parte Lo , the Court of Criminal Appeals held that one

subsection of the “solicitation of a minor” statute (the “dirty words” section)

violated free speech, while heavily hintin g that another section (actual solicitation

by requesting an illegal sexual act) did pa ss constitutional muster. 424 S.W.3d at

16-17. The Court compared and contrasted the two different subsections of the

same law to show how they differe d–one overly broad and vague, the other

carefully targeted.

The same is true here. Section 551.1 44 is simple and clear. It prohibits

“closed meetings”—deliberations about public business by a quorum of a

governmental entity without following TOMA requirements. Section 551.143 has

been repeatedly criticized by legislators, lawyers, law review articles, and public

officials as confusing, incoherent, and unconstitutional on its face. It is a

masterpiece of obfuscation. For that reas on, it has apparently never before been

successfully used for criminal prosecution du ring its more than forty years on the

books.

No matter what one calls it or how one cuts it, Section 551.143 violates the

Free Speech Clause of the First Amen dment because it is overly broad and

unconstitutionally vague.

### 45 PRAYER

Judge Doyal respectfully requests this co urt to uphold the trial judge’s ruling

that Section 551.143 is unconstitutional and cannot be the basis for a criminal

prosecution. This court should affirm the trial court’s order dismissing the

indictment.

Respectfully submitted,

Rusty Hardin & Associates, LLP

/s/ Rusty Hardin Rusty Hardin State Bar. No. 08972800 Cathy Cochran State Bar No. 09499700 Andy Drumheller State Bar No. 00793642 Naomi Howard State Bar No. 24092541 5 Houston Center 1401 McKinney, Suite 2250 Houston, Texas 77010 Telephone: (713) 652-9000 Facsimile: (713) 652-9800 Email: rhardin@rustyhardin.com Email: ccochran@rustyhardin.com Email: adrumheller@rustyhardin.com Email: nhoward@rustyhardin.com

Attorneys for Appellee Craig Doyal

### 46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 21st day of August, 2017, a true and correct copy

of the foregoing Appellee’s Brief was electronically filed and served on

Appellant’s counsel of record listed below:

Chris Downey Via Email The Downey Law Firm 2814 Hamilton Street Houston, Texas 77004 Email: chris@downeylawfirm.com

David Cunningham Via Email 2814 Hamilton Street Houston, Texas 77004 Email: cunningham709@yahoo.com

Joseph R. Larsen Via Email Sedgwick, LLP 1200 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77002 Email: joseph.larsen@sedgwicklaw.com

/s/ Naomi Howard Naomi Howard

### 47 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that Appellee’s Brief wa s prepared in Microsoft Word in

Times New Roman, 14-point font. The word count function shows that, excluding

the sections exempted under TRAP 9.4( i)1, the brief contains 11,856 words.

/s/ Naomi Howard Naomi Howard

### APPENDIX NO. 3

D EFENDANT 

### D OYAL 

### ’ S 

### M OTION TO 

### D ISMISS 

### , Cause No. 16-06-07315-CRCAUSE NO. 16-06-07315

STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § v. § MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS § CRAIG DOYAL § 221 st JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT CRAIG DOYAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT

R USTY H ARDIN & A SSOCIATES
, LLP

Cathy Cochran State Bar No. 09499700 ccochran@rustyhardin.com

Rusty Hardin State Bar No. 08972800 rhardin@rustyhardin.com

Naomi Howard State Bar No. 24092541 nhoward@rustyhardin.com

5 Houston Center 1401 McKinney Street, Suite 2250 Houston, Texas 77010 Telephone: (713) 652-9000 Facsimile: (713) 652-9800

Attorneys for Craig Doyal Received and E-Filed for Record 3/20/2017 3:24:12 PM Barbara Gladden Adamick District Clerk Montgomery County, Texasii Table of Contents

I. Factual Background .............................................................................................. 3

II. Section 551.143 Burdens Free Speec h and Is Subject to Stri ct ........................... 6 Construction.

A. 2005 Attorney G eneral Opin ion ................................................................. 6 Not binding authority and inconsis tent with precedent from other jurisdictions with Open Meeting laws

B. The “Alpi ne Case” ...................................................................................... 9 The proper standard for reviewing s peech: strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny?

C. Section 551.143 Must Be Revi ewed under Strict Scrutiny. ...................... 14

III. Section 551.143 Is Consti tutionally Over broad. .................................................. 16

IV. Section 551.143 Is V ague and Confusi ng. ......................................................... 17

V. Prayer ................................................................................................................. 191 To the H ONORABLE J UDGE R ANDY C LAPP sitting by appointment to the 221 st District Court:

N OW C OMES Defendant CRAIG DOYAL, who moves to dismiss the indictment in

the above-captioned case. Judge Doyal would show the following:

The criminal conspiracy provisions of Section 551.143 of the Texas Open

Meetings Act (TOMA) are facially unconstitu tional. This statute cannot be enforced with

criminal sanctions 1 because it violates the Free Speech provisions of the First

Amendment and is v ague and overbroad.

Judge Doyal has not found report of any successful criminal conviction from

Texas 2 or any other American jurisdiction based upon the “walking quorum” conspiracy

theory that is alleged as the basis of the conspiracy. 3 This is not surprising because

1 TOMA may be enforced through various ci vil proceedings, including injunctions, mandamus, and declaratory judgment actions that may be brought by interested persons, including a city, the media, or another person who can show a particular injury. Section 551.142(a). Judge Doyal is not attacking the constituti onality of TOMA’s civil provisions or civil remedies, only the prosecution of a public offici al for a purported criminal conspiracy charge under Section 551.143.

2 One indictment–under section 551.144–was filed against two Texas city council members in the famous “Alpine Case,” but the prosecutor dismissed the case when the defendants challenged the constitutionality of the criminal provisions of TOMA. That case, its facts, and its progeny, are discussed in Part II. In another instance, the Texas Attorney General issued a press release on June 1, 2005, touting “the state’s first criminal indictment for violating the Open Meetings Act, marking a first for the state’s attorney general’s office.” See R EPORTERS C OMMITTEE FOR F REEDOM OF THE P RESS (June 1, 2005), https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media- law-resources/news/open-meetingsviolation-sparks-criminal-indictment . It should be noted that Section 551.143 was enacted in 1993 and lay dormant for twelve years. In the 2005 case, a school board president announced that he had previously conspired to violate § 551.143 because he now wanted to void a former superintendent’s severance package. He was promptly indicted for the TOMA conspiracy, while the superintendent was indicted for the felony offense of abuse of official capacity for misusing school monies. The resolution of those cases is unknown, and there is no mention of them in the Westlaw data base.

3 A Westlaw search of all state and federal courts was conducted on March 3, 2017, using the query: “open w/2 meeting! w/s ‘walking quorum.’” Thirteen relevant cases were retrieved, but none involved a criminal conviction. A second Westlaw search of all state and federal courts was conducted on March 5, 2017, using the query “open w/2 meeting w/s2 Section 551.143 is so broad a nd vague that it sweeps up va st amounts of perfectly

appropriate, indeed essential, political speech within its ambit. Where a stiletto is

needed, a blunderbuss is used.

Law review articles explain that Section 551.143 has caused “confusion,” 4 lacks

clarity, 5 and advise that, to be safe from criminal prosecution, public officials should “not

speak to other members of their government body except at a properly-posted open

conspir!” Ninety-one relevant cases were retrieved. Only one case involved a criminal conviction for a violation of an open meetings act by conducting a closed meeting. But in that Michigan case, the defendants’ convictions were reversed because the jury instructions did not correctly require the government to prove that the defendants had the specific intent to violate the open meetings act. People v. Whitney , 578 N.W.2d 329, 341 (Mich. App. 1998) (city council members’ convictions for violating open meetings act by conducting closed meeting to fire city manager reversed for failing to properly instruct jury on culpable mental state; instructions failed to inform jury that defendants had to specific ally intend–subjectively desire–to violate open meetings statute). Two other cases, both from Texas, tangentially addressed the issue of criminal violations of the TOMA. Scotch v. Letsinger , 2014 WL 12528021, (W.D. Tex. March 31, 2014) (civil rights lawsuit in long-running “polit ical battle between citizens and local government officials of Rocksprings,” in which former city council member alleged that sheriff conducted campaign of harassment against her, including obt aining indictment for violation of TOMA, which was quickly dismissed); State v. Williams , 780 S.W.2d 891 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1989, no pet.) (State’s appeal of dismissal of indi ctment of city councilmen alleging “official misconduct” based on an underlying open meetings act violation remanded to district court which did have jurisdiction over the official-misconduct misdemeanor; ultimate disposition unknown, but, according to Google, defendant Hugh Williams was elected mayor of Del Rio in 1992). According to one law review article, numerous courts have upheld the constitutionality of Open Meetings Acts, but none of those challenges involved criminal provisions, only civil penalties. See Devon Helfmeyer, Do Public Officials Leave Their Constitutional Rights at the Ballot Box? A Commentary on the Texas Open Meetings Act , 15 Tex. J. on Civil Rights & Civil Liberties 205, 230 (2010) (noting that, at time of writing, no other jurisdiction had upheld the constitutionality of criminal sanctions in Open Meetings statutes; recommending that Texas criminal sanctions be eliminated and TOMA’s provisions enforced with civil remedies).

4 C. Robert Heath & Emily Willms Rogers, Did the Attorney General Shine Light on the Confusion in Texas’ Sunshine Law? Interpreting Open Meetings Act Provision § 551.143 , 7 Tex. Tech. Admin. L.J. 97, 99 (2006) (“Despite these attempts at clarification” by courts and attorney general opinions “confusion persists, and local officials desiring to steer clear of violating the Act look for a bright-line rule that clearly defines when discussions among members of a governing body outside a formal public meeting are permissible and when they are not.”).

5 Id.3 meeting.” 6 That is the path to anemic governanc e. We should not be governed by

officials who may neither hear or speak to a fellow member of his council outside of

publicly posted meetings. But that is where Section 551.143 law has left us.

Both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Crim inal Appeals hesitate

to criminalize speech and have held that any such criminal provisions must be both

clear on their face and narrowly tailored. 7 Because this TOMA statute is neither, Judge

Doyal requests this Court to declare Se ction 551.143 unconstitutional on its face and

dismiss this indictment.

I.

Factual Background

Throughout Judge Doyal’s tenure as a commissioner and M ontgomery County

Judge, building and maintainin g local roads has been a top priority as the county has

6 Scott Houston, Texas Open Meetings Act: Constitutional? , 13 Tex. Tech. Admin. L.J. 79, 100 (2011).

7 The U.S. Supreme Court has meticulously defined those types of speech which may be criminally sanctioned: There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire , 315 U.S. 568, 571-72 (1942). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is equally chary of criminalizing speech. See Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10, 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (noting that content-based regul ations of speech are presumptively invalid and government must shoulder burden to rebut that presumption; courts “apply the most exacting scrutiny to regulations that suppress, disadvantage, or impose differential burdens upon speech because of its content.”).4 grown dramatically. The voters passed a $160 million road bond pa ckage in 2005, but

they rejected one in 2011 because it failed to specify the projects for which the money

would be used.

In January of 2015, the commissioners appointed a ten-member citizens’

committee that, working in public meet ings with maps, technical support, and

engineering drawings, compiled a list of 77 specific proj ects and put t ogether a $350

million road-bond project. But the voters, led by Tea Party opposition, defeated the

proposal on May 9, 2015.

After the bond was defeated, citiz ens attended the Commissioners Court

Meetings every month and in the public co mments periods begged the commissioners

to put a road bond back on the ballot in Nove mber. Everyone agre ed that the county

badly needed to pass a smalle r road bond, but the commi ssioners were disheartened

and wanted to wait, especially because th ere was a school bond on the November 2015

ballot. In August, the tide turned and t he Tea Party groups signaled to the

commissioners that they were truly serious about finding a solution and not just tearing

down their opponents. Du ring the public comments period of the August 11 th Regular

Commissioners Court Meeting, retired Count y Judge Alan B. Sadl er said that the

“opposition” was ready to work on a revised road bond package for the November

election.

On August 20 th and 21 st , Judge Doyal and Commissioner Riley along with

political consultant Marc Davenport met with representatives of t he Texas Patriots PAC

group (“Patriots PAC”) to discuss placing a new bond referendum on the November

ballot. Judge Doyal and Commissioner Riley were initially very skeptical about the value5 of meeting with the Patriots PAC, but they ultimately concluded that the PAC was

serious about supporting a smaller, less expensive road bond. Pu tting a road bond on

the November ballot now se emed a realistic proposition. What resulted was a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), in wh ich nothing was promised except for the

political support on the part of the Patriots PAC if t he commissioners put a road bond

proposal on a Special Meeting agenda. No votes were promised and the MOU

recognized that ultimate discretion lay wit h the Commissioners to do what was best for

their constituents. The Patriots PAC , Commissioner Riley, and Judge Doyal issued

press releases on the 21 st explaining the developments and publishing for the public the

entire MOU including exhibits for the public to consider. Judge Doyal posted the

agenda for a special Commissioner s Court Meeting for August 24 th , the last day that a

bond election package could be placed on the No vember ballot for the voters.

The Special Meeting was held and citizens spoke during the public comments

period praising the work of the commissi oners and thanking them for putting a road

bond on the ballot. The commissioners all had an opportunity to speak about the road

bond they were about to vote on. The commissioners unanimously voted for the

revised bond package–which was no surp rise because the commissioners had

unanimously supported the prev ious road bond package in May. A smaller $280 million

road bond was put on the Novem ber ballot. After some press “open records” requests

were made, the County Attorney, J.D. Lambright, wrote Judge Doyal a letter on

Sept.25 th , stating that the commissioners had complied with the Open Meetings Act,

and he saw no basis for thinking that the vo te to put the bond pa ckage on the ballot

would be voidable. The voters passed the bond in the November election.6 In sum, the discussions between the Texas Patriots PAC, Judge Doyal,

Commissioner Riley, and Marc Davenport were not a “meeting” under TOMA nor were

they the result of an “agreement” to “cons pire” to avoid TOMA. Commissioner Riley and

Judge Doyal’s August 21 st press release published to t he public the entire MOU and

informed both the citizens and the other commi ssioners of the road bond proposal that

they hoped the commisioners would approve on August 24 th for submission to the voters

in November. Of course, the ultimate decis ion to approve the r oad bond was for the

voters of Montgomery County, not with the commissioners w ho simply voted to put the

bond package (originally created by the citizens ’ committee, not the Patriots PAC or the

commissioners) on the ballot. The compromise was a great success and the new road

bond passed by 60% in the November elec tion whereas the earlier May bond proposal

had failed by 60%.

II.

Section 551.143 Burdens Free Speech and Is Subject to Strict Construction.

Section 551.143(a) states:

A member or group of members of a governmental body commits an offense if the member or group of members knowingly conspires to circumvent [the Open Meetings Act] by meeting in numbers less than a quorum for the purpose of secret deli berations in violation of [the Open Meetings Act].

A. 2005 Attorney General Opinion Not binding authority and inc onsistent with precedent from other jurisdictions with Open Meeting laws

On its face, this statute does not make sense. Meeting in numbers of less than a

quorum does not violate a statut e that requires a quorum to meet in open session. You7 either have a quorum or you don’t; with th e former you have open meetings, with the

latter, you have informal discussions. That is why, in 2004, the Jefferson County District

Attorney asked for an Attorney General Opin ion on whether it was unconstitutionally

vague. Seven months later, the Attorney General responded: the statute was “plain” on

its face

─ “it provides adequate notice and does not allow for arbi trary enforcement.” Tex.

Atty Gen. Op. GA-0326, *6 (2005). He rewrot e the statute to say:

Members of a governmental body who knowingly conspire to gather in numbers that do not physically constitu te a quorum at any one time but who through successive gatherings secr etly discuss a public matter with a quorum of that body violate sectio n 551.143 of the Open Meetings Act.

Id. He said that it is a la w to prevent a “walking quoru m” or “a daisy chain of members

the sum of whom constitute a quorum.” Id. *2.

Of course, that is not w hat the law actually says. 8 The Attorney General simply

found that construction “discern ible” from his own reading. Id. 9 But even if the

8 A Kansas civil statute makes the Attorney General’s desired reading explicit:

“Serial communications”

Interactive communications in a series or “serial communications” may constitute a meeting subject to KOMA and shall be open if they: 1) Collectively involve a majority of the membership of the public body or agency, 2) Share a common topic of discussion c oncerning the business or affairs of the public body or agency, and 3) Are intended by any or all of the participants to reach agreement on a matter that would require binding action to be taken by the public body or agency. K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-4318(f). A “knowing” or “purposeful” violation of its requirements is subject only to civil fines. K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-4320(a). According to the Kansas Attorney General, whether a series of communications constitutes a violation is very fact specific. AGO 2009-22 (no interactive communication where nonmember communicates with a majority of body or agency board and member responds as well as shares response with other members; possi bility exists for KOMA violation if there is further interactive communication).8 Legislature intended to say what the Attorney General said, this penal law is still so

vague and overbroad as to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The

Attorney General relied solely upon civil Open Meeting Act cases to construe the

statutory words “liberally,” inst ead of construing a pen al statute “strictly” as it should be,

using the rule of lenity–favoring t he defendant–when its te rms are ambiguous. 10

The Attorney General in his 2005 Opinion relied on Esperanza Peace and

Justice Center v. City of San Antonio , 316 F.Supp.2d 433 (W.D. Tex. 2001), in

particular. 11 In Esperanza Peace , a federal district court hel d that the mayor should not

9 According to a 1990 Louisiana Attorney General Opinion, “a ‘walking quorum’ is a meeting of a public body where different me mbers leave the meeting and different members enter the meeting so that while an actual quorum is never physically present an actual quorum during the course of the meeting participates in the discussion.” Mabry v. Union Parish School Board , 974 So.2d 787, 789 (La. App. 2014) (quoting Op. Atty. Gen. No. 90-349, July 26, 1990). The Mabry court held that the “casual telephone encounters where several board members individually and separately discussed the situati on” concerning an employment contract would have “to reach a much more structured level with secretive binding force on at least a quorum of the membership before the Open Meetings Act would be implicated.” Id. The court explained: [W]e find that the informal exchange of ideas and opinions preliminary to a meeting of elected officials is important for the issues of agenda setting and compromise that make a deliberative body function efficiently. For one member to have a phone conversation with another, wherein opinions and thoughts on a topic are expressed, does not mean or create a presumption that those parties’ views will be fixed in stone in solidarity before the public meeting.

Id. at 790.

10 It is a “familiar principle that ‘ambiguity’ in the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity.’” Skilling v. United States , 561 U. S. 358, 410 (2010). That principle prevents courts from giving the words of a crimi nal statute “a meaning that is different from [their] ordinary, accepted meaning, and that disfavors the defendant.” Burrage v. United States

, 134 S.Ct. 881, 891 (2014). And it means that when a criminal statute has two possible readings, courts do not “‘choose the harsher alternative’” unless the legislature has “‘spoken in language that is clear and definite.’” United States v. Bass , 404 U. S. 336, 347–349 (1971).

11 Because the Attorney General lacks a criminal case which has resulted in a conviction, the scenario in Esperanza Peace is used in the Attorney General’s Open Meetings Act training videos and in continuing education publications. The time spent on explaining the criminal penalties of TOMA constitutes a sm all fraction of the entire TOMA video training (roughly three minutes out of 60 minutes).9 have held a series of meetings and te lephone calls with coun cil members on the

evening before the council meeting to discuss the City’s budget and to obtain a

consensus on its changes. The judge explained:

[A] meeting of less than a quorum is not a “meeting” within the Act when there is no intent to avoid the Act’s requirements. On the other hand, the Act would apply to meeting of gr oups of less than a quorum where a quorum or more of the body attempted to avoid the purpose of the Act by deliberately meeting in gr oups of less than a quorum in closed sessions to discuss and/or deliberate public busine ss, and then ratifying their actions as a quorum in a subsequent public meeting.

Id. at 476. This was a civil case seeking in junctive relief, not a criminal prosecution.

And it was clear that the purpose of the calls and “closed” meetings was to “achieve a

consensus on changes to the budget” by the entire council before t he next day’s open

meeting. Id. at 442.

B. The “Alpine Case” The proper standard for reviewing speech: strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny?

Another well-documented civil case that began with a crim inal prosecution

brought under TOMA is the “A lpine Case.” The “Alpine Case” saga involved an Alpine

city council member who emailed four other members asking them if they wanted to put

a particular item on a future agenda. O ne member responded by email the next day

saying that the item was relevant and wo rthy of discussion at the next meeting. 12 The

local district attorney thought that exchange violated the Act, and a grand jury indicted

them both under Section 551.144. 13

12 The exact email and response are set out in Rangra v. Brown , 2006 WL 3327634, *2 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2006), but are too lengthy to quote here.

13 What no court has explained is how a government entity is supposed to draft an agenda for a public meeting if the members cannot talk about what items should go on that10 The district attorney dismissed the cases when the defendants filed state-court

motions claiming that “TOMA, on its face and as applied, violated their First Amendment

rights.” Rangra v. Brown , 2006 WL 3327634, *3 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2006). So the

council members filed a federal civil rights suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the

criminal provisions of TOMA were faci ally unconstitutional, overbroad, vague, and

violated their free-speech rights. Id. *1.

The Texas district court relied upon a 1982 civil case from Kansas. 14 That

Kansas case expressly stated th at it was not discussing a crim inal statute, so it would

read the Open Meetings Act provisions liberally, rather than strictly as was required with

penal statutes. 15 The Kansas court upheld civil fines of $10 and $30 against the county

commissioners who conducted three separat e “prearranged” closed meetings

concerning the construction contract for a hospital.

The Rangra judge applied intermediate scrutiny even though the statute affected

free speech and the First Amendment. He stated that “TOMA does not impede the

freedom of speech; the Act simply requi res speech to be made openly, and in the

presence of interested public, as opposed to “behind closed doors.” Id. at *6. He

concluded that the cr iminal statute–section 551.144–was nei ther overbroad nor vague.

Id. at *6-7

agenda? The chief acts by fiat? The secretaries get together and put down items relayed by their bosses? Which comes first, the agenda or the public meeting?

14 State ex rel. Murray v. Palmgren , 646 P.2d 1091, 1099 (Kan. 1982). This state has very clear, explicit statutes concerning its open meetings requirements, even though they have only civil penalties. See note 8 supra

.
15 Id.11 A panel of the Fifth Circuit, however, revers ed the district court, concluding that

the strict scrutiny te st applied to TOMA. Rangra v. Brown , 566 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 2009).

The court explained:

The First Amendment’s protection of el ected officials’ speech is full, robust, and analogous to that afforded citizens in general. Furthermore, when a state seeks to restrict the speec h of an elected official on the basis of its content, a federal court must apply strict scrutiny and declare that limitation invalid unless the state carri es its burden to prove both that the regulation furthers a compe lling state interest and that it is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

Id. at 518. The Fifth Circuit ana logized the situation of public officials to that of judges

expressing themselves “on matters of current public importance.” Id. at 524-25

(discussing Republican Party of Minnesota v. White , 536 U.S. 765, 781-82 (2002)). It

also referred to its own prior opinion concer ning an elected Texas judge and held that

he had been improperly disciplin ed on the basis of the cont ent of his speech when he

“addressed alleged abuses of the judicial process by lawyers in a pending case.” Id. at

525 (discussing Jenevein v. Willing , 493 F.3d 551, 557-58 (5th Cir. 2007)).

In those cases, the Supreme Court and t he Fifth Circuit applied strict scrutiny to

proceedings in which judges had been disciplined for the content of their speech. The

Supreme Court held that the Minnesota judicial canon violated the free-speech clause

of the First Amendment and coul d not be enforced. The Fifth Circuit reversed the

sanctions against the Texas judge.

Based on the judicial-speech ca ses, the Fifth Circuit remanded Rangra to the

district court to apply strict scrutiny and decide if public officials, like judges, were

entitled to unfettered free speech. But t he en banc court granted rehearing, and before12 it could be reheard, the two council mem bers were term-limited, so the case was

dismissed as moot.

Because the constitutional issue was so important, new local government

officials filed a second la wsuit, stipulating to the Rangra facts. Once again, they sought

a declaratory judgment that the criminal provisions of TOMA violate the First

Amendment because they are a c ontent-based restriction on political speech and were

vague and overbroad. Asgeirsson v. Abbott , 773 F.Supp.2d 684 (W.D.Tex.2011). The

court succinctly set out the issue:

Content-based speech prohibitions rece ive strict scrutiny from courts determining a statute's constitutionality. Republican Party of Minn. v. White , 536 U.S. 765, 774-775 (2002). However, cont ent-neutral statutes that minimally affect speech right s are examined under intermediate scrutiny. Serv. Emp. Int'l Union, Local 5 v. City of Hous ., 595 F.3d 588, 596 (5th Cir.2010). Plaintiffs argue that TOMA is not a valid time, place, and manner regulation of their free speech rights because it is contentbased. In response, Defendants argue that TOMA is a disclosure law that is content-neutral because it requi res disclosure of speech, not suppression.

The district court held that section 551.1 44 (notably, neither of the Alpine cases

discussed the constitutionality of section 551. 143) was constitutional because it was not

vague or overbroad, it did not restrict speech based on its co ntent, rather it required

disclosure of speech in an open forum, and it satisfied the in termediate-scrutiny

standard (but, in the alternative, it survived strict-scrutiny).

This time the Fifth Circuit agreed with the trial court. Asgeirsson v. Abbott, 696

F.3d 454, 467 (5th Cir. 2012). The plaintiffs argued that strict scrutiny applied because

TOMA was a content-based law: “A re gulatory law scheme that requires the

government to ‘examine the cont ent of the message that is c onveyed,’ is content-based13 regardless of its mo tivating purpose.” Id. at 460. The Fifth Circuit said that analysis did

not accurately state prior Fifth Circuit law. Id . It found that TOMA was content-neutral

because it was “ justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech.” Id

. (emphasis in original). In other words, the ends of good government justified the means

of tightly restricting the speech of public o fficials. Therefore, it applied intermediate

scrutiny and found that because the plaintiffs (1) had pointed to “no section of TOMA

that is vague of its face,” although it was “complex” and “c omplicated,” and (2) failed to

argue that TOMA “chill[ed] subs tantial amounts of speech an d facilitat[ed] discriminatory

and arbitrary enforcement,” it had not proven that TOMA wa s unconstitutionally vague

or overbroad. Id. at 466. 16

That holding, however, is dubious a fter the Supreme Court’s decision in

McCullen v. Coakley , 134 S.Ct. 2518 (2014). In McCullen , the Court majority spilled

considerable ink on the question of whether an abortion facility “buffer-zone” statute was

content-neutral (intermediate scrutiny applies) or content-based (strict scrutiny applies).

It concluded that the law “wou ld be content based if it requi red ‘enforcement authorities’

to ‘examine the content of the message t hat is conveyed to determine whether’ a

16 Under intermediate scrutiny, “content-neutral laws must: (1) leave open ample alternative channels of communication; and (2) be narrowly-tailored to serve a significant government interest.” Asgeirsson , 696 F.Sup.2d at 701 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court held that criterion one was met because a council that holds an illegal meeting can correct it with a later open meeting. Id. That’s fine in a civil context, but in a criminal context, the council member can be prosecuted the moment the “closed” meeting occurs, e.g., once a thief has stolen the car, giving it back the next day does not cancel out the crime. The district court then stated that TOMA was narrowly tailored under prong two because a public official can always request an attorney general or county or city attorney opinion before proceeding with the contemplated speech or discussion. But that is not timely, tailored or effective. Attorney General opinions are not legally binding and such an opinion merely provides an affirmative defense only after the public official has been indicted and gone to trial. Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.144(c).14 violation has occurred.” Id. at 2531. But any and all standing in the zone, regardless of

what those people said or even if they spoke at all, wa s forbidden, so the law was

content-neutral and interm ediate scrutiny applied. 17

C. Section 551.143 Must Be Revi ewed under Strict Scrutiny.

Thus, the Supreme Court’s reasoning in McCullen (if you need to look to the

content of the speech to deci de if it is limited, strict scrutiny applies) completely

undercut the Fifth Circuit’s rationale in Asgeirsson (no need to look at the content of the

speech to decide if strict scrutiny applies). Under McCullen , because TOMA applies

only to specific speech by public official s–speech that discusses “public business or

public policy over which the government al body has supervision or control” 18 –it is a

content-based penal regimen subjec t to strict scrutiny. When strict scrutiny applies, the

statute is presumed to be unconstitutiona l and the State must prove otherwise by

showing that it is narrowly ta ilored to serve a compelling st ate interest which cannot be

achieved by less restrictive means. United States v. Playboy Entm’t Group , 529 U.S.

803, 813 (2000); Ex parte Lo , 424 S.W.3d 10, 15-16 (Tex . Crim. App. 2013).

To satisfy strict scrutiny, a law, like TOMA, that r egulates speech must be (1)

necessary to serve a compelling stat e interest and (2) narrowly drawn. Ex parte Lo , 424

S.W.3d at 15. A law is narrowly drawn if it employs the least restrictive means to

17 Even though it applied intermediate scrutiny, the Supreme Court struck down the law because it was not “narrowly tailored”; it restricted more speech than was necessary to protect the abortion clinic’s clients’ physical safety. Id. at 2541. Justice Scalia’s concurrence argued that the statute was, in fact, content-based because it applied only to abortion clinics, and therefore it was subject to strict scrutiny, even though it was held unconstitutional under the lower standard. Id. at 2543-45 (Scalia, J., concurring).

18 T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE § 551.001.15 achieve its goal and if ther e is a close nexus between t he government's compelling

interest and the restriction. Id. If a less restrictive means of meeting the compelling

interest could achieve the statute’s legiti mate purpose, then that law does not satisfy

strict scrutiny. Id. Furthermore, when the content of speech is the crime, scrutiny is

strict because, “as a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has

no power to restrict expressi on because of its message, its id eas, its subject matter, or

its content. Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. A.C.L.U ., 535 U.S. 564, 573 (2002)).

Two competing interests drive TOMA: “t he public’s right to know about the

workings of its governmental bodies, and the need to ensure members of governmental

bodies are informed and act efficiently.” 19 Both of these goals are essential to good

government; neither is more compelling than the other. It is e ssential that public

officials have sufficient avenues to becom e and stay well-informed, both about their

fellow officials’ concerns and certainly about the public’s concerns. Any law that

restricts that compelling interest must be as narrowly tailored as will serve the public’s

interest in open government while preservi ng the greatest free speech rights of the

public official. Only the least restrict ive means of achieving the goal of open

government will pass muster when circumscribi ng the official’s free speech rights.

Section 551.143 does not meet that test.

19 C. Robert Heath & Emily Willms Rogers, Did the Attorney General Shine Light on the Confusion in Texas’ Sunshine Law? Interpreting Open Meetings Act Provision § 551.143 , 7 Tex. Tech. Admin. L.J. 97, 98-99 (2006).16 III.

Section 551.143 Is Constitutionally Overbroad

. According to the First Amendment overbr eadth doctrine, a statute is facially

invalid if it prohibits a “subs tantial” amount of protected speech “judged in relation to the

statute's plainly legitimate sweep. Ex parte Lo , 424 S.W.3d at 18. Section 551.143 is

clearly overbroad. As law review commentat ors have noted, it potentially covers a vast

swath of speech

─ from trying to set an agenda as in t he Alpine case, to “one or more

members of a governing body . . . trying to gauge other members’ support for against an

item before the governing bod y” or even, as has been suggested, any discussion

among public officials about public business outside t he formal public meeting.” 20

Indeed, given the “walking quorum” Attorney General’s opinion and the indictments in

this case, Section 551.143 coul d criminalize public official s who have individually been

approached by a lobbyist and asked to support a bill and told that a fellow official has

already done so. The “daisy chain” is cr eated by the lobbyist talking to each public

official serially and getting a positive respons e from each. Or t he mayor’s secretary

calling the secretaries for the council member s to ask if each coun cil member would like

a particular item–school buses for example– on the agenda for the next open meeting

could make a daisy chain.

Criminalizing such innocuous, fact-fi nding discussions and inquiries would only

lead to a “know nothing” government run by those who know the le ast about each other

and public affairs. This law discourages not only discussion between public officials, but

20 Heath & Rogers, supra at 99; Houston, supra at 79 (“Many elected officials ask if they can talk about public business with other members of the governmental body outside of a properly posted meeting. Generally, the answer is no.”).17 between public officials and me mbers of the public because th at citizen might then talk

individually to a quorum of the council.

Other states have successfully ensur ed open government by following one of

three paths: (1) do not crimi nalize open meeting violati ons; or (2) at least do not

criminalize meetings of less than a quorum of public officials; or (3) use criminal

penalties only if the statutory language is exceedingly clear on its face, is not subject to

any misinterpretation, and condemns only the Poster Child case of rotating,

simultaneous or serial “walki ng quorums.” Secti on 551.143 does not co mply with any of

those paths. It is not narrowly tailored to punish only that speech which is a clear threat

to a compelling governmental interest of open government. Instead, it sweeps so

broadly that experts in the field counsel their public-official clients to avoid talking to any

fellow officials outside of a pr operly posted open m eeting.

IV.

Section 551.143 Is Vague and Confusing.

According to both U.S. Supreme Court 21 and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 22

precedent, criminal laws must be sufficient ly clear in at least three respects.

! First, a person of ordinary intelligenc e must have a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited. Long , 931 S.W.2d at 287.

! Second, the law must establish cl ear guidelines for law enforcement. Id.

21 Grayned v. Rockford , 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972).

22 Long v. State , 931 S.W.2d 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (provision of harassment statute referring to conduct that was likely to “annoy” or “alarm” was vague and reasonable person standard could not be read into it; entire statute declared unconstitutional under First Amendment).18 ! Third, when First Amendment freedoms are implicated, t he law must be sufficiently definite to avoid chilling protected expression. I d.

The demand for clarity is paramount. When a statute burdens First Amendment

rights, the doctrine of vaguenes s demands greater specificity than in other contexts to

adequately preserve the right of free expression becaus e "[u]ncertain meanings

inevitably lead citizens to steer far wider of the unlawfu l zone than if the boundaries of

the forbidden areas were clearly marked." Grayned , 408 U.S. at 109.

Section 551.143 is unclear and vague on its face by making it a crime for a

member (or members) of a governmental body to “conspire” to meet in numbers of less

than a quorum for the purpose of “secret delib erations” that violat e the open meetings

act.

First, what is the meaning of conspire in this statute? Cons pire as in Section

15.02 of the Penal Code? Some sort of common law meaning of conspire? Merely an

agreement to meet? Or an agreement to m eet with the purpose to have “secret

deliberations”? Or to meet with the purpose to violate the law?

Second, what is a “secret” deliberation? Only the mem bers of the official entity

are present? Or hundreds of members of the public but less than a quorum of the

government entity? (For example, a 4 th of July picnic with 2 council members present

and giving speeches about buying school buses, knowing that the press and public will

circulate their words to the other 3 counc il members before the open meeting the next

day). Simultaneous meetings of less than a quorum which, colle ctively make up a

quorum, with a runner between them? Serial m eetings of individual members with each

other until the quorum is reached? Serial meetings with individual members by the19 lobbyist or member of the public who gar ners support for a project and then moves on

the next member, telling him that the first member has already agreed and seeking his

support, etc.?

Third, what kind of “de liberations” are covered? S uppose the count y judge calls

up the commissioners and he does all the talking; the others just listen. Is that a

deliberation? Suppose t he county judge sends an email to all commissioners–has he

committed a crime at the time he sent it? At the time th e other commissioners read it?

At the time any one of them resp onds? A quorum responds?

Who knows? Section 551.143 is a model of obscurity. That is why the experts

tell their public-official clients that they s hould never talk to (or presumably email or

telephone) another member of the same board or entity exc ept for at a properly posted

open meeting. It is a sad comm entary on our laws and our pub lic life if this is the way

we must conduct our government.

V.

Prayer

Instead, Judge Doyal asks this Honorable Court to declare that section 551.143

of the Government Code is subject to strict scrutiny, and that it is unconstitutionally

overbroad and vague under t hat standard. Theref ore, Judge Doyal asks that this court

dismiss the indictment against him.20 Respectfully submitted,

R USTY H ARDIN & A SSOCIATES
, LLP

/s/ Cathy Cochran Cathy Cochran State Bar No. 09499700 ccochran@rustyhardin.com Rusty Hardin State Bar No. 08972800 rhardin@rustyhardin.com

Naomi Howard State Bar No. 24092541 nhoward@rustyhardin.com

5 Houston Center 1401 McKinney Street, Suite 2250 Houston, Texas 77010 Telephone: (713) 652-9000 Facsimile: (713) 652-9800

ATTORNEYS FOR CRAIG DOYAL21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 20 th day of March, 2017, a tr ue and correct copy of Defendant Craig Doyal’s Motion to Dismiss t he Indictment was served on the following counsel:

Christopher J. Downey Via E-Service T HE D OWNEY L AW F IRM 2814 Hamilton Street Houston, Texas 77004 Email: chris@downeylawfirm.com

David Cunningham Via E-Service L AW O FFICE OF D AVID C UNNINGHAM 2814 Hamilton Houston, Texas 77004 Email: cunningham709@yahoo.com

/s/ Rusty Hardin Rusty Hardin

### APPENDIX NO. 4

C HAPTER 

### 551 OF 

### T EXAS 

### G OVERNMENT 

### C ODE



### “T EXAS 

### O PEN 

### M EETINGS 

### A CT 

### ”3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 1 / 4 4 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E

T I T L E 5

. O P E N G O V E R N M E N T ; E T H I C S

S U B T I T L E A

. O P E N G O V E R N M E N T

C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

S U B C H A P T E R A

. G E N E R A L P R O V I S I O N S

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 0 1

. D E F I N I T I O N S

. I n t h i s c h a p t e r : ( 1 ) " C l o s e d m e e t i n g " m e a n s a m e e t i n g t o w h i c h t h e p u b l i c d o e s n o t

h a v e a c c e s s

.

( 2 ) " D e l i b e r a t i o n " m e a n s a v e r b a l e x c h a n g e d u r i n g a m e e t i n g
b e t w e e n a q u o r u m o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y , o r b e t w e e n a q u o r u m o f a

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y a n d a n o t h e r p e r s o n , c o n c e r n i n g a n i s s u e w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y o r a n y p u b l i c b u s i n e s s

.

( 3 ) " G o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y " m e a n s : ( A ) a b o a r d , c o m m i s s i o n , d e p a r t m e n t , c o m m i t t e e , o r a g e n c y

w i t h i n t h e e x e c u t i v e o r l e g i s l a t i v e b r a n c h o f s t a t e g o v e r n m e n t t h a t i s
d i r e c t e d b y o n e o r m o r e e l e c t e d o r a p p o i n t e d m e m b e r s ;

( B ) a c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r s c o u r t i n t h e s t a t e ; ( C ) a m u n i c i p a l g o v e r n i n g b o d y i n t h e s t a t e ; ( D ) a d e l i b e r a t i v e b o d y t h a t h a s r u l e m a k i n g o r q u a s i

j u d i c i a l p o w e r a n d t h a t i s c l a s s i f i e d a s a d e p a r t m e n t , a g e n c y , o r p o l i t i c a l

s u b d i v i s i o n o f a c o u n t y o r m u n i c i p a l i t y ;

( E ) a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t b o a r d o f t r u s t e e s ; ( F ) a c o u n t y b o a r d o f s c h o o l t r u s t e e s ; ( G ) a c o u n t y b o a r d o f e d u c a t i o n ; ( H ) t h e g o v e r n i n g b o a r d o f a s p e c i a l d i s t r i c t c r e a t e d b y
l a w ; ( I ) a l o c a l w o r k f o r c e d e v e l o p m e n t b o a r d c r e a t e d u n d e r

S e c t i o n 2 3 0 8

. 2 5 3 ;

( J ) a n o n p r o f i t c o r p o r a t i o n t h a t i s e l i g i b l e t o r e c e i v e
f u n d s u n d e r t h e f e d e r a l c o m m u n i t y s e r v i c e s b l o c k g r a n t p r o g r a m a n d t h a t i s

a u t h o r i z e d b y t h i s s t a t e t o s e r v e a g e o g r a p h i c a r e a o f t h e s t a t e ;

( K ) a n o n p r o f i t c o r p o r a t i o n o r g a n i z e d u n d e r C h a p t e r 6 7 , W a t e r C o d e , t h a t p r o v i d e s a w a t e r s u p p l y o r w a s t e w a t e r s e r v i c e , o r b o t h ,

a n d i s e x e m p t f r o m a d v a l o r e m t a x a t i o n u n d e r S e c t i o n 1 1

. 3 0 , T a x C o d e ; a n d

( L ) a j o i n t b o a r d c r e a t e d u n d e r S e c t i o n 2 2

. 0 7 4 , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o d e

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 2 / 4 4 ( 4 ) " M e e t i n g " m e a n s : ( A ) a d e l i b e r a t i o n b e t w e e n a q u o r u m o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y ,

o r b e t w e e n a q u o r u m o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y a n d a n o t h e r p e r s o n , d u r i n g w h i c h

p u b l i c b u s i n e s s o r p u b l i c p o l i c y o v e r w h i c h t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y h a s

s u p e r v i s i o n o r c o n t r o l i s d i s c u s s e d o r c o n s i d e r e d o r d u r i n g w h i c h t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y t a k e s f o r m a l a c t i o n ; o r

( B ) e x c e p t a s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d b y t h i s s u b d i v i s i o n , a

g a t h e r i n g : ( i ) t h a t i s c o n d u c t e d b y t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y o r f o r

w h i c h t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y i s r e s p o n s i b l e ;

( i i ) a t w h i c h a q u o r u m o f m e m b e r s o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l

b o d y i s p r e s e n t ; ( i i i ) t h a t h a s b e e n c a l l e d b y t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y ; a n d

( i v ) a t w h i c h t h e m e m b e r s r e c e i v e i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m , g i v e
i n f o r m a t i o n t o , a s k q u e s t i o n s o f , o r r e c e i v e q u e s t i o n s f r o m a n y t h i r d

p e r s o n , i n c l u d i n g a n e m p l o y e e o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y , a b o u t t h e p u b l i c
b u s i n e s s o r p u b l i c p o l i c y o v e r w h i c h t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y h a s s u p e r v i s i o n

o r c o n t r o l

.

T h e t e r m d o e s n o t i n c l u d e t h e g a t h e r i n g o f a q u o r u m o f a

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y a t a s o c i a l f u n c t i o n u n r e l a t e d t o t h e p u b l i c b u s i n e s s

t h a t i s c o n d u c t e d b y t h e b o d y , o r t h e a t t e n d a n c e b y a q u o r u m o f a

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y a t a r e g i o n a l , s t a t e , o r n a t i o n a l c o n v e n t i o n o r w o r k s h o p ,

c e r e m o n i a l e v e n t , o r p r e s s c o n f e r e n c e , i f f o r m a l a c t i o n i s n o t t a k e n a n d

a n y d i s c u s s i o n o f p u b l i c b u s i n e s s i s i n c i d e n t a l t o t h e s o c i a l f u n c t i o n ,

c o n v e n t i o n , w o r k s h o p , c e r e m o n i a l e v e n t , o r p r e s s c o n f e r e n c e

.

T h e t e r m i n c l u d e s a s e s s i o n o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

. ( 5 ) " O p e n " m e a n s o p e n t o t h e p u b l i c

. ( 6 ) " Q u o r u m " m e a n s a m a j o r i t y o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y , u n l e s s
d e f i n e d d i f f e r e n t l y b y a p p l i c a b l e l a w o r r u l e o r t h e c h a r t e r o f t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

.

( 7 ) " R e c o r d i n g " m e a n s a t a n g i b l e m e d i u m o n w h i c h a u d i o o r a

c o m b i n a t i o n o f a u d i o a n d v i d e o i s r e c o r d e d , i n c l u d i n g a d i s c , t a p e , w i r e , f i l m , e l e c t r o n i c s t o r a g e d r i v e , o r o t h e r m e d i u m n o w e x i s t i n g o r l a t e r
d e v e l o p e d

. ( 8 ) " V i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l " m e a n s a c o m m u n i c a t i o n c o n d u c t e d

b e t w e e n t w o o r m o r e p e r s o n s i n w h i c h o n e o r m o r e o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s

c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h t h e o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s t h r o u g h d u p l e x a u d i o a n d v i d e o

s i g n a l s t r a n s m i t t e d o v e r a t e l e p h o n e n e t w o r k , a d a t a n e t w o r k , o r t h e

I n t e r n e t

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 3 / 4 4 A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 9 , 7 6 t h L e g

. , c h

. 6 2 , S e c

. 1 8

. 2 3 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 9 ;

A c t s 1 9 9 9 , 7 6 t h L e g

. , c h

. 6 4 7 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. A u g

. 3 0 , 1 9 9 9 ; A c t s 2 0 0 1 , 7 7 t h

L e g

. , c h

. 6 3 3 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 2 0 0 1 ; A c t s 2 0 0 1 , 7 7 t h L e g

. , c h

. 1 0 0 4 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 2 0 0 1 ; A c t s 2 0 0 3 , 7 8 t h L e g

. , c h

. 1 2 7 6 , S e c

. 9

. 0 1 2 ,

e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 2 0 0 3

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 0 7 , 8 0 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 6 5 ( S

. B

. 1 3 0 6 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. M a y 2 2 , 2 0 0 7

. A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 4 7 1 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 3

. A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 6 8 5 ( H

. B

. 2 4 1 4 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. J u n e 1 4 , 2 0 1 3

. A c t s 2 0 1 5 , 8 4 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 1 5 ( S

. B

. 6 7 9 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. M a y 2 3 , 2 0 1 5

. A c t s 2 0 1 5 , 8 4 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 2 3 6 ( S

. B

. 1 2 9 6 ) , S e c

. 2 1

. 0 0 1 ( 2 6 ) ,

e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 5

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 0 1 5

. C E R T A I N P R O P E R T Y O W N E R S ' A S S O C I A T I O N S S U B J E C T T O L A W

. ( a ) A p r o p e r t y o w n e r s ' a s s o c i a t i o n i s s u b j e c t t o t h i s c h a p t e r i n t h e s a m e

m a n n e r a s a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y :

( 1 ) i f : ( A ) m e m b e r s h i p i n t h e p r o p e r t y o w n e r s ' a s s o c i a t i o n i s

m a n d a t o r y f o r o w n e r s o r f o r a d e f i n e d c l a s s o f o w n e r s o f p r i v a t e r e a l

p r o p e r t y i n a d e f i n e d g e o g r a p h i c a r e a i n a c o u n t y w i t h a p o p u l a t i o n o f 2

. 8

m i l l i o n o r m o r e o r i n a c o u n t y a d j a c e n t t o a c o u n t y w i t h a p o p u l a t i o n o f

2

. 8 m i l l i o n o r m o r e ;

( B ) t h e p r o p e r t y o w n e r s ' a s s o c i a t i o n h a s t h e p o w e r t o m a k e

m a n d a t o r y s p e c i a l a s s e s s m e n t s f o r c a p i t a l i m p r o v e m e n t s o r m a n d a t o r y r e g u l a r

a s s e s s m e n t s ; a n d

( C ) t h e a m o u n t o f t h e m a n d a t o r y s p e c i a l o r r e g u l a r

a s s e s s m e n t s i s o r h a s e v e r b e e n b a s e d i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t o n t h e v a l u e a t

w h i c h t h e s t a t e o r a l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y a s s e s s e s t h e p r o p e r t y f o r

p u r p o s e s o f a d v a l o r e m t a x a t i o n u n d e r S e c t i o n 2 0 , A r t i c l e V I I I , T e x a s

C o n s t i t u t i o n ; o r

( 2 ) i f t h e p r o p e r t y o w n e r s ' a s s o c i a t i o n : ( A ) p r o v i d e s m a i n t e n a n c e , p r e s e r v a t i o n , a n d a r c h i t e c t u r a l

c o n t r o l o f r e s i d e n t i a l a n d c o m m e r c i a l p r o p e r t y w i t h i n a d e f i n e d g e o g r a p h i c

a r e a i n a c o u n t y w i t h a p o p u l a t i o n o f 2

. 8 m i l l i o n o r m o r e o r i n a c o u n t y

a d j a c e n t t o a c o u n t y w i t h a p o p u l a t i o n o f 2

. 8 m i l l i o n o r m o r e ; a n d3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 4 / 4 4 ( B ) i s a c o r p o r a t i o n t h a t : ( i ) i s g o v e r n e d b y a b o a r d o f t r u s t e e s w h o m a y e m p l o y a

g e n e r a l m a n a g e r t o e x e c u t e t h e a s s o c i a t i o n ' s b y l a w s a n d a d m i n i s t e r t h e
b u s i n e s s o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n ;

( i i ) d o e s n o t r e q u i r e m e m b e r s h i p i n t h e c o r p o r a t i o n b y

t h e o w n e r s o f t h e p r o p e r t y w i t h i n t h e d e f i n e d a r e a ; a n d

( i i i ) w a s i n c o r p o r a t e d b e f o r e J a n u a r y 1 , 2 0 0 6

. ( b ) T h e g o v e r n i n g b o d y o f t h e a s s o c i a t i o n , a c o m m i t t e e o f t h e

a s s o c i a t i o n , a n d m e m b e r s o f t h e g o v e r n i n g b o d y o r o f a c o m m i t t e e o f t h e

a s s o c i a t i o n a r e s u b j e c t t o t h i s c h a p t e r i n t h e s a m e m a n n e r a s t h e g o v e r n i n g
b o d y o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y , a c o m m i t t e e o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y , a n d

m e m b e r s o f t h e g o v e r n i n g b o d y o r o f a c o m m i t t e e o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 9 , 7 6 t h L e g

. , c h

. 1 0 8 4 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 9

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 0 7 , 8 0 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 3 6 7 ( H

. B

. 3 6 7 4 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 7

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 0 2

. O P E N M E E T I N G S R E Q U I R E M E N T

. E v e r y r e g u l a r , s p e c i a l , o r

c a l l e d m e e t i n g o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y s h a l l b e o p e n t o t h e p u b l i c , e x c e p t

a s p r o v i d e d b y t h i s c h a p t e r

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 0 3

. L E G I S L A T U R E

. I n t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i s

e x e r c i s i n g i t s p o w e r s t o a d o p t r u l e s t o p r o h i b i t s e c r e t m e e t i n g s o f t h e
l e g i s l a t u r e , c o m m i t t e e s o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , a n d o t h e r b o d i e s a s s o c i a t e d

w i t h t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , e x c e p t a s s p e c i f i c a l l y p e r m i t t e d i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 0 3 5

. A T T E N D A N C E B Y G O V E R N M E N T A L B O D Y A T L E G I S L A T I V E

C O M M I T T E E O R A G E N C Y M E E T I N G

. ( a ) T h i s s e c t i o n a p p l i e s o n l y t o t h e

a t t e n d a n c e b y a q u o r u m o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y a t a m e e t i n g o f a c o m m i t t e e

o r a g e n c y o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e

. T h i s s e c t i o n d o e s n o t a p p l y t o a t t e n d a n c e a t

t h e m e e t i n g b y m e m b e r s o f t h e l e g i s l a t i v e c o m m i t t e e o r a g e n c y h o l d i n g t h e

m e e t i n g

. ( b ) T h e a t t e n d a n c e b y a q u o r u m o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y a t a m e e t i n g o f

a c o m m i t t e e o r a g e n c y o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i s n o t c o n s i d e r e d t o b e a m e e t i n g

o f t h a t g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y i f t h e d e l i b e r a t i o n s a t t h e m e e t i n g b y t h e

m e m b e r s o f t h a t g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y c o n s i s t o n l y o f p u b l i c l y t e s t i f y i n g a t3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 5 / 4 4 t h e m e e t i n g , p u b l i c l y c o m m e n t i n g a t t h e m e e t i n g , a n d p u b l i c l y r e s p o n d i n g a t

t h e m e e t i n g t o a q u e s t i o n a s k e d b y a m e m b e r o f t h e l e g i s l a t i v e c o m m i t t e e o r

a g e n c y

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 0 1 , 7 7 t h L e g

. , c h

. 4 4 7 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. J u n e 4 , 2 0 0 1

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 0 4

. O P E N M E E T I N G S R E Q U I R E D B Y C H A R T E R

. T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s

n o t a u t h o r i z e a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y t o c l o s e a m e e t i n g t h a t a c h a r t e r o f t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y :

( 1 ) p r o h i b i t s f r o m b e i n g c l o s e d ; o r ( 2 ) r e q u i r e s t o b e o p e n

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 0 5

. O P E N M E E T I N G S T R A I N I N G

. ( a ) E a c h e l e c t e d o r a p p o i n t e d

p u b l i c o f f i c i a l w h o i s a m e m b e r o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y s u b j e c t t o t h i s

c h a p t e r s h a l l c o m p l e t e a c o u r s e o f t r a i n i n g o f n o t l e s s t h a n o n e a n d n o t

m o r e t h a n t w o h o u r s r e g a r d i n g t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

a n d i t s m e m b e r s u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r n o t l a t e r t h a n t h e 9 0 t h d a y a f t e r t h e
d a t e t h e m e m b e r :

( 1 ) t a k e s t h e o a t h o f o f f i c e , i f t h e m e m b e r i s r e q u i r e d t o t a k e

a n o a t h o f o f f i c e t o a s s u m e t h e p e r s o n ' s d u t i e s a s a m e m b e r o f t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y ; o r

( 2 ) o t h e r w i s e a s s u m e s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a s a m e m b e r o f t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y , i f t h e m e m b e r i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o t a k e a n o a t h o f o f f i c e

t o a s s u m e t h e p e r s o n ' s d u t i e s a s a m e m b e r o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

. ( b ) T h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l s h a l l e n s u r e t h a t t h e t r a i n i n g i s m a d e

a v a i l a b l e

. T h e o f f i c e o f t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l m a y p r o v i d e t h e t r a i n i n g a n d

m a y a l s o a p p r o v e a n y a c c e p t a b l e c o u r s e o f t r a i n i n g o f f e r e d b y a

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y o r o t h e r e n t i t y

. T h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l s h a l l e n s u r e t h a t

a t l e a s t o n e c o u r s e o f t r a i n i n g a p p r o v e d o r p r o v i d e d b y t h e a t t o r n e y

g e n e r a l i s a v a i l a b l e o n v i d e o t a p e o r a f u n c t i o n a l l y s i m i l a r a n d w i d e l y

a v a i l a b l e m e d i u m a t n o c o s t

. T h e t r a i n i n g m u s t i n c l u d e i n s t r u c t i o n i n :

( 1 ) t h e g e n e r a l b a c k g r o u n d o f t h e l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r o p e n

m e e t i n g s ; ( 2 ) t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h i s c h a p t e r t o g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d i e s ;

( 3 ) p r o c e d u r e s a n d r e q u i r e m e n t s r e g a r d i n g q u o r u m s , n o t i c e , a n d

r e c o r d k e e p i n g u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r ;

( 4 ) p r o c e d u r e s a n d r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r h o l d i n g a n o p e n m e e t i n g a n d

f o r h o l d i n g a c l o s e d m e e t i n g u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r ; a n d3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 6 / 4 4 ( 5 ) p e n a l t i e s a n d o t h e r c o n s e q u e n c e s f o r f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y w i t h

t h i s c h a p t e r

. ( c ) T h e o f f i c e o f t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l o r o t h e r e n t i t y p r o v i d i n g t h e

t r a i n i n g s h a l l p r o v i d e a c e r t i f i c a t e o f c o u r s e c o m p l e t i o n t o p e r s o n s w h o

c o m p l e t e t h e t r a i n i n g r e q u i r e d b y t h i s s e c t i o n

. A g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y s h a l l

m a i n t a i n a n d m a k e a v a i l a b l e f o r p u b l i c i n s p e c t i o n t h e r e c o r d o f i t s

m e m b e r s ' c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e t r a i n i n g

. ( d ) C o m p l e t i n g t h e r e q u i r e d t r a i n i n g a s a m e m b e r o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l

b o d y s a t i s f i e s t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h i s s e c t i o n w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e m e m b e r ' s

s e r v i c e o n a c o m m i t t e e o r s u b c o m m i t t e e o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y a n d t h e

m e m b e r ' s e x o f f i c i o s e r v i c e o n a n y o t h e r g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

. ( e ) T h e t r a i n i n g r e q u i r e d b y t h i s s e c t i o n m a y b e u s e d t o s a t i s f y a n y

c o r r e s p o n d i n g t r a i n i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g t h i s c h a p t e r o r o p e n

m e e t i n g s r e q u i r e d b y l a w f o r t h e m e m b e r s o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

. T h e

a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l s h a l l a t t e m p t t o c o o r d i n a t e t h e t r a i n i n g r e q u i r e d b y t h i s

s e c t i o n w i t h t r a i n i n g r e q u i r e d b y o t h e r l a w t o t h e e x t e n t p r a c t i c a b l e

. ( f ) T h e f a i l u r e o f o n e o r m o r e m e m b e r s o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y t o

c o m p l e t e t h e t r a i n i n g r e q u i r e d b y t h i s s e c t i o n d o e s n o t a f f e c t t h e v a l i d i t y

o f a n a c t i o n t a k e n b y t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

. ( g ) A c e r t i f i c a t e o f c o u r s e c o m p l e t i o n i s a d m i s s i b l e a s e v i d e n c e i n a

c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r

. H o w e v e r , e v i d e n c e t h a t a
d e f e n d a n t c o m p l e t e d a c o u r s e o f t r a i n i n g o f f e r e d u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n i s n o t

p r i m a f a c i e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t k n o w i n g l y v i o l a t e d t h i s c h a p t e r

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 0 5 , 7 9 t h L e g

. , C h

. 1 0 5 ( S

. B

. 2 8 6 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. J a n u a r y 1 , 2 0 0 6

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 0 6

. W R I T T E N E L E C T R O N I C C O M M U N I C A T I O N S A C C E S S I B L E T O P U B L I C

. ( a ) A c o m m u n i c a t i o n o r e x c h a n g e o f i n f o r m a t i o n b e t w e e n m e m b e r s o f a

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y a b o u t p u b l i c b u s i n e s s o r p u b l i c p o l i c y o v e r w h i c h t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y h a s s u p e r v i s i o n o r c o n t r o l d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e a m e e t i n g

o r d e l i b e r a t i o n f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s c h a p t e r i f :

( 1 ) t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n i s i n w r i t i n g ; ( 2 ) t h e w r i t i n g i s p o s t e d t o a n o n l i n e m e s s a g e b o a r d o r s i m i l a r

I n t e r n e t a p p l i c a t i o n t h a t i s v i e w a b l e a n d s e a r c h a b l e b y t h e p u b l i c ; a n d

( 3 ) t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n i s d i s p l a y e d i n r e a l t i m e a n d d i s p l a y e d o n

t h e o n l i n e m e s s a g e b o a r d o r s i m i l a r I n t e r n e t a p p l i c a t i o n f o r n o l e s s t h a n
3 0 d a y s a f t e r t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n i s f i r s t p o s t e d

. ( b ) A g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m a y h a v e n o m o r e t h a n o n e o n l i n e m e s s a g e
b o a r d o r s i m i l a r I n t e r n e t a p p l i c a t i o n t o b e u s e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e s d e s c r i b e d3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 7 / 4 4 i n S u b s e c t i o n ( a )

. T h e o n l i n e m e s s a g e b o a r d o r s i m i l a r I n t e r n e t

a p p l i c a t i o n m u s t b e o w n e d o r c o n t r o l l e d b y t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y ,
p r o m i n e n t l y d i s p l a y e d o n t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y ' s p r i m a r y I n t e r n e t w e b p a g e ,

a n d n o m o r e t h a n o n e c l i c k a w a y f r o m t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y ' s p r i m a r y

I n t e r n e t w e b p a g e

. ( c ) T h e o n l i n e m e s s a g e b o a r d o r s i m i l a r I n t e r n e t a p p l i c a t i o n
d e s c r i b e d i n S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) m a y o n l y b e u s e d b y m e m b e r s o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l

b o d y o r s t a f f m e m b e r s o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y w h o h a v e r e c e i v e d s p e c i f i c

a u t h o r i z a t i o n f r o m a m e m b e r o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

. I n t h e e v e n t t h a t a

s t a f f m e m b e r p o s t s a c o m m u n i c a t i o n t o t h e o n l i n e m e s s a g e b o a r d o r s i m i l a r

I n t e r n e t a p p l i c a t i o n , t h e n a m e a n d t i t l e o f t h e s t a f f m e m b e r m u s t b e p o s t e d

a l o n g w i t h t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n

. ( d ) I f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y r e m o v e s f r o m t h e o n l i n e m e s s a g e b o a r d o r

s i m i l a r I n t e r n e t a p p l i c a t i o n a c o m m u n i c a t i o n t h a t h a s b e e n p o s t e d f o r a t

l e a s t 3 0 d a y s , t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y s h a l l m a i n t a i n t h e p o s t i n g f o r a

p e r i o d o f s i x y e a r s

. T h i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n i s p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n a n d m u s t b e
d i s c l o s e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h C h a p t e r 5 5 2

. ( e ) T h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m a y n o t v o t e o r t a k e a n y a c t i o n t h a t i s

r e q u i r e d t o b e t a k e n a t a m e e t i n g u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l

b o d y b y p o s t i n g a c o m m u n i c a t i o n t o t h e o n l i n e m e s s a g e b o a r d o r s i m i l a r

I n t e r n e t a p p l i c a t i o n

. I n n o e v e n t s h a l l a c o m m u n i c a t i o n o r p o s t i n g t o t h e

o n l i n e m e s s a g e b o a r d o r s i m i l a r I n t e r n e t a p p l i c a t i o n b e c o n s t r u e d t o b e a n

a c t i o n o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 6 8 5 ( H

. B

. 2 4 1 4 ) , S e c

. 3 , e f f

. J u n e
1 4 , 2 0 1 3

. A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 2 0 1 ( S

. B

. 1 2 9 7 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 3

.

S U B C H A P T E R B

. R E C O R D O F O P E N M E E T I N G

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 2 1

. M I N U T E S O R R E C O R D I N G O F O P E N M E E T I N G R E Q U I R E D

. ( a ) A

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y s h a l l p r e p a r e a n d k e e p m i n u t e s o r m a k e a r e c o r d i n g o f

e a c h o p e n m e e t i n g o f t h e b o d y

. ( b ) T h e m i n u t e s m u s t : ( 1 ) s t a t e t h e s u b j e c t o f e a c h d e l i b e r a t i o n ; a n d
( 2 ) i n d i c a t e e a c h v o t e , o r d e r , d e c i s i o n , o r o t h e r a c t i o n t a k e n

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y :3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 8 / 4 4 A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 4 7 1 ) , S e c

. 2 , e f f

. M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 3

. A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 4 7 1 ) , S e c

. 3 , e f f

. M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 2 2

. M I N U T E S A N D R E C O R D I N G S O F O P E N M E E T I N G : P U B L I C R E C O R D

. T h e m i n u t e s a n d r e c o r d i n g s o f a n o p e n m e e t i n g a r e p u b l i c r e c o r d s a n d s h a l l

b e a v a i l a b l e f o r p u b l i c i n s p e c t i o n a n d c o p y i n g o n r e q u e s t t o t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y ' s c h i e f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e r o r t h e o f f i c e r ' s d e s i g n e e

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 4 7 1 ) , S e c

. 4 , e f f

. M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 2 3

. R E C O R D I N G O F M E E T I N G B Y P E R S O N I N A T T E N D A N C E

. ( a ) A

p e r s o n i n a t t e n d a n c e m a y r e c o r d a l l o r a n y p a r t o f a n o p e n m e e t i n g o f a

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y b y m e a n s o f a r e c o r d e r , v i d e o c a m e r a , o r o t h e r m e a n s o f

a u r a l o r v i s u a l r e p r o d u c t i o n

. ( b ) A g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m a y a d o p t r e a s o n a b l e r u l e s t o m a i n t a i n o r d e r

a t a m e e t i n g , i n c l u d i n g r u l e s r e l a t i n g t o :

( 1 ) t h e l o c a t i o n o f r e c o r d i n g e q u i p m e n t ; a n d
( 2 ) t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h t h e r e c o r d i n g i s c o n d u c t e d

. ( c ) A r u l e a d o p t e d u n d e r S u b s e c t i o n ( b ) m a y n o t p r e v e n t o r

u n r e a s o n a b l y i m p a i r a p e r s o n f r o m e x e r c i s i n g a r i g h t g r a n t e d u n d e r

S u b s e c t i o n ( a )

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 4 7 1 ) , S e c

. 5 , e f f

. M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 3

.

S U B C H A P T E R C

. N O T I C E O F M E E T I N G S

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 4 1

. N O T I C E O F M E E T I N G R E Q U I R E D

. A g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y s h a l l

g i v e w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f t h e d a t e , h o u r , p l a c e , a n d s u b j e c t o f e a c h m e e t i n g
h e l d b y t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 9 / 4 4 S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 4 1 1

. M E E T I N G N O T I C E R E Q U I R E M E N T S I N C E R T A I N C I R C U M S T A N C E S

. ( a ) S e c t i o n 5 5 1

. 0 4 1 d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y t h a t r e c e s s e s a n

o p e n m e e t i n g t o t h e f o l l o w i n g r e g u l a r b u s i n e s s d a y t o p o s t n o t i c e o f t h e

c o n t i n u e d m e e t i n g i f t h e a c t i o n i s t a k e n i n g o o d f a i t h a n d n o t t o

c i r c u m v e n t t h i s c h a p t e r

. I f a n o p e n m e e t i n g i s c o n t i n u e d t o t h e f o l l o w i n g

r e g u l a r b u s i n e s s d a y a n d , o n t h a t f o l l o w i n g d a y , t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

c o n t i n u e s t h e m e e t i n g t o a n o t h e r d a y , t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m u s t g i v e

w r i t t e n n o t i c e a s r e q u i r e d b y t h i s s u b c h a p t e r o f t h e m e e t i n g c o n t i n u e d t o

t h a t o t h e r d a y

. ( b ) A g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y t h a t i s p r e v e n t e d f r o m c o n v e n i n g a n o p e n

m e e t i n g t h a t w a s o t h e r w i s e p r o p e r l y p o s t e d u n d e r S e c t i o n 5 5 1

. 0 4 1 b e c a u s e o f

a c a t a s t r o p h e m a y c o n v e n e t h e m e e t i n g i n a c o n v e n i e n t l o c a t i o n w i t h i n 7 2

h o u r s p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 5 5 1

. 0 4 5 i f t h e a c t i o n i s t a k e n i n g o o d f a i t h a n d

n o t t o c i r c u m v e n t t h i s c h a p t e r

. I f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y i s u n a b l e t o

c o n v e n e t h e o p e n m e e t i n g w i t h i n t h o s e 7 2 h o u r s , t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m a y

s u b s e q u e n t l y c o n v e n e t h e m e e t i n g o n l y i f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y g i v e s

w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f t h e m e e t i n g a s r e q u i r e d b y t h i s s u b c h a p t e r

. ( c ) I n t h i s s e c t i o n , " c a t a s t r o p h e " m e a n s a c o n d i t i o n o r o c c u r r e n c e

t h a t i n t e r f e r e s p h y s i c a l l y w i t h t h e a b i l i t y o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y t o

c o n d u c t a m e e t i n g , i n c l u d i n g :

( 1 ) f i r e , f l o o d , e a r t h q u a k e , h u r r i c a n e , t o r n a d o , o r w i n d , r a i n ,

o r s n o w s t o r m ;

( 2 ) p o w e r f a i l u r e , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f a i l u r e , o r i n t e r r u p t i o n o f

c o m m u n i c a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s ;

( 3 ) e p i d e m i c ; o r ( 4 ) r i o t , c i v i l d i s t u r b a n c e , e n e m y a t t a c k , o r o t h e r a c t u a l o r

t h r e a t e n e d a c t o f l a w l e s s n e s s o r v i o l e n c e

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 0 5 , 7 9 t h L e g

. , C h

. 3 2 5 ( S

. B

. 6 9 0 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. J u n e 1 7 , 2 0 0 5

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 4 1 5

. G O V E R N I N G B O D Y O F M U N I C I P A L I T Y O R C O U N T Y : R E P O R T S

A B O U T I T E M S O F C O M M U N I T Y I N T E R E S T R E G A R D I N G W H I C H N O A C T I O N W I L L B E T A K E N

. ( a ) N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g S e c t i o n s 5 5 1

. 0 4 1 a n d 5 5 1

. 0 4 2 , a q u o r u m o f t h e

g o v e r n i n g b o d y o f a m u n i c i p a l i t y o r c o u n t y m a y r e c e i v e f r o m s t a f f o f t h e

p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n a n d a m e m b e r o f t h e g o v e r n i n g b o d y m a y m a k e a r e p o r t

a b o u t i t e m s o f c o m m u n i t y i n t e r e s t d u r i n g a m e e t i n g o f t h e g o v e r n i n g b o d y

w i t h o u t h a v i n g g i v e n n o t i c e o f t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e r e p o r t a s r e q u i r e d b y

t h i s s u b c h a p t e r i f n o a c t i o n i s t a k e n a n d , e x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d b y S e c t i o n3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 1 0 / 4 4 5 5 1

. 0 4 2 , p o s s i b l e a c t i o n i s n o t d i s c u s s e d r e g a r d i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n

p r o v i d e d i n t h e r e p o r t

. ( b ) F o r p u r p o s e s o f S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) , " i t e m s o f c o m m u n i t y i n t e r e s t "

i n c l u d e s : ( 1 ) e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h a n k s , c o n g r a t u l a t i o n s , o r c o n d o l e n c e ;

( 2 ) i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g h o l i d a y s c h e d u l e s ; ( 3 ) a n h o n o r a r y o r s a l u t a r y r e c o g n i t i o n o f a p u b l i c o f f i c i a l ,
p u b l i c e m p l o y e e , o r o t h e r c i t i z e n , e x c e p t t h a t a d i s c u s s i o n r e g a r d i n g a

c h a n g e i n t h e s t a t u s o f a p e r s o n ' s p u b l i c o f f i c e o r p u b l i c e m p l o y m e n t i s

n o t a n h o n o r a r y o r s a l u t a r y r e c o g n i t i o n f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s s u b d i v i s i o n ;

( 4 ) a r e m i n d e r a b o u t a n u p c o m i n g e v e n t o r g a n i z e d o r s p o n s o r e d b y

t h e g o v e r n i n g b o d y ;

( 5 ) i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g a s o c i a l , c e r e m o n i a l , o r c o m m u n i t y

e v e n t o r g a n i z e d o r s p o n s o r e d b y a n e n t i t y o t h e r t h a n t h e g o v e r n i n g b o d y

t h a t w a s a t t e n d e d o r i s s c h e d u l e d t o b e a t t e n d e d b y a m e m b e r o f t h e

g o v e r n i n g b o d y o r a n o f f i c i a l o r e m p l o y e e o f t h e p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n ; a n d

( 6 ) a n n o u n c e m e n t s i n v o l v i n g a n i m m i n e n t t h r e a t t o t h e p u b l i c
h e a l t h a n d s a f e t y o f p e o p l e i n t h e p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n t h a t h a s a r i s e n

a f t e r t h e p o s t i n g o f t h e a g e n d a

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 0 9 , 8 1 s t L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 3 7 7 ( S

. B

. 1 1 8 2 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 9

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 1 1 , 8 2 n d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 0 0 7 ( H

. B

. 2 3 1 3 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. J u n e
1 7 , 2 0 1 1

. A c t s 2 0 1 1 , 8 2 n d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 3 4 1 ( S

. B

. 1 2 3 3 ) , S e c

. 1 4 , e f f

. J u n e
1 7 , 2 0 1 1

. R e e n a c t e d a n d a m e n d e d b y A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 6 1 ( S

. B

. 1 0 9 3 ) , S e c

. 9

. 0 1 3 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 4 2

. I N Q U I R Y M A D E A T M E E T I N G

. ( a ) I f , a t a m e e t i n g o f a

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y , a m e m b e r o f t h e p u b l i c o r o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y
i n q u i r e s a b o u t a s u b j e c t f o r w h i c h n o t i c e h a s n o t b e e n g i v e n a s r e q u i r e d b y

t h i s s u b c h a p t e r , t h e n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s s u b c h a p t e r d o n o t a p p l y t o :

( 1 ) a s t a t e m e n t o f s p e c i f i c f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n i n r e s p o n s e

t o t h e i n q u i r y ; o r

( 2 ) a r e c i t a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g p o l i c y i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e i n q u i r y

. ( b ) A n y d e l i b e r a t i o n o f o r d e c i s i o n a b o u t t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e i n q u i r y

s h a l l b e l i m i t e d t o a p r o p o s a l t o p l a c e t h e s u b j e c t o n t h e a g e n d a f o r a

s u b s e q u e n t m e e t i n g

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 1 1 / 4 4 A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 4 3

. T I M E A N D A C C E S S I B I L I T Y O F N O T I C E ; G E N E R A L R U L E

. ( a )

T h e n o t i c e o f a m e e t i n g o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m u s t b e p o s t e d i n a p l a c e

r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e t o t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c a t a l l t i m e s f o r a t l e a s t 7 2 h o u r s
b e f o r e t h e s c h e d u l e d t i m e o f t h e m e e t i n g , e x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d b y S e c t i o n s
5 5 1

. 0 4 4

­ 5 5 1

. 0 4 6

. ( b ) I f t h i s c h a p t e r s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u i r e s o r a l l o w s a g o v e r n m e n t a l

b o d y t o p o s t n o t i c e o f a m e e t i n g o n t h e I n t e r n e t :

( 1 ) t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y s a t i s f i e s t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e

n o t i c e m u s t b e p o s t e d i n a p l a c e r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e t o t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c

a t a l l t i m e s b y m a k i n g a g o o d

­ f a i t h a t t e m p t t o c o n t i n u o u s l y p o s t t h e n o t i c e

o n t h e I n t e r n e t d u r i n g t h e p r e s c r i b e d p e r i o d ;

( 2 ) t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m u s t s t i l l c o m p l y w i t h a n y d u t y i m p o s e d

b y t h i s c h a p t e r t o p h y s i c a l l y p o s t t h e n o t i c e a t a p a r t i c u l a r l o c a t i o n ; a n d

( 3 ) i f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m a k e s a g o o d

­ f a i t h a t t e m p t t o

c o n t i n u o u s l y p o s t t h e n o t i c e o n t h e I n t e r n e t d u r i n g t h e p r e s c r i b e d p e r i o d , t h e n o t i c e p h y s i c a l l y p o s t e d a t t h e l o c a t i o n p r e s c r i b e d b y t h i s c h a p t e r

m u s t b e r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e t o t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c d u r i n g n o r m a l b u s i n e s s
h o u r s

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 0 5 , 7 9 t h L e g

. , C h

. 6 2 4 ( H

. B

. 2 3 8 1 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 5

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 4 4

. E X C E P T I O N T O G E N E R A L R U L E : G O V E R N M E N T A L B O D Y W I T H

S T A T E W I D E J U R I S D I C T I O N

. ( a ) T h e s e c r e t a r y o f s t a t e m u s t p o s t n o t i c e o n

t h e I n t e r n e t o f a m e e t i n g o f a s t a t e b o a r d , c o m m i s s i o n , d e p a r t m e n t , o r

o f f i c e r h a v i n g s t a t e w i d e j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r a t l e a s t s e v e n d a y s b e f o r e t h e
d a y o f t h e m e e t i n g

. T h e s e c r e t a r y o f s t a t e s h a l l p r o v i d e d u r i n g r e g u l a r

o f f i c e h o u r s a c o m p u t e r t e r m i n a l a t a p l a c e c o n v e n i e n t t o t h e p u b l i c i n t h e

o f f i c e o f t h e s e c r e t a r y o f s t a t e t h a t m e m b e r s o f t h e p u b l i c m a y u s e t o v i e w

n o t i c e s o f m e e t i n g s p o s t e d b y t h e s e c r e t a r y o f s t a t e

. ( b ) S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) d o e s n o t a p p l y t o : ( 1 ) t h e T e x a s D e p a r t m e n t o f I n s u r a n c e , a s r e g a r d s p r o c e e d i n g s a n d

a c t i v i t i e s u n d e r T i t l e 5 , L a b o r C o d e , o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t , t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r

o f i n s u r a n c e , o r t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r o f w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n ; o r

( 2 ) t h e g o v e r n i n g b o a r d o f a n i n s t i t u t i o n o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 1 2 / 4 4 A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 9 , 7 6 t h L e g

. , c h

. 6 2 2 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 9

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 0 5 , 7 9 t h L e g

. , C h

. 2 6 5 ( H

. B

. 7 ) , S e c

. 6

. 0 0 6 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 5

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 4 5

. E X C E P T I O N T O G E N E R A L R U L E : N O T I C E O F E M E R G E N C Y M E E T I N G

O R E M E R G E N C Y A D D I T I O N T O A G E N D A

. ( a ) I n a n e m e r g e n c y o r w h e n t h e r e i s a n

u r g e n t p u b l i c n e c e s s i t y , t h e n o t i c e o f a m e e t i n g o r t h e s u p p l e m e n t a l n o t i c e

o f a s u b j e c t a d d e d a s a n i t e m t o t h e a g e n d a f o r a m e e t i n g f o r w h i c h n o t i c e
h a s b e e n p o s t e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s s u b c h a p t e r i s s u f f i c i e n t i f i t i s

p o s t e d f o r a t l e a s t t w o h o u r s b e f o r e t h e m e e t i n g i s c o n v e n e d

. ( b ) A n e m e r g e n c y o r a n u r g e n t p u b l i c n e c e s s i t y e x i s t s o n l y i f

i m m e d i a t e a c t i o n i s r e q u i r e d o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y b e c a u s e o f :

( 1 ) a n i m m i n e n t t h r e a t t o p u b l i c h e a l t h a n d s a f e t y ; o r ( 2 ) a r e a s o n a b l y u n f o r e s e e a b l e s i t u a t i o n

. ( c ) T h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y s h a l l c l e a r l y i d e n t i f y t h e e m e r g e n c y o r

u r g e n t p u b l i c n e c e s s i t y i n t h e n o t i c e o r s u p p l e m e n t a l n o t i c e u n d e r t h i s

s e c t i o n

. ( d ) A p e r s o n w h o i s d e s i g n a t e d o r a u t h o r i z e d t o p o s t n o t i c e o f a

m e e t i n g b y a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y u n d e r t h i s s u b c h a p t e r s h a l l p o s t t h e n o t i c e

t a k i n g a t f a c e v a l u e t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y ' s s t a t e d r e a s o n f o r t h e

e m e r g e n c y o r u r g e n t p u b l i c n e c e s s i t y

. ( e ) F o r p u r p o s e s o f S u b s e c t i o n ( b ) ( 2 ) , t h e s u d d e n r e l o c a t i o n o f a
l a r g e n u m b e r o f r e s i d e n t s f r o m t h e a r e a o f a d e c l a r e d d i s a s t e r t o a

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n i s c o n s i d e r e d a r e a s o n a b l y u n f o r e s e e a b l e

s i t u a t i o n f o r a r e a s o n a b l e p e r i o d i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h e r e l o c a t i o n

. N o t i c e o f a n e m e r g e n c y m e e t i n g o r s u p p l e m e n t a l n o t i c e o f a n e m e r g e n c y i t e m

a d d e d t o t h e a g e n d a o f a m e e t i n g t o a d d r e s s a s i t u a t i o n d e s c r i b e d b y t h i s

s u b s e c t i o n m u s t b e g i v e n t o m e m b e r s o f t h e n e w s m e d i a a s p r o v i d e d b y

S e c t i o n 5 5 1

. 0 4 7 n o t l a t e r t h a n o n e h o u r b e f o r e t h e m e e t i n g

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 0 7 , 8 0 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 2 5 8 ( S

. B

. 1 1 ) , S e c

. 3

. 0 6 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 7

. A c t s 2 0 0 7 , 8 0 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 3 2 5 ( S

. B

. 1 4 9 9 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. J u n e
1 5 , 2 0 0 7

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 1 3 / 4 4 S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 4 6

. E X C E P T I O N T O G E N E R A L R U L E : C O M M I T T E E O F L E G I S L A T U R E

. T h e n o t i c e o f a l e g i s l a t i v e c o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g s h a l l b e a s p r o v i d e d b y t h e

r u l e s o f t h e h o u s e o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o r o f t h e s e n a t e

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 4 7

. S P E C I A L N O T I C E T O N E W S M E D I A O F E M E R G E N C Y M E E T I N G O R

E M E R G E N C Y A D D I T I O N T O A G E N D A

. ( a ) T h e p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l

b o d y , o r t h e m e m b e r o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y w h o c a l l s a n e m e r g e n c y m e e t i n g

o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y o r a d d s a n e m e r g e n c y i t e m t o t h e a g e n d a o f a

m e e t i n g o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y , s h a l l n o t i f y t h e n e w s m e d i a o f t h e

e m e r g e n c y m e e t i n g o r e m e r g e n c y i t e m a s r e q u i r e d b y t h i s s e c t i o n

. ( b ) T h e p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r o r m e m b e r i s r e q u i r e d t o n o t i f y o n l y t h o s e

m e m b e r s o f t h e n e w s m e d i a t h a t h a v e p r e v i o u s l y :

( 1 ) f i l e d a t t h e h e a d q u a r t e r s o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y a r e q u e s t

c o n t a i n i n g a l l p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e s p e c i a l n o t i c e ; a n d

( 2 ) a g r e e d t o r e i m b u r s e t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y f o r t h e c o s t o f

p r o v i d i n g t h e s p e c i a l n o t i c e

. ( c ) T h e p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r o r m e m b e r s h a l l g i v e t h e n o t i c e b y

t e l e p h o n e , f a c s i m i l e t r a n s m i s s i o n , o r e l e c t r o n i c m a i l

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 0 7 , 8 0 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 3 8 0 ( S

. B

. 5 9 2 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 7

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 4 8

. S T A T E G O V E R N M E N T A L B O D Y : N O T I C E T O S E C R E T A R Y O F S T A T E ;

P L A C E O F P O S T I N G N O T I C E

. ( a ) A s t a t e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y s h a l l p r o v i d e

n o t i c e o f e a c h m e e t i n g t o t h e s e c r e t a r y o f s t a t e

. ( b ) T h e s e c r e t a r y o f s t a t e s h a l l p o s t t h e n o t i c e o n t h e I n t e r n e t

. T h e s e c r e t a r y o f s t a t e s h a l l p r o v i d e d u r i n g r e g u l a r o f f i c e h o u r s a c o m p u t e r

t e r m i n a l a t a p l a c e c o n v e n i e n t t o t h e p u b l i c i n t h e o f f i c e o f t h e s e c r e t a r y

o f s t a t e t h a t m e m b e r s o f t h e p u b l i c m a y u s e t o v i e w t h e n o t i c e

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 9 , 7 6 t h L e g

. , c h

. 6 2 2 , S e c

. 2 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 9

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 4 9

. C O U N T Y G O V E R N M E N T A L B O D Y : P L A C E O F P O S T I N G N O T I C E

. A

c o u n t y g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y s h a l l p o s t n o t i c e o f e a c h m e e t i n g o n a b u l l e t i n
b o a r d a t a p l a c e c o n v e n i e n t t o t h e p u b l i c i n t h e c o u n t y c o u r t h o u s e

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 1 4 / 4 4 A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 5 0

. M U N I C I P A L G O V E R N M E N T A L B O D Y : P L A C E O F P O S T I N G N O T I C E

. ( a ) I n t h i s s e c t i o n , " e l e c t r o n i c b u l l e t i n b o a r d " m e a n s a n e l e c t r o n i c

c o m m u n i c a t i o n s y s t e m t h a t i n c l u d e s a p e r p e t u a l l y i l l u m i n a t e d s c r e e n o n

w h i c h t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y c a n p o s t m e s s a g e s o r n o t i c e s v i e w a b l e w i t h o u t

m a n i p u l a t i o n b y t h e p u b l i c

. ( b ) A m u n i c i p a l g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y s h a l l p o s t n o t i c e o f e a c h m e e t i n g

o n a p h y s i c a l o r e l e c t r o n i c b u l l e t i n b o a r d a t a p l a c e c o n v e n i e n t t o t h e

p u b l i c i n t h e c i t y h a l l

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 1 1 , 8 2 n d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 0 0 7 ( H

. B

. 2 3 1 3 ) , S e c

. 2 , e f f

. J u n e
1 7 , 2 0 1 1

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 5 0 1

. J O I N T B O A R D : P L A C E O F P O S T I N G N O T I C E

. ( a ) I n t h i s

s e c t i o n , " e l e c t r o n i c b u l l e t i n b o a r d " m e a n s a n e l e c t r o n i c c o m m u n i c a t i o n

s y s t e m t h a t i n c l u d e s a p e r p e t u a l l y i l l u m i n a t e d s c r e e n o n w h i c h t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y c a n p o s t m e s s a g e s o r n o t i c e s v i e w a b l e w i t h o u t

m a n i p u l a t i o n b y t h e p u b l i c

. ( b ) A j o i n t b o a r d c r e a t e d u n d e r S e c t i o n 2 2

. 0 7 4 , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o d e ,

s h a l l p o s t n o t i c e o f e a c h m e e t i n g o n a p h y s i c a l o r e l e c t r o n i c b u l l e t i n
b o a r d a t a p l a c e c o n v e n i e n t t o t h e p u b l i c i n t h e b o a r d ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

o f f i c e s

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 1 5 , 8 4 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 1 5 ( S

. B

. 6 7 9 ) , S e c

. 2 , e f f

. M a y
2 3 , 2 0 1 5

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 5 1

. S C H O O L D I S T R I C T : P L A C E O F P O S T I N G N O T I C E

. A s c h o o l

d i s t r i c t s h a l l p o s t n o t i c e o f e a c h m e e t i n g o n a b u l l e t i n b o a r d a t a p l a c e

c o n v e n i e n t t o t h e p u b l i c i n t h e c e n t r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e o f t h e
d i s t r i c t

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 5 2

. S C H O O L D I S T R I C T : S P E C I A L N O T I C E T O N E W S M E D I A

. ( a ) A

s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s h a l l p r o v i d e s p e c i a l n o t i c e o f e a c h m e e t i n g t o a n y n e w s

m e d i a t h a t h a s :

( 1 ) r e q u e s t e d s p e c i a l n o t i c e ; a n d3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 1 5 / 4 4 ( 2 ) a g r e e d t o r e i m b u r s e t h e d i s t r i c t f o r t h e c o s t o f p r o v i d i n g

t h e s p e c i a l n o t i c e

. ( b ) T h e n o t i c e s h a l l b e b y t e l e p h o n e , f a c s i m i l e t r a n s m i s s i o n , o r

e l e c t r o n i c m a i l

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 0 7 , 8 0 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 3 8 0 ( S

. B

. 5 9 2 ) , S e c

. 2 , e f f

. J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 7

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 5 3

. D I S T R I C T O R P O L I T I C A L S U B D I V I S I O N E X T E N D I N G I N T O F O U R

O R M O R E C O U N T I E S : N O T I C E T O P U B L I C , S E C R E T A R Y O F S T A T E , A N D C O U N T Y C L E R K ;

P L A C E O F P O S T I N G N O T I C E

. ( a ) T h e g o v e r n i n g b o d y o f a w a t e r d i s t r i c t o r

o t h e r d i s t r i c t o r p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n t h a t e x t e n d s i n t o f o u r o r m o r e

c o u n t i e s s h a l l :

( 1 ) p o s t n o t i c e o f e a c h m e e t i n g a t a p l a c e c o n v e n i e n t t o t h e

p u b l i c i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e o f t h e d i s t r i c t o r p o l i t i c a l

s u b d i v i s i o n ;

( 2 ) p r o v i d e n o t i c e o f e a c h m e e t i n g t o t h e s e c r e t a r y o f s t a t e ; a n d
( 3 ) e i t h e r p r o v i d e n o t i c e o f e a c h m e e t i n g t o t h e c o u n t y c l e r k o f

t h e c o u n t y i n w h i c h t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e o f t h e d i s t r i c t o r p o l i t i c a l

s u b d i v i s i o n i s l o c a t e d o r p o s t n o t i c e o f e a c h m e e t i n g o n t h e d i s t r i c t ' s o r

p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n ' s I n t e r n e t w e b s i t e

. ( b ) T h e s e c r e t a r y o f s t a t e s h a l l p o s t t h e n o t i c e p r o v i d e d u n d e r

S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) ( 2 ) o n t h e I n t e r n e t

. T h e s e c r e t a r y o f s t a t e s h a l l p r o v i d e
d u r i n g r e g u l a r o f f i c e h o u r s a c o m p u t e r t e r m i n a l a t a p l a c e c o n v e n i e n t t o

t h e p u b l i c i n t h e o f f i c e o f t h e s e c r e t a r y o f s t a t e t h a t m e m b e r s o f t h e

p u b l i c m a y u s e t o v i e w t h e n o t i c e

. ( c ) A c o u n t y c l e r k s h a l l p o s t a n o t i c e p r o v i d e d t o t h e c l e r k u n d e r

S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) ( 3 ) o n a b u l l e t i n b o a r d a t a p l a c e c o n v e n i e n t t o t h e p u b l i c
i n t h e c o u n t y c o u r t h o u s e

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 9 , 7 6 t h L e g

. , c h

. 6 2 2 , S e c

. 3 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 9

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 1 5 , 8 4 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 0 9 ( H

. B

. 3 3 5 7 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 5

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 5 4

. D I S T R I C T O R P O L I T I C A L S U B D I V I S I O N E X T E N D I N G I N T O F E W E R

T H A N F O U R C O U N T I E S : N O T I C E T O P U B L I C A N D C O U N T Y C L E R K S ; P L A C E O F P O S T I N G3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 1 6 / 4 4 N O T I C E

. ( a ) T h e g o v e r n i n g b o d y o f a w a t e r d i s t r i c t o r o t h e r d i s t r i c t o r

p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n t h a t e x t e n d s i n t o f e w e r t h a n f o u r c o u n t i e s s h a l l :

( 1 ) p o s t n o t i c e o f e a c h m e e t i n g a t a p l a c e c o n v e n i e n t t o t h e

p u b l i c i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e o f t h e d i s t r i c t o r p o l i t i c a l

s u b d i v i s i o n ; a n d

( 2 ) e i t h e r p r o v i d e n o t i c e o f e a c h m e e t i n g t o t h e c o u n t y c l e r k o f

e a c h c o u n t y i n w h i c h t h e d i s t r i c t o r p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n i s l o c a t e d o r

p o s t n o t i c e o f e a c h m e e t i n g o n t h e d i s t r i c t ' s o r p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n ' s

I n t e r n e t w e b s i t e

. ( b ) A c o u n t y c l e r k s h a l l p o s t a n o t i c e p r o v i d e d t o t h e c l e r k u n d e r

S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) ( 2 ) o n a b u l l e t i n b o a r d a t a p l a c e c o n v e n i e n t t o t h e p u b l i c
i n t h e c o u n t y c o u r t h o u s e

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 1 5 , 8 4 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 0 9 ( H

. B

. 3 3 5 7 ) , S e c

. 2 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 5

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 5 5

. I N S T I T U T I O N O F H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N

. I n a d d i t i o n t o

p r o v i d i n g a n y o t h e r n o t i c e r e q u i r e d b y t h i s s u b c h a p t e r , t h e g o v e r n i n g b o a r d

o f a s i n g l e i n s t i t u t i o n o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n :

( 1 ) s h a l l p o s t n o t i c e o f e a c h m e e t i n g a t t h e c o u n t y c o u r t h o u s e o f

t h e c o u n t y i n w h i c h t h e m e e t i n g w i l l b e h e l d ;

( 2 ) s h a l l p u b l i s h n o t i c e o f a m e e t i n g i n a s t u d e n t n e w s p a p e r o f

t h e i n s t i t u t i o n i f a n i s s u e o f t h e n e w s p a p e r i s p u b l i s h e d b e t w e e n t h e t i m e

o f t h e p o s t i n g a n d t h e t i m e o f t h e m e e t i n g ; a n d

( 3 ) m a y p o s t n o t i c e o f a m e e t i n g a t a n o t h e r p l a c e c o n v e n i e n t t o

t h e p u b l i c

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 5 , 7 4 t h L e g

. , c h

. 2 0 9 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. M a y 2 3 , 1 9 9 5

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 5 6

. A D D I T I O N A L P O S T I N G R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R C E R T A I N

M U N I C I P A L I T I E S , C O U N T I E S , S C H O O L D I S T R I C T S , J U N I O R C O L L E G E D I S T R I C T S , D E V E L O P M E N T C O R P O R A T I O N S , A U T H O R I T I E S , A N D J O I N T B O A R D S

. ( a ) T h i s s e c t i o n

a p p l i e s o n l y t o a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y o r e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t c o r p o r a t i o n

t h a t m a i n t a i n s a n I n t e r n e t w e b s i t e o r f o r w h i c h a n I n t e r n e t w e b s i t e i s

m a i n t a i n e d

. T h i s s e c t i o n d o e s n o t a p p l y t o a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y d e s c r i b e d

b y S e c t i o n 5 5 1

. 0 0 1 ( 3 ) ( D )

. ( b ) I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e o t h e r p l a c e a t w h i c h n o t i c e i s r e q u i r e d t o b e

p o s t e d b y t h i s s u b c h a p t e r , t h e f o l l o w i n g g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d i e s a n d e c o n o m i c
d e v e l o p m e n t c o r p o r a t i o n s m u s t a l s o c o n c u r r e n t l y p o s t n o t i c e o f a m e e t i n g o n3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 1 7 / 4 4 t h e I n t e r n e t w e b s i t e o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y o r e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t

c o r p o r a t i o n :

( 1 ) a m u n i c i p a l i t y ; ( 2 ) a c o u n t y ; ( 3 ) a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t ; ( 4 ) t h e g o v e r n i n g b o d y o f a j u n i o r c o l l e g e o r j u n i o r c o l l e g e
d i s t r i c t , i n c l u d i n g a c o l l e g e o r d i s t r i c t t h a t h a s c h a n g e d i t s n a m e i n

a c c o r d a n c e w i t h C h a p t e r 1 3 0 , E d u c a t i o n C o d e ;

( 5 ) a d e v e l o p m e n t c o r p o r a t i o n o r g a n i z e d u n d e r t h e D e v e l o p m e n t

C o r p o r a t i o n A c t ( S u b t i t l e C 1 , T i t l e 1 2 , L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t C o d e ) ;

( 6 ) a r e g i o n a l m o b i l i t y a u t h o r i t y i n c l u d e d w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f

a n " a u t h o r i t y " a s d e f i n e d b y S e c t i o n 3 7 0

. 0 0 3 , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o d e ; a n d

( 7 ) a j o i n t b o a r d c r e a t e d u n d e r S e c t i o n 2 2

. 0 7 4 , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n

C o d e

. ( c ) T h e f o l l o w i n g g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d i e s a n d e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t

c o r p o r a t i o n s m u s t a l s o c o n c u r r e n t l y p o s t t h e a g e n d a f o r t h e m e e t i n g o n t h e

I n t e r n e t w e b s i t e o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y o r e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t

c o r p o r a t i o n :

( 1 ) a m u n i c i p a l i t y w i t h a p o p u l a t i o n o f 4 8 , 0 0 0 o r m o r e ; ( 2 ) a c o u n t y w i t h a p o p u l a t i o n o f 6 5 , 0 0 0 o r m o r e ; ( 3 ) a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t t h a t c o n t a i n s a l l o r p a r t o f t h e a r e a

w i t h i n t h e c o r p o r a t e b o u n d a r i e s o f a m u n i c i p a l i t y w i t h a p o p u l a t i o n o f

4 8 , 0 0 0 o r m o r e ;

( 4 ) t h e g o v e r n i n g b o d y o f a j u n i o r c o l l e g e d i s t r i c t , i n c l u d i n g a
d i s t r i c t t h a t h a s c h a n g e d i t s n a m e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h C h a p t e r 1 3 0 , E d u c a t i o n C o d e , t h a t c o n t a i n s a l l o r p a r t o f t h e a r e a w i t h i n t h e c o r p o r a t e
b o u n d a r i e s o f a m u n i c i p a l i t y w i t h a p o p u l a t i o n o f 4 8 , 0 0 0 o r m o r e ;

( 5 ) a d e v e l o p m e n t c o r p o r a t i o n o r g a n i z e d u n d e r t h e D e v e l o p m e n t

C o r p o r a t i o n A c t ( S u b t i t l e C 1 , T i t l e 1 2 , L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t C o d e ) t h a t w a s

c r e a t e d b y o r f o r :

( A ) a m u n i c i p a l i t y w i t h a p o p u l a t i o n o f 4 8 , 0 0 0 o r m o r e ; o r ( B ) a c o u n t y o r d i s t r i c t t h a t c o n t a i n s a l l o r p a r t o f t h e

a r e a w i t h i n t h e c o r p o r a t e b o u n d a r i e s o f a m u n i c i p a l i t y w i t h a p o p u l a t i o n o f

4 8 , 0 0 0 o r m o r e ; a n d

( 6 ) a r e g i o n a l m o b i l i t y a u t h o r i t y i n c l u d e d w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f

a n " a u t h o r i t y " a s d e f i n e d b y S e c t i o n 3 7 0

. 0 0 3 , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o d e

. ( d ) T h e v a l i d i t y o f a p o s t e d n o t i c e o f a m e e t i n g o r a n a g e n d a b y a

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y o r e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t c o r p o r a t i o n s u b j e c t t o t h i s

s e c t i o n t h a t m a d e a g o o d f a i t h a t t e m p t t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f

t h i s s e c t i o n i s n o t a f f e c t e d b y a f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y w i t h a r e q u i r e m e n t o f3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 1 8 / 4 4 t h i s s e c t i o n t h a t i s d u e t o a t e c h n i c a l p r o b l e m b e y o n d t h e c o n t r o l o f t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y o r e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t c o r p o r a t i o n

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 0 5 , 7 9 t h L e g

. , C h

. 3 4 0 ( S

. B

. 1 1 3 3 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. J a n u a r y 1 , 2 0 0 6

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 0 7 , 8 0 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 1 4 ( S

. B

. 1 5 4 8 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 7

. A c t s 2 0 0 7 , 8 0 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 8 5 ( H

. B

. 2 2 7 8 ) , S e c

. 3

. 1 0 , e f f

. A p r i l

1 , 2 0 0 9

. A c t s 2 0 1 5 , 8 4 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 1 5 ( S

. B

. 6 7 9 ) , S e c

. 3 , e f f

. M a y 2 3 , 2 0 1 5

. A c t s 2 0 1 5 , 8 4 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 1 5 ( S

. B

. 6 7 9 ) , S e c

. 4 , e f f

. M a y 2 3 , 2 0 1 5

.

S U B C H A P T E R D

. E X C E P T I O N S T O R E Q U I R E M E N T T H A T M E E T I N G S B E O P E N

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 7 1

. C O N S U L T A T I O N W I T H A T T O R N E Y ; C L O S E D M E E T I N G

. A

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m a y n o t c o n d u c t a p r i v a t e c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h i t s a t t o r n e y

e x c e p t : ( 1 ) w h e n t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y s e e k s t h e a d v i c e o f i t s a t t o r n e y

a b o u t : ( A ) p e n d i n g o r c o n t e m p l a t e d l i t i g a t i o n ; o r

( B ) a s e t t l e m e n t o f f e r ; o r ( 2 ) o n a m a t t e r i n w h i c h t h e d u t y o f t h e a t t o r n e y t o t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y u n d e r t h e T e x a s D i s c i p l i n a r y R u l e s o f P r o f e s s i o n a l

C o n d u c t o f t h e S t a t e B a r o f T e x a s c l e a r l y c o n f l i c t s w i t h t h i s c h a p t e r

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 7 2

. D E L I B E R A T I O N R E G A R D I N G R E A L P R O P E R T Y ; C L O S E D M E E T I N G

. A g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m a y c o n d u c t a c l o s e d m e e t i n g t o d e l i b e r a t e t h e

p u r c h a s e , e x c h a n g e , l e a s e , o r v a l u e o f r e a l p r o p e r t y i f d e l i b e r a t i o n i n a n

o p e n m e e t i n g w o u l d h a v e a d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t o n t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y i n n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h a t h i r d p e r s o n

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 7 2 5

. C O M M I S S I O N E R S C O U R T S : D E L I B E R A T I O N R E G A R D I N G C O N T R A C T

B E I N G N E G O T I A T E D ; C L O S E D M E E T I N G

. ( a ) T h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s c o u r t o f a

c o u n t y m a y c o n d u c t a c l o s e d m e e t i n g t o d e l i b e r a t e b u s i n e s s a n d f i n a n c i a l3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 1 9 / 4 4 i s s u e s r e l a t i n g t o a c o n t r a c t b e i n g n e g o t i a t e d i f , b e f o r e c o n d u c t i n g t h e

c l o s e d m e e t i n g :

( 1 ) t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s c o u r t v o t e s u n a n i m o u s l y t h a t d e l i b e r a t i o n
i n a n o p e n m e e t i n g w o u l d h a v e a d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t o n t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e

c o m m i s s i o n e r s c o u r t i n n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h a t h i r d p e r s o n ; a n d

( 2 ) t h e a t t o r n e y a d v i s i n g t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s c o u r t i s s u e s a

w r i t t e n d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t d e l i b e r a t i o n i n a n o p e n m e e t i n g w o u l d h a v e a
d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t o n t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s c o u r t i n

n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h a t h i r d p e r s o n

. ( b ) N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g S e c t i o n 5 5 1

. 1 0 3 ( a ) , G o v e r n m e n t C o d e , t h e

c o m m i s s i o n e r s c o u r t m u s t m a k e a r e c o r d i n g o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s o f a c l o s e d

m e e t i n g t o d e l i b e r a t e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 0 3 , 7 8 t h L e g

. , c h

. 1 2 8 7 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. J u n e 2 1 , 2 0 0 3

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 1 1 , 8 2 n d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 7 5 8 ( H

. B

. 1 5 0 0 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. J u n e 1 7 , 2 0 1 1

. A c t s 2 0 1 1 , 8 2 n d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 3 4 1 ( S

. B

. 1 2 3 3 ) , S e c

. 1 5 , e f f

. J u n e
1 7 , 2 0 1 1

. A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 4 7 1 ) , S e c

. 6 , e f f

. M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 7 2 6

. T E X A S F A C I L I T I E S C O M M I S S I O N : D E L I B E R A T I O N R E G A R D I N G

C O N T R A C T B E I N G N E G O T I A T E D ; C L O S E D M E E T I N G

. ( a ) T h e T e x a s F a c i l i t i e s

C o m m i s s i o n m a y c o n d u c t a c l o s e d m e e t i n g t o d e l i b e r a t e b u s i n e s s a n d

f i n a n c i a l i s s u e s r e l a t i n g t o a c o n t r a c t b e i n g n e g o t i a t e d i f , b e f o r e

c o n d u c t i n g t h e c l o s e d m e e t i n g :

( 1 ) t h e c o m m i s s i o n v o t e s u n a n i m o u s l y t h a t d e l i b e r a t i o n i n a n o p e n

m e e t i n g w o u l d h a v e a d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t o n t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e s t a t e i n

n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h a t h i r d p e r s o n ; a n d

( 2 ) t h e a t t o r n e y a d v i s i n g t h e c o m m i s s i o n i s s u e s a w r i t t e n
d e t e r m i n a t i o n f i n d i n g t h a t d e l i b e r a t i o n i n a n o p e n m e e t i n g w o u l d h a v e a
d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t o n t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e s t a t e i n n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h a

t h i r d p e r s o n a n d s e t t i n g f o r t h t h a t f i n d i n g t h e r e i n

. ( b ) N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g S e c t i o n 5 5 1

. 1 0 3 ( a ) , t h e c o m m i s s i o n m u s t m a k e a

r e c o r d i n g o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s o f a c l o s e d m e e t i n g h e l d u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 0 5 , 7 9 t h L e g

. , C h

. 5 3 5 ( H

. B

. 9 7 6 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. J u n e 1 7 , 2 0 0 5

. A m e n d e d b y :3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 2 0 / 4 4 A c t s 2 0 0 7 , 8 0 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 9 3 7 ( H

. B

. 3 5 6 0 ) , S e c

. 3

. 0 5 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 7

. A c t s 2 0 0 9 , 8 1 s t L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 1 9 6 9 ) , S e c

. 1 1

. 0 1 1 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 9

. A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 4 7 1 ) , S e c

. 7 , e f f

. M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 7 3

. D E L I B E R A T I O N R E G A R D I N G P R O S P E C T I V E G I F T ; C L O S E D

M E E T I N G

. A g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m a y c o n d u c t a c l o s e d m e e t i n g t o d e l i b e r a t e a

n e g o t i a t e d c o n t r a c t f o r a p r o s p e c t i v e g i f t o r d o n a t i o n t o t h e s t a t e o r t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y i f d e l i b e r a t i o n i n a n o p e n m e e t i n g w o u l d h a v e a
d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t o n t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y i n n e g o t i a t i o n s

w i t h a t h i r d p e r s o n

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 7 4

. P E R S O N N E L M A T T E R S ; C L O S E D M E E T I N G

. ( a ) T h i s c h a p t e r
d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y t o c o n d u c t a n o p e n m e e t i n g :

( 1 ) t o d e l i b e r a t e t h e a p p o i n t m e n t , e m p l o y m e n t , e v a l u a t i o n ,

r e a s s i g n m e n t , d u t i e s , d i s c i p l i n e , o r d i s m i s s a l o f a p u b l i c o f f i c e r o r

e m p l o y e e ; o r

( 2 ) t o h e a r a c o m p l a i n t o r c h a r g e a g a i n s t a n o f f i c e r o r e m p l o y e e

. ( b ) S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) d o e s n o t a p p l y i f t h e o f f i c e r o r e m p l o y e e w h o i s

t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e d e l i b e r a t i o n o r h e a r i n g r e q u e s t s a p u b l i c h e a r i n g

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 7 4 5

. P E R S O N N E L M A T T E R S A F F E C T I N G C O U N T Y A D V I S O R Y B O D Y ;

C L O S E D M E E T I N G

. ( a ) T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s c o u r t

o f a c o u n t y t o c o n d u c t a n o p e n m e e t i n g :

( 1 ) t o d e l i b e r a t e t h e a p p o i n t m e n t , e m p l o y m e n t , e v a l u a t i o n ,

r e a s s i g n m e n t , d u t i e s , d i s c i p l i n e , o r d i s m i s s a l o f a m e m b e r o f a n a d v i s o r y
b o d y ; o r ( 2 ) t o h e a r a c o m p l a i n t o r c h a r g e a g a i n s t a m e m b e r o f a n a d v i s o r y
b o d y

. ( b ) S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) d o e s n o t a p p l y i f t h e i n d i v i d u a l w h o i s t h e

s u b j e c t o f t h e d e l i b e r a t i o n o r h e a r i n g r e q u e s t s a p u b l i c h e a r i n g

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 7 , 7 5 t h L e g

. , c h

. 6 5 9 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 7

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 2 1 / 4 4 S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 7 5

. C O N F E R E N C E R E L A T I N G T O I N V E S T M E N T S A N D P O T E N T I A L

I N V E S T M E N T S A T T E N D E D B Y B O A R D O F T R U S T E E S O F T E X A S G R O W T H F U N D ; C L O S E D

M E E T I N G

. ( a ) T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h e b o a r d o f t r u s t e e s o f t h e

T e x a s g r o w t h f u n d t o c o n f e r w i t h o n e o r m o r e e m p l o y e e s o f t h e T e x a s g r o w t h

f u n d o r w i t h a t h i r d p a r t y i n a n o p e n m e e t i n g i f t h e o n l y p u r p o s e o f t h e

c o n f e r e n c e i s t o :

( 1 ) r e c e i v e i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t h e e m p l o y e e s o f t h e T e x a s g r o w t h

f u n d o r t h e t h i r d p a r t y r e l a t i n g t o a n i n v e s t m e n t o r a p o t e n t i a l i n v e s t m e n t

b y t h e T e x a s g r o w t h f u n d i n :

( A ) a p r i v a t e b u s i n e s s e n t i t y , i f d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e
i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d g i v e a d v a n t a g e t o a c o m p e t i t o r ; o r

( B ) a b u s i n e s s e n t i t y w h o s e s e c u r i t i e s a r e p u b l i c l y t r a d e d , i f t h e i n v e s t m e n t o r p o t e n t i a l i n v e s t m e n t i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o b e r e g i s t e r e d

u n d e r t h e S e c u r i t i e s E x c h a n g e A c t o f 1 9 3 4 ( 1 5 U

. S

. C

. S e c t i o n 7 8 a e t s e q

. ) ,

a n d i t s s u b s e q u e n t a m e n d m e n t s , a n d i f d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d

g i v e a d v a n t a g e t o a c o m p e t i t o r ; o r

( 2 ) q u e s t i o n t h e e m p l o y e e s o f t h e T e x a s g r o w t h f u n d o r t h e t h i r d

p a r t y r e g a r d i n g a n i n v e s t m e n t o r p o t e n t i a l i n v e s t m e n t d e s c r i b e d b y

S u b d i v i s i o n ( 1 ) , i f d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h e

q u e s t i o n s o r a n s w e r s w o u l d g i v e a d v a n t a g e t o a c o m p e t i t o r

. ( b ) D u r i n g a c o n f e r e n c e u n d e r S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) , m e m b e r s o f t h e b o a r d o f

t r u s t e e s o f t h e T e x a s g r o w t h f u n d m a y n o t d e l i b e r a t e p u b l i c b u s i n e s s o r

a g e n c y p o l i c y t h a t a f f e c t s p u b l i c b u s i n e s s

. ( c ) I n t h i s s e c t i o n , " T e x a s g r o w t h f u n d " m e a n s t h e f u n d c r e a t e d b y

S e c t i o n 7 0 , A r t i c l e X V I , T e x a s C o n s t i t u t i o n

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 9 , 7 6 t h L e g

. , c h

. 6 4 7 , S e c

. 2 , e f f

. A u g

. 3 0 , 1 9 9 9

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 7 6

. D E L I B E R A T I O N R E G A R D I N G S E C U R I T Y D E V I C E S O R S E C U R I T Y

A U D I T S ; C L O S E D M E E T I N G

. T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

t o c o n d u c t a n o p e n m e e t i n g t o d e l i b e r a t e :

( 1 ) t h e d e p l o y m e n t , o r s p e c i f i c o c c a s i o n s f o r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , o f

s e c u r i t y p e r s o n n e l o r d e v i c e s ; o r

( 2 ) a s e c u r i t y a u d i t

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 0 7 , 8 0 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 2 5 8 ( S

. B

. 1 1 ) , S e c

. 3

. 0 7 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 7

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 2 2 / 4 4 S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 7 7

. A G E N C Y F I N A N C E D B Y F E D E R A L G O V E R N M E N T

. T h i s c h a p t e r
d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a n a g e n c y f i n a n c e d e n t i r e l y b y f e d e r a l m o n e y t o c o n d u c t a n

o p e n m e e t i n g

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 7 8

. M E D I C A L B O A R D O R M E D I C A L C O M M I T T E E

. T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s

n o t r e q u i r e a m e d i c a l b o a r d o r m e d i c a l c o m m i t t e e t o c o n d u c t a n o p e n m e e t i n g

t o d e l i b e r a t e t h e m e d i c a l o r p s y c h i a t r i c r e c o r d s o f a n i n d i v i d u a l a p p l i c a n t

f o r a d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t f r o m a p u b l i c r e t i r e m e n t s y s t e m

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 7 8 5

. D E L I B E R A T I O N S I N V O L V I N G M E D I C A L O R P S Y C H I A T R I C R E C O R D S

O F I N D I V I D U A L S

. T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a b e n e f i t s a p p e a l s c o m m i t t e e
f o r a p u b l i c s e l f

­ f u n d e d h e a l t h p l a n o r a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y t h a t

a d m i n i s t e r s a p u b l i c i n s u r a n c e , h e a l t h , o r r e t i r e m e n t p l a n t o c o n d u c t a n

o p e n m e e t i n g t o d e l i b e r a t e :

( 1 ) t h e m e d i c a l r e c o r d s o r p s y c h i a t r i c r e c o r d s o f a n i n d i v i d u a l

a p p l i c a n t f o r a b e n e f i t f r o m t h e p l a n ; o r

( 2 ) a m a t t e r t h a t i n c l u d e s a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e

m e d i c a l o r p s y c h i a t r i c r e c o r d s o f a n i n d i v i d u a l a p p l i c a n t f o r a b e n e f i t

f r o m t h e p l a n

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 0 3 , 7 8 t h L e g

. , c h

. 1 5 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. M a y 2 7 , 2 0 0 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 7 9

. T E X A S D E P A R T M E N T O F I N S U R A N C E

. ( a ) T h e r e q u i r e m e n t s

o f t h i s c h a p t e r d o n o t a p p l y t o a m e e t i n g o f t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r o f i n s u r a n c e

o r t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r ' s d e s i g n e e w i t h t h e b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s o f a g u a r a n t y

a s s o c i a t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d u n d e r C h a p t e r 2 6 0 2 , I n s u r a n c e C o d e , o r A r t i c l e
2 1

. 2 8

­ C o r 2 1

. 2 8

­ D , I n s u r a n c e C o d e , i n t h e d i s c h a r g e o f t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r ' s
d u t i e s a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o r e g u l a t e a n d m a i n t a i n t h e s o l v e n c y o f a

p e r s o n r e g u l a t e d b y t h e T e x a s D e p a r t m e n t o f I n s u r a n c e

. ( b ) T h e c o m m i s s i o n e r o f i n s u r a n c e m a y d e l i b e r a t e a n d d e t e r m i n e t h e

a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n t o b e t a k e n c o n c e r n i n g t h e s o l v e n c y o f a p e r s o n

r e g u l a t e d b y t h e T e x a s D e p a r t m e n t o f I n s u r a n c e i n a c l o s e d m e e t i n g w i t h

p e r s o n s i n o n e o r m o r e o f t h e f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s :

( 1 ) s t a f f o f t h e T e x a s D e p a r t m e n t o f I n s u r a n c e ; ( 2 ) a r e g u l a t e d p e r s o n ; ( 3 ) r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f a r e g u l a t e d p e r s o n ; o r3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 2 3 / 4 4 ( 4 ) m e m b e r s o f t h e b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s o f a g u a r a n t y a s s o c i a t i o n

e s t a b l i s h e d u n d e r C h a p t e r 2 6 0 2 , I n s u r a n c e C o d e , o r A r t i c l e 2 1

. 2 8

­ C o r
2 1

. 2 8

­ D , I n s u r a n c e C o d e

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y A c t s 2 0 0 1 , 7 7 t h L e g

. , c h

. 6 2 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 2 0 0 1

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 0 5 , 7 9 t h L e g

. , C h

. 7 2 8 ( H

. B

. 2 0 1 8 ) , S e c

. 1 1

. 1 2 0 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r
1 , 2 0 0 5

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 8 0

. B O A R D O F P A R D O N S A N D P A R O L E S

. T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s n o t

r e q u i r e t h e B o a r d o f P a r d o n s a n d P a r o l e s t o c o n d u c t a n o p e n m e e t i n g t o
i n t e r v i e w o r c o u n s e l a n i n m a t e o f t h e T e x a s D e p a r t m e n t o f C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 0 9 , 8 1 s t L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 1 9 6 9 ) , S e c

. 2 5

. 0 7 1 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 9

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 8 1

. C R E D I T U N I O N C O M M I S S I O N

. T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s n o t r e q u i r e

t h e C r e d i t U n i o n C o m m i s s i o n t o c o n d u c t a n o p e n m e e t i n g t o d e l i b e r a t e a

m a t t e r m a d e c o n f i d e n t i a l b y l a w

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 8 1 1

. T H E F I N A N C E C O M M I S S I O N O F T E X A S

. T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s

n o t r e q u i r e T h e F i n a n c e C o m m i s s i o n o f T e x a s t o c o n d u c t a n o p e n m e e t i n g t o
d e l i b e r a t e a m a t t e r m a d e c o n f i d e n t i a l b y l a w

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 5 , 7 4 t h L e g

. , c h

. 7 6 , S e c

. 5

. 0 1 ( a ) , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 5

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 8 2

. S C H O O L C H I L D R E N ; S C H O O L D I S T R I C T E M P L O Y E E S ;

D I S C I P L I N A R Y M A T T E R O R C O M P L A I N T

. ( a ) T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a

s c h o o l b o a r d t o c o n d u c t a n o p e n m e e t i n g t o d e l i b e r a t e i n a c a s e :

( 1 ) i n v o l v i n g d i s c i p l i n e o f a p u b l i c s c h o o l c h i l d ; o r ( 2 ) i n w h i c h a c o m p l a i n t o r c h a r g e i s b r o u g h t a g a i n s t a n e m p l o y e e

o f t h e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t b y a n o t h e r e m p l o y e e a n d t h e c o m p l a i n t o r c h a r g e
d i r e c t l y r e s u l t s i n a n e e d f o r a h e a r i n g

. ( b ) S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) d o e s n o t a p p l y i f a n o p e n h e a r i n g i s r e q u e s t e d i n

w r i t i n g b y a p a r e n t o r g u a r d i a n o f t h e c h i l d o r b y t h e e m p l o y e e a g a i n s t

w h o m t h e c o m p l a i n t o r c h a r g e i s b r o u g h t

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 2 4 / 4 4 A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 8 2 1

. S C H O O L B O A R D : P E R S O N A L L Y I D E N T I F I A B L E I N F O R M A T I O N

A B O U T P U B L I C S C H O O L S T U D E N T

. ( a ) T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a s c h o o l

b o a r d t o c o n d u c t a n o p e n m e e t i n g t o d e l i b e r a t e a m a t t e r r e g a r d i n g a p u b l i c

s c h o o l s t u d e n t i f p e r s o n a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e s t u d e n t

w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y b e r e v e a l e d b y t h e d e l i b e r a t i o n

. ( b ) D i r e c t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t a p u b l i c s c h o o l s t u d e n t i s c o n s i d e r e d

t o b e p e r s o n a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e s t u d e n t f o r p u r p o s e s o f

S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) o n l y i f a p a r e n t o r g u a r d i a n o f t h e s t u d e n t , o r t h e s t u d e n t

i f t h e s t u d e n t h a s a t t a i n e d 1 8 y e a r s o f a g e , h a s i n f o r m e d t h e s c h o o l b o a r d , t h e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t , o r a s c h o o l i n t h e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t t h a t t h e d i r e c t o r y
i n f o r m a t i o n s h o u l d n o t b e r e l e a s e d w i t h o u t p r i o r c o n s e n t

. I n t h i s

s u b s e c t i o n , " d i r e c t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n " h a s t h e m e a n i n g a s s i g n e d b y t h e f e d e r a l

F a m i l y E d u c a t i o n a l R i g h t s a n d P r i v a c y A c t o f 1 9 7 4 ( 2 0 U

. S

. C

. S e c t i o n
1 2 3 2 g ) , a s a m e n d e d

. ( c ) S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) d o e s n o t a p p l y i f a n o p e n m e e t i n g a b o u t t h e m a t t e r
i s r e q u e s t e d i n w r i t i n g b y a p a r e n t o r g u a r d i a n o f t h e s t u d e n t o r b y t h e

s t u d e n t i f t h e s t u d e n t h a s a t t a i n e d 1 8 y e a r s o f a g e

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 0 3 , 7 8 t h L e g

. , c h

. 1 9 0 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. J u n e 2 , 2 0 0 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 8 3

. C E R T A I N S C H O O L B O A R D S ; C L O S E D M E E T I N G R E G A R D I N G

C O N S U L T A T I O N W I T H R E P R E S E N T A T I V E O F E M P L O Y E E G R O U P

. T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s n o t

r e q u i r e a s c h o o l b o a r d o p e r a t i n g u n d e r a c o n s u l t a t i o n a g r e e m e n t a u t h o r i z e d

b y S e c t i o n 1 3

. 9 0 1 , E d u c a t i o n C o d e , t o c o n d u c t a n o p e n m e e t i n g t o d e l i b e r a t e

t h e s t a n d a r d s , g u i d e l i n e s , t e r m s , o r c o n d i t i o n s t h e b o a r d w i l l f o l l o w , o r
i n s t r u c t i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t o f o l l o w , i n a c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h a

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a n e m p l o y e e g r o u p

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 8 4

. I N V E S T I G A T I O N ; E X C L U S I O N O F W I T N E S S F R O M H E A R I N G

. A

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y t h a t i s i n v e s t i g a t i n g a m a t t e r m a y e x c l u d e a w i t n e s s f r o m

a h e a r i n g d u r i n g t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f a n o t h e r w i t n e s s i n t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 8 5

. G O V E R N I N G B O A R D O F C E R T A I N P R O V I D E R S O F H E A L T H C A R E

S E R V I C E S

. ( a ) T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h e g o v e r n i n g b o a r d o f a3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 2 5 / 4 4 m u n i c i p a l h o s p i t a l , m u n i c i p a l h o s p i t a l a u t h o r i t y , c o u n t y h o s p i t a l , c o u n t y
h o s p i t a l a u t h o r i t y , h o s p i t a l d i s t r i c t c r e a t e d u n d e r g e n e r a l o r s p e c i a l l a w ,

o r n o n p r o f i t h e a l t h m a i n t e n a n c e o r g a n i z a t i o n c r e a t e d u n d e r S e c t i o n 5 3 4

. 1 0 1 , H e a l t h a n d S a f e t y C o d e , t o c o n d u c t a n o p e n m e e t i n g t o d e l i b e r a t e :

( 1 ) p r i c i n g o r f i n a n c i a l p l a n n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o a b i d

o r n e g o t i a t i o n f o r t h e a r r a n g e m e n t o r p r o v i s i o n o f s e r v i c e s o r p r o d u c t

l i n e s t o a n o t h e r p e r s o n i f d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d g i v e

a d v a n t a g e t o c o m p e t i t o r s o f t h e h o s p i t a l , h o s p i t a l d i s t r i c t , o r n o n p r o f i t

h e a l t h m a i n t e n a n c e o r g a n i z a t i o n ; o r

( 2 ) i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o a p r o p o s e d n e w s e r v i c e o r p r o d u c t

l i n e o f t h e h o s p i t a l , h o s p i t a l d i s t r i c t , o r n o n p r o f i t h e a l t h m a i n t e n a n c e

o r g a n i z a t i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c l y a n n o u n c i n g t h e s e r v i c e o r p r o d u c t l i n e

. ( b ) T h e g o v e r n i n g b o a r d o f a h e a l t h m a i n t e n a n c e o r g a n i z a t i o n c r e a t e d

u n d e r S e c t i o n 2 8 1

. 0 5 1 5 , H e a l t h a n d S a f e t y C o d e , t h a t i s s u b j e c t t o t h i s

c h a p t e r i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o c o n d u c t a n o p e n m e e t i n g t o d e l i b e r a t e
i n f o r m a t i o n d e s c r i b e d b y S u b s e c t i o n ( a )

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 5 , 7 4 t h L e g

. , c h

. 7 6 , S e c

. 5

. 0 2 ( a ) , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 5

. A m e n d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 7 , 7 5 t h L e g

. , c h

. 7 7 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 7 ; A c t s
1 9 9 9 , 7 6 t h L e g

. , c h

. 1 2 2 9 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 9 ; A c t s 2 0 0 3 , 7 8 t h

L e g

. , c h

. 7 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 2 0 0 3

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 1 1 , 8 2 n d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 3 4 2 ( H

. B

. 2 9 7 8 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 1

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 8 6

. C E R T A I N P U B L I C P O W E R U T I L I T I E S : C O M P E T I T I V E M A T T E R S

. ( a ) N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g a n y t h i n g i n t h i s c h a p t e r t o t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e r u l e s

p r o v i d e d b y t h i s s e c t i o n a p p l y t o c o m p e t i t i v e m a t t e r s o f a p u b l i c p o w e r

u t i l i t y

. ( b ) I n t h i s s e c t i o n : ( 1 ) " P u b l i c p o w e r u t i l i t y " m e a n s a n e n t i t y p r o v i d i n g e l e c t r i c o r

g a s u t i l i t y s e r v i c e s t h a t i s s u b j e c t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s c h a p t e r

.

( 2 ) " P u b l i c p o w e r u t i l i t y g o v e r n i n g b o d y " m e a n s t h e b o a r d o f

t r u s t e e s o r o t h e r a p p l i c a b l e g o v e r n i n g b o d y , i n c l u d i n g a c i t y c o u n c i l , o f a

p u b l i c p o w e r u t i l i t y

.

( 3 ) R e p e a l e d b y A c t s 2 0 1 1 , 8 2 n d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 9 2 5 , S e c

. 3 , e f f

. J u n e 1 7 , 2 0 1 1

. ( c ) T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a p u b l i c p o w e r u t i l i t y g o v e r n i n g
b o d y t o c o n d u c t a n o p e n m e e t i n g t o d e l i b e r a t e , v o t e , o r t a k e f i n a l a c t i o n

o n a n y c o m p e t i t i v e m a t t e r , a s t h a t t e r m i s d e f i n e d b y S e c t i o n 5 5 2

. 1 3 3

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 2 6 / 4 4 T h i s s e c t i o n d o e s n o t l i m i t t h e r i g h t o f a p u b l i c p o w e r u t i l i t y g o v e r n i n g
b o d y t o h o l d a c l o s e d s e s s i o n u n d e r a n y o t h e r e x c e p t i o n p r o v i d e d f o r i n

t h i s c h a p t e r

. ( d ) F o r p u r p o s e s o f S e c t i o n 5 5 1

. 0 4 1 , t h e n o t i c e o f t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r

o f a n i t e m t h a t m a y b e c o n s i d e r e d a s a c o m p e t i t i v e m a t t e r u n d e r t h i s

s e c t i o n i s r e q u i r e d t o c o n t a i n n o m o r e t h a n a g e n e r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e

s u b j e c t m a t t e r t o b e c o n s i d e r e d , s u c h t h a t t h e c o m p e t i t i v e a c t i v i t y o f t h e

p u b l i c p o w e r u t i l i t y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i s s u e i n q u e s t i o n i s n o t

c o m p r o m i s e d o r d i s c l o s e d

. ( e ) W i t h r e s p e c t t o m u n i c i p a l l y o w n e d u t i l i t i e s s u b j e c t t o t h i s

s e c t i o n , t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l a p p l y w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e m u n i c i p a l l y o w n e d

u t i l i t y h a s a d o p t e d c u s t o m e r c h o i c e o r s e r v e s i n a m u l t i p l y c e r t i f i c a t e d

s e r v i c e a r e a u n d e r t h e U t i l i t i e s C o d e

. ( f ) N o t h i n g i n t h i s s e c t i o n i s i n t e n d e d t o p r e c l u d e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n

o f t h e e n f o r c e m e n t a n d r e m e d i e s p r o v i s i o n s o f S u b c h a p t e r G

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 9 , 7 6 t h L e g

. , c h

. 4 0 5 , S e c

. 4 5 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 9

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 1 1 , 8 2 n d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 9 2 5 ( S

. B

. 1 6 1 3 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. J u n e 1 7 , 2 0 1 1

. A c t s 2 0 1 1 , 8 2 n d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 9 2 5 ( S

. B

. 1 6 1 3 ) , S e c

. 3 , e f f

. J u n e 1 7 , 2 0 1 1

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 8 7

. D E L I B E R A T I O N R E G A R D I N G E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T

N E G O T I A T I O N S ; C L O S E D M E E T I N G

. T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y t o c o n d u c t a n o p e n m e e t i n g :

( 1 ) t o d i s c u s s o r d e l i b e r a t e r e g a r d i n g c o m m e r c i a l o r f i n a n c i a l

i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y h a s r e c e i v e d f r o m a b u s i n e s s

p r o s p e c t t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y s e e k s t o h a v e l o c a t e , s t a y , o r e x p a n d

i n o r n e a r t h e t e r r i t o r y o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y a n d w i t h w h i c h t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y i s c o n d u c t i n g e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t n e g o t i a t i o n s ; o r

( 2 ) t o d e l i b e r a t e t h e o f f e r o f a f i n a n c i a l o r o t h e r i n c e n t i v e t o

a b u s i n e s s p r o s p e c t d e s c r i b e d b y S u b d i v i s i o n ( 1 )

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 9 , 7 6 t h L e g

. , c h

. 1 3 1 9 , S e c

. 3 2 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 9

. R e n u m b e r e d f r o m S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 8 6 b y A c t s 2 0 0 1 , 7 7 t h L e g

. , c h

. 1 4 2 0 , S e c

. 2 1

. 0 0 1 ( 4 9 ) , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 2 0 0 1

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 8 8

. D E L I B E R A T I O N R E G A R D I N G T E S T I T E M

. T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s

n o t r e q u i r e a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y t o c o n d u c t a n o p e n m e e t i n g t o d e l i b e r a t e a

t e s t i t e m o r i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e d t o a t e s t i t e m i f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 2 7 / 4 4 b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e t e s t i t e m m a y b e i n c l u d e d i n a t e s t t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

a d m i n i s t e r s t o i n d i v i d u a l s w h o s e e k t o o b t a i n o r r e n e w a l i c e n s e o r

c e r t i f i c a t e t h a t i s n e c e s s a r y t o e n g a g e i n a n a c t i v i t y

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 9 , 7 6 t h L e g

. , c h

. 3 1 2 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. A u g

. 3 0 , 1 9 9 9

. R e n u m b e r e d f r o m S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 8 6 b y A c t s 2 0 0 1 , 7 7 t h L e g

. , c h

. 1 4 2 0 , S e c

. 2 1

. 0 0 1 ( 5 0 ) , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 2 0 0 1

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 8 9

. D E P A R T M E N T O F I N F O R M A T I O N R E S O U R C E S

. T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s

n o t r e q u i r e t h e g o v e r n i n g b o a r d o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f I n f o r m a t i o n R e s o u r c e s

t o c o n d u c t a n o p e n m e e t i n g t o d e l i b e r a t e :

( 1 ) s e c u r i t y a s s e s s m e n t s o r d e p l o y m e n t s r e l a t i n g t o i n f o r m a t i o n

r e s o u r c e s t e c h n o l o g y ;

( 2 ) n e t w o r k s e c u r i t y i n f o r m a t i o n a s d e s c r i b e d b y S e c t i o n
2 0 5 9

. 0 5 5 ( b ) ; o r

( 3 ) t h e d e p l o y m e n t , o r s p e c i f i c o c c a s i o n s f o r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , o f

s e c u r i t y p e r s o n n e l , c r i t i c a l i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , o r s e c u r i t y d e v i c e s

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 0 9 , 8 1 s t L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 8 3 ( H

. B

. 1 8 3 0 ) , S e c

. 3 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 9

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 0 9 0

. E N F O R C E M E N T C O M M I T T E E A P P O I N T E D B Y T E X A S S T A T E B O A R D O F

P U B L I C A C C O U N T A N C Y

. T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a n e n f o r c e m e n t c o m m i t t e e

a p p o i n t e d b y t h e T e x a s S t a t e B o a r d o f P u b l i c A c c o u n t a n c y t o c o n d u c t a n o p e n

m e e t i n g t o i n v e s t i g a t e a n d d e l i b e r a t e a d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n u n d e r

S u b c h a p t e r K , C h a p t e r 9 0 1 , O c c u p a t i o n s C o d e , r e l a t i n g t o t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f

C h a p t e r 9 0 1 o r t h e r u l e s o f t h e T e x a s S t a t e B o a r d o f P u b l i c A c c o u n t a n c y

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 3 6 ( S

. B

. 2 2 8 ) , S e c

. 3 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 3

.

S U B C H A P T E R E

. P R O C E D U R E S R E L A T I N G T O C L O S E D M E E T I N G

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 0 1

. R E Q U I R E M E N T T O F I R S T C O N V E N E I N O P E N M E E T I N G

. I f a

c l o s e d m e e t i n g i s a l l o w e d u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r , a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m a y n o t

c o n d u c t t h e c l o s e d m e e t i n g u n l e s s a q u o r u m o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y f i r s t

c o n v e n e s i n a n o p e n m e e t i n g f o r w h i c h n o t i c e h a s b e e n g i v e n a s p r o v i d e d b y

t h i s c h a p t e r a n d d u r i n g w h i c h t h e p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r p u b l i c l y :

( 1 ) a n n o u n c e s t h a t a c l o s e d m e e t i n g w i l l b e h e l d ; a n d
( 2 ) i d e n t i f i e s t h e s e c t i o n o r s e c t i o n s o f t h i s c h a p t e r u n d e r

w h i c h t h e c l o s e d m e e t i n g i s h e l d

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 2 8 / 4 4 A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 0 2

. R E Q U I R E M E N T T O V O T E O R T A K E F I N A L A C T I O N I N O P E N

M E E T I N G

. A f i n a l a c t i o n , d e c i s i o n , o r v o t e o n a m a t t e r d e l i b e r a t e d i n a

c l o s e d m e e t i n g u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r m a y o n l y b e m a d e i n a n o p e n m e e t i n g t h a t

i s h e l d i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s c h a p t e r

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 0 3

. C E R T I F I E D A G E N D A O R R E C O R D I N G R E Q U I R E D

. ( a ) A

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y s h a l l e i t h e r k e e p a c e r t i f i e d a g e n d a o r m a k e a r e c o r d i n g

o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s o f e a c h c l o s e d m e e t i n g , e x c e p t f o r a p r i v a t e

c o n s u l t a t i o n p e r m i t t e d u n d e r S e c t i o n 5 5 1

. 0 7 1

. ( b ) T h e p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r s h a l l c e r t i f y t h a t a n a g e n d a k e p t u n d e r

S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) i s a t r u e a n d c o r r e c t r e c o r d o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s

. ( c ) T h e c e r t i f i e d a g e n d a m u s t i n c l u d e : ( 1 ) a s t a t e m e n t o f t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f e a c h d e l i b e r a t i o n ; ( 2 ) a r e c o r d o f a n y f u r t h e r a c t i o n t a k e n ; a n d
( 3 ) a n a n n o u n c e m e n t b y t h e p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r a t t h e b e g i n n i n g a n d

t h e e n d o f t h e m e e t i n g i n d i c a t i n g t h e d a t e a n d t i m e

. ( d ) A r e c o r d i n g m a d e u n d e r S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) m u s t i n c l u d e a n n o u n c e m e n t s
b y t h e p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r a t t h e b e g i n n i n g a n d t h e e n d o f t h e m e e t i n g
i n d i c a t i n g t h e d a t e a n d t i m e

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 4 7 1 ) , S e c

. 8 , e f f

. M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 3

. A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 4 7 1 ) , S e c

. 9 , e f f

. M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 0 4

. C E R T I F I E D A G E N D A O R R E C O R D I N G ; P R E S E R V A T I O N ;

D I S C L O S U R E

. ( a ) A g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y s h a l l p r e s e r v e t h e c e r t i f i e d a g e n d a

o r r e c o r d i n g o f a c l o s e d m e e t i n g f o r a t l e a s t t w o y e a r s a f t e r t h e d a t e o f

t h e m e e t i n g

. I f a n a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g t h e m e e t i n g i s b r o u g h t w i t h i n t h a t

p e r i o d , t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y s h a l l p r e s e r v e t h e c e r t i f i e d a g e n d a o r

r e c o r d i n g w h i l e t h e a c t i o n i s p e n d i n g

. ( b ) I n l i t i g a t i o n i n a d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n v o l v i n g a n a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n

o f t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e c o u r t :3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 2 9 / 4 4 ( 1 ) i s e n t i t l e d t o m a k e a n i n c a m e r a i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e c e r t i f i e d

a g e n d a o r r e c o r d i n g ;

( 2 ) m a y a d m i t a l l o r p a r t o f t h e c e r t i f i e d a g e n d a o r r e c o r d i n g a s

e v i d e n c e , o n e n t r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t ; a n d

( 3 ) m a y g r a n t l e g a l o r e q u i t a b l e r e l i e f i t c o n s i d e r s a p p r o p r i a t e , i n c l u d i n g a n o r d e r t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m a k e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p u b l i c

t h e c e r t i f i e d a g e n d a o r r e c o r d i n g o f a n y p a r t o f a m e e t i n g t h a t w a s

r e q u i r e d t o b e o p e n u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r

. ( c ) T h e c e r t i f i e d a g e n d a o r r e c o r d i n g o f a c l o s e d m e e t i n g i s

a v a i l a b l e f o r p u b l i c i n s p e c t i o n a n d c o p y i n g o n l y u n d e r a c o u r t o r d e r i s s u e d

u n d e r S u b s e c t i o n ( b ) ( 3 )

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 4 7 1 ) , S e c

. 1 0 , e f f

. M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 3

.

S U B C H A P T E R F

. M E E T I N G S U S I N G T E L E P H O N E , V I D E O C O N F E R E N C E , O R I N T E R N E T

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 2 1

. G O V E R N I N G B O A R D O F I N S T I T U T I O N O F H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N ;

B O A R D F O R L E A S E O F U N I V E R S I T Y L A N D S ; T E X A S H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N C O O R D I N A T I N G

B O A R D : S P E C I A L M E E T I N G F O R I M M E D I A T E A C T I O N

. ( a ) I n t h i s s e c t i o n ,

" g o v e r n i n g b o a r d , " " i n s t i t u t i o n o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , " a n d " u n i v e r s i t y

s y s t e m " h a v e t h e m e a n i n g s a s s i g n e d b y S e c t i o n 6 1

. 0 0 3 , E d u c a t i o n C o d e

. ( b ) T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s n o t p r o h i b i t t h e g o v e r n i n g b o a r d o f a n
i n s t i t u t i o n o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , t h e B o a r d f o r L e a s e o f U n i v e r s i t y L a n d s ,

o r t h e T e x a s H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n C o o r d i n a t i n g B o a r d f r o m h o l d i n g a n o p e n o r

c l o s e d m e e t i n g b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l

. ( c ) A m e e t i n g h e l d b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l a u t h o r i z e d b y t h i s

s e c t i o n m a y b e h e l d o n l y i f :

( 1 ) t h e m e e t i n g i s a s p e c i a l c a l l e d m e e t i n g a n d i m m e d i a t e a c t i o n
i s r e q u i r e d ; a n d

( 2 ) t h e c o n v e n i n g a t o n e l o c a t i o n o f a q u o r u m o f t h e g o v e r n i n g
b o a r d , t h e B o a r d f o r L e a s e o f U n i v e r s i t y L a n d s , o r t h e T e x a s H i g h e r

E d u c a t i o n C o o r d i n a t i n g B o a r d , a s a p p l i c a b l e , i s d i f f i c u l t o r i m p o s s i b l e

. ( d ) T h e t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m e e t i n g i s s u b j e c t t o t h e n o t i c e

r e q u i r e m e n t s a p p l i c a b l e t o o t h e r m e e t i n g s

. ( e ) T h e n o t i c e o f a t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m e e t i n g o f a g o v e r n i n g
b o a r d m u s t s p e c i f y a s t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g t h e l o c a t i o n w h e r e

m e e t i n g s o f t h e g o v e r n i n g b o a r d a r e u s u a l l y h e l d

. F o r a m e e t i n g o f t h e

g o v e r n i n g b o a r d o f a u n i v e r s i t y s y s t e m , t h e n o t i c e m u s t s p e c i f y a s t h e3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 3 0 / 4 4 l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g t h e b o a r d ' s c o n f e r e n c e r o o m a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y

s y s t e m o f f i c e

. F o r a m e e t i n g o f t h e B o a r d f o r L e a s e o f U n i v e r s i t y L a n d s , t h e n o t i c e m u s t s p e c i f y a s t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g a s u i t a b l e

c o n f e r e n c e o r m e e t i n g r o o m a t T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f T e x a s S y s t e m o f f i c e

. F o r a

m e e t i n g o f t h e T e x a s H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n C o o r d i n a t i n g B o a r d , t h e n o t i c e m u s t

s p e c i f y a s t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g a s u i t a b l e c o n f e r e n c e o r m e e t i n g

r o o m a t t h e o f f i c e s o f t h e T e x a s H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n C o o r d i n a t i n g B o a r d o r a t

a n i n s t i t u t i o n o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n

. ( f ) E a c h p a r t o f t h e t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m e e t i n g t h a t i s

r e q u i r e d t o b e o p e n t o t h e p u b l i c m u s t b e :

( 1 ) a u d i b l e t o t h e p u b l i c a t t h e l o c a t i o n s p e c i f i e d i n t h e n o t i c e

o f t h e m e e t i n g a s t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g ;

( 2 ) b r o a d c a s t o v e r t h e I n t e r n e t i n t h e m a n n e r p r e s c r i b e d b y

S e c t i o n 5 5 1

. 1 2 8 ; a n d

( 3 ) r e c o r d e d a n d m a d e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p u b l i c i n a n o n l i n e

a r c h i v e l o c a t e d o n t h e I n t e r n e t w e b s i t e o f t h e e n t i t y h o l d i n g t h e m e e t i n g

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y A c t s 2 0 0 3 , 7 8 t h L e g

. , c h

. 1 2 6 6 , S e c

. 4

. 0 5 , 4

. 0 6 , e f f

. J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 0 3

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 0 7 , 8 0 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 5 3 8 ( S

. B

. 1 0 4 6 ) , S e c

. 2 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 7

. A c t s 2 0 0 7 , 8 0 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 5 3 8 ( S

. B

. 1 0 4 6 ) , S e c

. 3 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 7

. A c t s 2 0 0 7 , 8 0 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 7 7 8 ( H

. B

. 3 8 2 7 ) , S e c

. 2 , e f f

. J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 7

. A c t s 2 0 0 7 , 8 0 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 7 7 8 ( H

. B

. 3 8 2 7 ) , S e c

. 3 , e f f

. J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 7

. R e e n a c t e d b y A c t s 2 0 0 9 , 8 1 s t L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 1 9 6 9 ) , S e c

. 1 1

. 0 1 3 ,

e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 9

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 0 9 , 8 1 s t L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 1 9 6 9 ) , S e c

. 1 1

. 0 1 4 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 9

. A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 4 7 1 ) , S e c

. 1 1 , e f f

. M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 3

. A c t s 2 0 1 5 , 8 4 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 1 2 7 ( S

. B

. 2 7 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r
1 , 2 0 1 5

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 3 1 / 4 4 S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 2 2

. G O V E R N I N G B O A R D O F J U N I O R C O L L E G E D I S T R I C T : Q U O R U M

P R E S E N T A T O N E L O C A T I O N

. ( a ) T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s n o t p r o h i b i t t h e g o v e r n i n g
b o a r d o f a j u n i o r c o l l e g e d i s t r i c t f r o m h o l d i n g a n o p e n o r c l o s e d m e e t i n g
b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l

. ( b ) A m e e t i n g h e l d b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l a u t h o r i z e d b y t h i s

s e c t i o n m a y b e h e l d o n l y i f a q u o r u m o f t h e g o v e r n i n g b o a r d i s p h y s i c a l l y

p r e s e n t a t t h e l o c a t i o n w h e r e m e e t i n g s o f t h e b o a r d a r e u s u a l l y h e l d

. ( c ) T h e t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m e e t i n g i s s u b j e c t t o t h e n o t i c e

r e q u i r e m e n t s a p p l i c a b l e t o o t h e r m e e t i n g s

. ( d ) E a c h p a r t o f t h e t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m e e t i n g t h a t i s

r e q u i r e d t o b e o p e n t o t h e p u b l i c s h a l l b e a u d i b l e t o t h e p u b l i c a t t h e
l o c a t i o n w h e r e t h e q u o r u m i s p r e s e n t a n d s h a l l b e r e c o r d e d

. T h e r e c o r d i n g

s h a l l b e m a d e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p u b l i c

. ( e ) T h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g s h a l l p r o v i d e t w o
­ w a y c o m m u n i c a t i o n
d u r i n g t h e e n t i r e t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m e e t i n g , a n d t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

o f e a c h p a r t y t o t h e t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e s h a l l b e c l e a r l y s t a t e d b e f o r e

t h e p a r t y s p e a k s

. ( f ) T h e a u t h o r i t y p r o v i d e d b y t h i s s e c t i o n i s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e

a u t h o r i t y p r o v i d e d b y S e c t i o n 5 5 1

. 1 2 1

. ( g ) A m e m b e r o f a g o v e r n i n g b o a r d o f a j u n i o r c o l l e g e d i s t r i c t w h o

p a r t i c i p a t e s i n a b o a r d m e e t i n g b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l b u t i s n o t

p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t a t t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g i s c o n s i d e r e d t o b e

a b s e n t f r o m t h e m e e t i n g f o r p u r p o s e s o f S e c t i o n 1 3 0

. 0 8 4 5 , E d u c a t i o n C o d e

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 0 7 , 8 0 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 7 7 8 ( H

. B

. 3 8 2 7 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. J u n e
1 5 , 2 0 0 7

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 4 7 1 ) , S e c

. 1 2 , e f f

. M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 2 3

. T E X A S B O A R D O F C R I M I N A L J U S T I C E

. ( a ) T h e T e x a s B o a r d

o f C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e m a y h o l d a n o p e n o r c l o s e d e m e r g e n c y m e e t i n g b y

t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l

. ( b ) T h e p o r t i o n o f t h e t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m e e t i n g t h a t i s o p e n

s h a l l b e r e c o r d e d

. T h e r e c o r d i n g s h a l l b e m a d e a v a i l a b l e t o b e h e a r d b y

t h e p u b l i c a t o n e o r m o r e p l a c e s d e s i g n a t e d b y t h e b o a r d

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 2 4

. B O A R D O F P A R D O N S A N D P A R O L E S

. A t t h e c a l l o f t h e

p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r o f t h e B o a r d o f P a r d o n s a n d P a r o l e s , t h e b o a r d m a y h o l d a3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 3 2 / 4 4 h e a r i n g o n c l e m e n c y m a t t e r s b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 7 , 7 5 t h L e g

. , c h

. 1 6 5 , S e c

. 1 2

. 1 6 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 7

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 2 5

. O T H E R G O V E R N M E N T A L B O D Y

. ( a ) E x c e p t a s o t h e r w i s e

p r o v i d e d b y t h i s s u b c h a p t e r , t h i s c h a p t e r d o e s n o t p r o h i b i t a g o v e r n m e n t a l

b o d y f r o m h o l d i n g a n o p e n o r c l o s e d m e e t i n g b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l

. ( b ) A m e e t i n g h e l d b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m a y b e h e l d o n l y i f : ( 1 ) a n e m e r g e n c y o r p u b l i c n e c e s s i t y e x i s t s w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f

S e c t i o n 5 5 1

. 0 4 5 o f t h i s c h a p t e r ; a n d

( 2 ) t h e c o n v e n i n g a t o n e l o c a t i o n o f a q u o r u m o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l

b o d y i s d i f f i c u l t o r i m p o s s i b l e ; o r

( 3 ) t h e m e e t i n g i s h e l d b y a n a d v i s o r y b o a r d

. ( c ) T h e t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m e e t i n g i s s u b j e c t t o t h e n o t i c e

r e q u i r e m e n t s a p p l i c a b l e t o o t h e r m e e t i n g s

. ( d ) T h e n o t i c e o f t h e t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m e e t i n g m u s t s p e c i f y

a s t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g t h e l o c a t i o n w h e r e m e e t i n g s o f t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y a r e u s u a l l y h e l d

. ( e ) E a c h p a r t o f t h e t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m e e t i n g t h a t i s

r e q u i r e d t o b e o p e n t o t h e p u b l i c s h a l l b e a u d i b l e t o t h e p u b l i c a t t h e
l o c a t i o n s p e c i f i e d i n t h e n o t i c e o f t h e m e e t i n g a s t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e

m e e t i n g a n d s h a l l b e r e c o r d e d

. T h e r e c o r d i n g s h a l l b e m a d e a v a i l a b l e t o

t h e p u b l i c

. ( f ) T h e l o c a t i o n d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e n o t i c e a s t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e

m e e t i n g s h a l l p r o v i d e t w o
­ w a y c o m m u n i c a t i o n d u r i n g t h e e n t i r e t e l e p h o n e

c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m e e t i n g a n d t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f e a c h p a r t y t o t h e

t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e s h a l l b e c l e a r l y s t a t e d p r i o r t o s p e a k i n g

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 5 , 7 4 t h L e g

. , c h

. 1 0 4 6 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. A u g

. 2 8 , 1 9 9 5

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 4 7 1 ) , S e c

. 1 3 , e f f

. M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 2 6

. H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N C O O R D I N A T I N G B O A R D

. ( a ) I n t h i s

s e c t i o n , " b o a r d " m e a n s t h e T e x a s H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n C o o r d i n a t i n g B o a r d

. ( b ) T h e b o a r d m a y h o l d a n o p e n m e e t i n g b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l

o r v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l i n o r d e r t o c o n s i d e r a h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i m p a c t

s t a t e m e n t i f t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f a h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i m p a c t s t a t e m e n t b y t h e
b o a r d i s t o b e p r o v i d e d u n d e r t h e r u l e s o f e i t h e r t h e h o u s e o f

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o r t h e s e n a t e

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 3 3 / 4 4 ( c ) A m e e t i n g h e l d b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m u s t c o m p l y w i t h t h e

p r o c e d u r e s d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 5 5 1

. 1 2 5

. ( d ) A m e e t i n g h e l d b y v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l i s s u b j e c t t o t h e n o t i c e

r e q u i r e m e n t s a p p l i c a b l e t o o t h e r m e e t i n g s

. I n a d d i t i o n , a m e e t i n g h e l d b y

v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l s h a l l :

( 1 ) b e v i s i b l e a n d a u d i b l e t o t h e p u b l i c a t t h e l o c a t i o n

s p e c i f i e d i n t h e n o t i c e o f t h e m e e t i n g a s t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g ;

( 2 ) b e r e c o r d e d b y a u d i o a n d v i d e o ; a n d
( 3 ) h a v e t w o
­ w a y a u d i o a n d v i d e o c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h e a c h

p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h e m e e t i n g d u r i n g t h e e n t i r e m e e t i n g

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 7 , 7 5 t h L e g

. , c h

. 9 4 4 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. J u n e 1 8 , 1 9 9 7

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 2 7

. V I D E O C O N F E R E N C E C A L L

. ( a ) E x c e p t a s o t h e r w i s e

p r o v i d e d b y t h i s s e c t i o n , t h i s c h a p t e r d o e s n o t p r o h i b i t a g o v e r n m e n t a l

b o d y f r o m h o l d i n g a n o p e n o r c l o s e d m e e t i n g b y v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l

. ( a
­ 1 ) A m e m b e r o r e m p l o y e e o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m a y p a r t i c i p a t e

r e m o t e l y i n a m e e t i n g o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y b y m e a n s o f a

v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l i f t h e v i d e o a n d a u d i o f e e d o f t h e m e m b e r ' s o r

e m p l o y e e ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n , a s a p p l i c a b l e , i s b r o a d c a s t l i v e a t t h e m e e t i n g

a n d c o m p l i e s w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s s e c t i o n

. ( a
­ 2 ) A m e m b e r o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y w h o p a r t i c i p a t e s i n a m e e t i n g

a s p r o v i d e d b y S u b s e c t i o n ( a
­ 1 ) s h a l l b e c o u n t e d a s p r e s e n t a t t h e m e e t i n g
f o r a l l p u r p o s e s

. ( b ) A m e e t i n g m a y b e h e l d b y v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l o n l y i f a q u o r u m o f

t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y i s p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t a t o n e l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g ,

e x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d b y S u b s e c t i o n ( c )

.

T e x t o f s u b s e c t i o n a s a m e n d e d b y A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 6 8 5 ( H

. B

. 2 4 1 4 ) , S e c

. 2

( c ) A m e e t i n g o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m a y b e h e l d b y v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e

c a l l o n l y i f :

( 1 ) t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m a k e s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p u b l i c a t l e a s t

o n e s u i t a b l e p h y s i c a l s p a c e l o c a t e d i n o r w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e d i s t a n c e o f

t h e g e o g r a p h i c j u r i s d i c t i o n , i f a n y , o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y t h a t i s

e q u i p p e d w i t h v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e e q u i p m e n t t h a t p r o v i d e s a n a u d i o a n d v i d e o
d i s p l a y , a s w e l l a s a c a m e r a a n d m i c r o p h o n e b y w h i c h a m e m b e r o f t h e p u b l i c

c a n p r o v i d e t e s t i m o n y o r o t h e r w i s e a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e m e e t i n g ;3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 3 4 / 4 4 ( 2 ) t h e m e m b e r o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y p r e s i d i n g o v e r t h e

m e e t i n g i s p r e s e n t a t t h a t p h y s i c a l s p a c e ; a n d

( 3 ) a n y m e m b e r o f t h e p u b l i c p r e s e n t a t t h a t p h y s i c a l s p a c e i s

p r o v i d e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e m e e t i n g b y m e a n s o f a

v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l i n t h e s a m e m a n n e r a s a p e r s o n w h o i s p h y s i c a l l y

p r e s e n t a t a m e e t i n g o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y t h a t i s n o t c o n d u c t e d b y

v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l

.

T e x t o f s u b s e c t i o n a s a m e n d e d b y A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 5 9 ( S

. B

. 9 8 4 ) , S e c

. 1

( c ) A m e e t i n g o f a s t a t e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y o r a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

t h a t e x t e n d s i n t o t h r e e o r m o r e c o u n t i e s m a y b e h e l d b y v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e

c a l l o n l y i f t h e m e m b e r o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y p r e s i d i n g o v e r t h e m e e t i n g
i s p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t a t o n e l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g t h a t i s o p e n t o t h e

p u b l i c d u r i n g t h e o p e n p o r t i o n s o f t h e m e e t i n g

. ( d ) A m e e t i n g h e l d b y v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l i s s u b j e c t t o t h e n o t i c e

r e q u i r e m e n t s a p p l i c a b l e t o o t h e r m e e t i n g s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e n o t i c e

r e q u i r e m e n t s p r e s c r i b e d b y t h i s s e c t i o n

.

T e x t o f s u b s e c t i o n a s a m e n d e d b y A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 6 8 5 ( H

. B

. 2 4 1 4 ) , S e c

. 2

( e ) T h e n o t i c e o f a m e e t i n g t o b e h e l d b y v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m u s t

s p e c i f y a s a l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e p h y s i c a l s p a c e
d e s c r i b e d b y S u b s e c t i o n ( c ) ( 1 )

.

T e x t o f s u b s e c t i o n a s a m e n d e d b y A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 5 9 ( S

. B

. 9 8 4 ) , S e c

. 1

( e ) T h e n o t i c e o f a m e e t i n g t o b e h e l d b y v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m u s t

s p e c i f y a s a l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g t h e l o c a t i o n w h e r e a q u o r u m o f t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y w i l l b e p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t a n d s p e c i f y t h e i n t e n t t o h a v e

a q u o r u m p r e s e n t a t t h a t l o c a t i o n , e x c e p t t h a t t h e n o t i c e o f a m e e t i n g t o
b e h e l d b y v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l u n d e r S u b s e c t i o n ( c ) m u s t s p e c i f y a s a
l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g t h e l o c a t i o n w h e r e t h e m e m b e r o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l

b o d y p r e s i d i n g o v e r t h e m e e t i n g w i l l b e p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t a n d s p e c i f y t h e
i n t e n t t o h a v e t h e m e m b e r o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y p r e s i d i n g o v e r t h e3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 3 5 / 4 4 m e e t i n g p r e s e n t a t t h a t l o c a t i o n

. T h e l o c a t i o n w h e r e t h e m e m b e r o f t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y p r e s i d i n g o v e r t h e m e e t i n g i s p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t s h a l l b e

o p e n t o t h e p u b l i c d u r i n g t h e o p e n p o r t i o n s o f t h e m e e t i n g

. ( f ) E a c h p o r t i o n o f a m e e t i n g h e l d b y v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l t h a t i s

r e q u i r e d t o b e o p e n t o t h e p u b l i c s h a l l b e v i s i b l e a n d a u d i b l e t o t h e

p u b l i c a t t h e l o c a t i o n s p e c i f i e d u n d e r S u b s e c t i o n ( e )

. I f a p r o b l e m o c c u r s

t h a t c a u s e s a m e e t i n g t o n o l o n g e r b e v i s i b l e a n d a u d i b l e t o t h e p u b l i c a t

t h a t l o c a t i o n , t h e m e e t i n g m u s t b e r e c e s s e d u n t i l t h e p r o b l e m i s r e s o l v e d

. I f t h e p r o b l e m i s n o t r e s o l v e d i n s i x h o u r s o r l e s s , t h e m e e t i n g m u s t b e

a d j o u r n e d

. ( g ) T h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y s h a l l m a k e a t l e a s t a n a u d i o r e c o r d i n g o f

t h e m e e t i n g

. T h e r e c o r d i n g s h a l l b e m a d e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p u b l i c

.

T e x t o f s u b s e c t i o n a s a m e n d e d b y A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 6 8 5 ( H

. B

. 2 4 1 4 ) , S e c

. 2

( h ) T h e p h y s i c a l l o c a t i o n s p e c i f i e d u n d e r S u b s e c t i o n ( e ) s h a l l h a v e

t w o
­ w a y a u d i o a n d v i d e o c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h e a c h m e m b e r w h o i s p a r t i c i p a t i n g
b y v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l d u r i n g t h e e n t i r e m e e t i n g

. E a c h p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h e

v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l , w h i l e s p e a k i n g , s h a l l b e c l e a r l y v i s i b l e a n d a u d i b l e

t o e a c h o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t a n d , d u r i n g t h e o p e n p o r t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g , t o

t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e p u b l i c i n a t t e n d a n c e a t t h e p h y s i c a l l o c a t i o n d e s c r i b e d

b y S u b s e c t i o n ( e ) a n d a t a n y o t h e r l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g t h a t i s o p e n t o

t h e p u b l i c

.

T e x t o f s u b s e c t i o n a s a m e n d e d b y A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 5 9 ( S

. B

. 9 8 4 ) , S e c

. 1

( h ) T h e l o c a t i o n s p e c i f i e d u n d e r S u b s e c t i o n ( e ) , a n d e a c h r e m o t e
l o c a t i o n f r o m w h i c h a m e m b e r o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y p a r t i c i p a t e s , s h a l l

h a v e t w o
­ w a y c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h e a c h o t h e r l o c a t i o n d u r i n g t h e e n t i r e

m e e t i n g

. T h e f a c e o f e a c h p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h e v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l , w h i l e

t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t i s s p e a k i n g , s h a l l b e c l e a r l y v i s i b l e , a n d t h e v o i c e

a u d i b l e , t o e a c h o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t a n d , d u r i n g t h e o p e n p o r t i o n o f t h e

m e e t i n g , t o t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e p u b l i c i n a t t e n d a n c e a t a l o c a t i o n o f t h e

m e e t i n g

. ( i ) T h e D e p a r t m e n t o f I n f o r m a t i o n R e s o u r c e s b y r u l e s h a l l s p e c i f y

m i n i m u m s t a n d a r d s f o r a u d i o a n d v i d e o s i g n a l s a t a m e e t i n g h e l d b y

v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l

. T h e q u a l i t y o f t h e a u d i o a n d v i d e o s i g n a l s3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 3 6 / 4 4 p e r c e p t i b l e a t e a c h l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g m u s t m e e t o r e x c e e d t h o s e

s t a n d a r d s

. ( j ) T h e a u d i o a n d v i d e o s i g n a l s p e r c e p t i b l e b y m e m b e r s o f t h e p u b l i c

a t e a c h l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g d e s c r i b e d b y S u b s e c t i o n ( h ) m u s t b e o f

s u f f i c i e n t q u a l i t y s o t h a t m e m b e r s o f t h e p u b l i c a t e a c h l o c a t i o n c a n

o b s e r v e t h e d e m e a n o r a n d h e a r t h e v o i c e o f e a c h p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h e o p e n

p o r t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g

. ( k ) W i t h o u t r e g a r d t o w h e t h e r a m e m b e r o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y i s

p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a m e e t i n g f r o m a r e m o t e l o c a t i o n b y v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l ,

a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m a y a l l o w a m e m b e r o f t h e p u b l i c t o t e s t i f y a t a

m e e t i n g f r o m a r e m o t e l o c a t i o n b y v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 7 , 7 5 t h L e g

. , c h

. 1 0 3 8 , S e c

. 2 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 7

. R e n u m b e r e d f r o m S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 2 6 b y A c t s 1 9 9 9 , 7 6 t h L e g

. , c h

. 6 2 , S e c

. 1 9

. 0 1 ( 5 0 ) , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 9

. A m e n d e d b y A c t s 2 0 0 1 , 7 7 t h L e g

. , c h

. 6 3 0 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 2 0 0 1

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 5 9 ( S

. B

. 9 8 4 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r
1 , 2 0 1 3

. A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 6 8 5 ( H

. B

. 2 4 1 4 ) , S e c

. 2 , e f f

. J u n e 1 4 , 2 0 1 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 2 8

. I N T E R N E T B R O A D C A S T O F O P E N M E E T I N G

. ( a ) I n t h i s

s e c t i o n , " I n t e r n e t " m e a n s t h e l a r g e s t n o n p r o p r i e t a r y c o o p e r a t i v e p u b l i c

c o m p u t e r n e t w o r k , p o p u l a r l y k n o w n a s t h e I n t e r n e t

. ( b ) E x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d b y S u b s e c t i o n ( b

­ 1 ) a n d s u b j e c t t o t h e

r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h i s s e c t i o n , a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m a y b r o a d c a s t a n o p e n

m e e t i n g o v e r t h e I n t e r n e t

. ( b

­ 1 ) A t r a n s i t a u t h o r i t y o r d e p a r t m e n t s u b j e c t t o C h a p t e r 4 5 1 , 4 5 2 , 4 5 3 , o r 4 6 0 , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o d e , a n e l e c t e d s c h o o l d i s t r i c t b o a r d o f

t r u s t e e s f o r a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t t h a t h a s a s t u d e n t e n r o l l m e n t o f 1 0 , 0 0 0 o r

m o r e , a n e l e c t e d g o v e r n i n g b o d y o f a h o m e
­ r u l e m u n i c i p a l i t y t h a t h a s a

p o p u l a t i o n o f 5 0 , 0 0 0 o r m o r e , o r a c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r s c o u r t f o r a c o u n t y

t h a t h a s a p o p u l a t i o n o f 1 2 5 , 0 0 0 o r m o r e s h a l l :

( 1 ) m a k e a v i d e o a n d a u d i o r e c o r d i n g o f r e a s o n a b l e q u a l i t y o f

e a c h r e g u l a r l y s c h e d u l e d o p e n m e e t i n g t h a t i s n o t a w o r k s e s s i o n o r a

s p e c i a l c a l l e d m e e t i n g ; a n d

( 2 ) m a k e a v a i l a b l e a n a r c h i v e d c o p y o f t h e v i d e o a n d a u d i o

r e c o r d i n g o f e a c h m e e t i n g d e s c r i b e d b y S u b d i v i s i o n ( 1 ) o n t h e I n t e r n e t

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 3 7 / 4 4 ( b

­ 2 ) A g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y d e s c r i b e d b y S u b s e c t i o n ( b

­ 1 ) m a y m a k e

a v a i l a b l e t h e a r c h i v e d r e c o r d i n g o f a m e e t i n g r e q u i r e d b y S u b s e c t i o n ( b

­ 1 )

o n a n e x i s t i n g I n t e r n e t s i t e , i n c l u d i n g a p u b l i c l y a c c e s s i b l e v i d e o
­ s h a r i n g

o r s o c i a l n e t w o r k i n g s i t e

. T h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o

e s t a b l i s h a s e p a r a t e I n t e r n e t s i t e a n d p r o v i d e a c c e s s t o a r c h i v e d

r e c o r d i n g s o f m e e t i n g s f r o m t h a t s i t e

. ( b

­ 3 ) A g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y d e s c r i b e d b y S u b s e c t i o n ( b

­ 1 ) t h a t

m a i n t a i n s a n I n t e r n e t s i t e s h a l l m a k e a v a i l a b l e o n t h a t s i t e , i n a

c o n s p i c u o u s m a n n e r :

( 1 ) t h e a r c h i v e d r e c o r d i n g o f e a c h m e e t i n g t o w h i c h S u b s e c t i o n ( b

­ 1 ) a p p l i e s ; o r

( 2 ) a n a c c e s s i b l e l i n k t o t h e a r c h i v e d r e c o r d i n g o f e a c h s u c h

m e e t i n g

. ( b

­ 4 ) A g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y d e s c r i b e d b y S u b s e c t i o n ( b

­ 1 ) s h a l l : ( 1 ) m a k e t h e a r c h i v e d r e c o r d i n g o f e a c h m e e t i n g t o w h i c h

S u b s e c t i o n ( b

­ 1 ) a p p l i e s a v a i l a b l e o n t h e I n t e r n e t n o t l a t e r t h a n s e v e n
d a y s a f t e r t h e d a t e t h e r e c o r d i n g w a s m a d e ; a n d

( 2 ) m a i n t a i n t h e a r c h i v e d r e c o r d i n g o n t h e I n t e r n e t f o r n o t l e s s

t h a n t w o y e a r s a f t e r t h e d a t e t h e r e c o r d i n g w a s f i r s t m a d e a v a i l a b l e

. ( b

­ 5 ) A g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y d e s c r i b e d b y S u b s e c t i o n ( b

­ 1 ) i s e x e m p t

f r o m t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f S u b s e c t i o n s ( b

­ 2 ) a n d ( b

­ 4 ) i f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l

b o d y ' s f a i l u r e t o m a k e t h e r e q u i r e d r e c o r d i n g o f a m e e t i n g a v a i l a b l e i s t h e

r e s u l t o f a c a t a s t r o p h e , a s d e f i n e d b y S e c t i o n 5 5 1

. 0 4 1 1 , o r a t e c h n i c a l

b r e a k d o w n

. F o l l o w i n g a c a t a s t r o p h e o r b r e a k d o w n , a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m u s t

m a k e a l l r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o m a k e t h e r e q u i r e d r e c o r d i n g a v a i l a b l e i n a

t i m e l y m a n n e r

. ( b

­ 6 ) A g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y d e s c r i b e d b y S u b s e c t i o n ( b

­ 1 ) m a y b r o a d c a s t

a r e g u l a r l y s c h e d u l e d o p e n m e e t i n g o f t h e b o d y o n t e l e v i s i o n

. ( c ) E x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d b y S u b s e c t i o n ( b

­ 2 ) , a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y t h a t

b r o a d c a s t s a m e e t i n g o v e r t h e I n t e r n e t s h a l l e s t a b l i s h a n I n t e r n e t s i t e a n d

p r o v i d e a c c e s s t o t h e b r o a d c a s t f r o m t h a t s i t e

. T h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y s h a l l

p r o v i d e o n t h e I n t e r n e t s i t e t h e s a m e n o t i c e o f t h e m e e t i n g t h a t t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y i s r e q u i r e d t o p o s t u n d e r S u b c h a p t e r C

. T h e n o t i c e o n t h e

I n t e r n e t m u s t b e p o s t e d w i t h i n t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d f o r p o s t i n g n o t i c e u n d e r

S u b c h a p t e r C

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 9 , 7 6 t h L e g

. , c h

. 1 0 0 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 9

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 1 5 , 8 4 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 6 8 1 ( H

. B

. 2 8 3 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. J a n u a r y
1 , 2 0 1 6

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 3 8 / 4 4 S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 2 8 1

. G O V E R N I N G B O A R D O F G E N E R A L A C A D E M I C T E A C H I N G

I N S T I T U T I O N O R U N I V E R S I T Y S Y S T E M : I N T E R N E T P O S T I N G O F M E E T I N G M A T E R I A L S A N D

B R O A D C A S T O F O P E N M E E T I N G

. ( a ) I n t h i s s e c t i o n , " g e n e r a l a c a d e m i c t e a c h i n g
i n s t i t u t i o n " a n d " u n i v e r s i t y s y s t e m " h a v e t h e m e a n i n g s a s s i g n e d b y S e c t i o n
6 1

. 0 0 3 , E d u c a t i o n C o d e

. ( b ) T h e g o v e r n i n g b o a r d o f a g e n e r a l a c a d e m i c t e a c h i n g i n s t i t u t i o n o r

o f a u n i v e r s i t y s y s t e m t h a t i n c l u d e s o n e o r m o r e c o m p o n e n t g e n e r a l a c a d e m i c

t e a c h i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s , f o r a n y r e g u l a r l y s c h e d u l e d m e e t i n g o f t h e g o v e r n i n g
b o a r d f o r w h i c h n o t i c e i s r e q u i r e d u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r , s h a l l :

( 1 ) p o s t a s e a r l y a s p r a c t i c a b l e i n a d v a n c e o f t h e m e e t i n g o n t h e

I n t e r n e t w e b s i t e o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o r u n i v e r s i t y s y s t e m , a s a p p l i c a b l e ,

a n y w r i t t e n a g e n d a a n d r e l a t e d s u p p l e m e n t a l w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l s p r o v i d e d t o

t h e g o v e r n i n g b o a r d m e m b e r s i n a d v a n c e o f t h e m e e t i n g b y t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o r

s y s t e m f o r t h e m e m b e r s ' u s e d u r i n g t h e m e e t i n g ;

( 2 ) b r o a d c a s t t h e m e e t i n g , o t h e r t h a n a n y p o r t i o n s o f t h e m e e t i n g

c l o s e d t o t h e p u b l i c a s a u t h o r i z e d b y l a w , o v e r t h e I n t e r n e t i n t h e m a n n e r

p r e s c r i b e d b y S e c t i o n 5 5 1

. 1 2 8 ; a n d

( 3 ) r e c o r d t h e b r o a d c a s t a n d m a k e t h a t r e c o r d i n g p u b l i c l y

a v a i l a b l e i n a n o n l i n e a r c h i v e l o c a t e d o n t h e i n s t i t u t i o n ' s o r u n i v e r s i t y

s y s t e m ' s I n t e r n e t w e b s i t e

. ( c ) S u b s e c t i o n ( b ) ( 1 ) d o e s n o t a p p l y t o w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l s t h a t t h e

g e n e r a l c o u n s e l o r o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e a t t o r n e y f o r t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o r

u n i v e r s i t y s y s t e m c e r t i f i e s a r e c o n f i d e n t i a l o r m a y b e w i t h h e l d f r o m p u b l i c
d i s c l o s u r e u n d e r C h a p t e r 5 5 2

. ( d ) T h e g o v e r n i n g b o a r d o f a g e n e r a l a c a d e m i c t e a c h i n g i n s t i t u t i o n o r

o f a u n i v e r s i t y s y s t e m i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f

t h i s s e c t i o n i f t h a t c o m p l i a n c e i s n o t p o s s i b l e b e c a u s e o f a n a c t o f G o d , f o r c e m a j e u r e , o r a s i m i l a r c a u s e n o t r e a s o n a b l y w i t h i n t h e g o v e r n i n g
b o a r d ' s c o n t r o l

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 4 2 ( H

. B

. 3 1 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. J u n e
1 4 , 2 0 1 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 2 8 2

. G O V E R N I N G B O A R D O F J U N I O R C O L L E G E D I S T R I C T : I N T E R N E T

P O S T I N G O F M E E T I N G M A T E R I A L S A N D B R O A D C A S T O F O P E N M E E T I N G

. ( a ) T h i s

s e c t i o n a p p l i e s o n l y t o t h e g o v e r n i n g b o a r d o f a j u n i o r c o l l e g e d i s t r i c t

w i t h a t o t a l s t u d e n t e n r o l l m e n t o f m o r e t h a n 2 0 , 0 0 0 i n a n y s e m e s t e r o f t h e

p r e c e d i n g a c a d e m i c y e a r

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 3 9 / 4 4 ( b ) A g o v e r n i n g b o a r d t o w h i c h t h i s s e c t i o n a p p l i e s , f o r a n y

r e g u l a r l y s c h e d u l e d m e e t i n g o f t h e g o v e r n i n g b o a r d f o r w h i c h n o t i c e i s

r e q u i r e d u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r , s h a l l :

( 1 ) p o s t a s e a r l y a s p r a c t i c a b l e i n a d v a n c e o f t h e m e e t i n g o n t h e

I n t e r n e t w e b s i t e o f t h e d i s t r i c t a n y w r i t t e n a g e n d a a n d r e l a t e d

s u p p l e m e n t a l w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l s p r o v i d e d b y t h e d i s t r i c t t o t h e b o a r d

m e m b e r s f o r t h e m e m b e r s ' u s e d u r i n g t h e m e e t i n g ;

( 2 ) b r o a d c a s t t h e m e e t i n g , o t h e r t h a n a n y p o r t i o n s o f t h e m e e t i n g

c l o s e d t o t h e p u b l i c a s a u t h o r i z e d b y l a w , o v e r t h e I n t e r n e t i n t h e m a n n e r

p r e s c r i b e d b y S e c t i o n 5 5 1

. 1 2 8 ; a n d

( 3 ) r e c o r d t h e b r o a d c a s t a n d m a k e t h a t r e c o r d i n g p u b l i c l y

a v a i l a b l e i n a n o n l i n e a r c h i v e l o c a t e d o n t h e d i s t r i c t ' s I n t e r n e t w e b s i t e

. ( c ) S u b s e c t i o n ( b ) ( 1 ) d o e s n o t a p p l y t o w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l s t h a t t h e

g e n e r a l c o u n s e l o r o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e a t t o r n e y f o r t h e d i s t r i c t c e r t i f i e s

a r e c o n f i d e n t i a l o r m a y b e w i t h h e l d f r o m p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e u n d e r C h a p t e r
5 5 2

. ( d ) T h e g o v e r n i n g b o a r d o f a j u n i o r c o l l e g e d i s t r i c t i s n o t r e q u i r e d

t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h i s s e c t i o n i f t h a t c o m p l i a n c e i s n o t

p o s s i b l e b e c a u s e o f a n a c t o f G o d , f o r c e m a j e u r e , o r a s i m i l a r c a u s e n o t

r e a s o n a b l y w i t h i n t h e g o v e r n i n g b o a r d ' s c o n t r o l

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 6 9 0 ( H

. B

. 2 6 6 8 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. J u n e
1 4 , 2 0 1 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 2 9

. C O N S U L T A T I O N S B E T W E E N G O V E R N M E N T A L B O D Y A N D I T S

A T T O R N E Y

. ( a ) A g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y m a y u s e a t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l ,

v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l , o r c o m m u n i c a t i o n s o v e r t h e I n t e r n e t t o c o n d u c t a

p u b l i c c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h i t s a t t o r n e y i n a n o p e n m e e t i n g o f t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y o r a p r i v a t e c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h i t s a t t o r n e y i n a c l o s e d

m e e t i n g o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

. ( b ) E a c h p a r t o f a p u b l i c c o n s u l t a t i o n b y a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y w i t h

i t s a t t o r n e y i n a n o p e n m e e t i n g o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y u n d e r S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) m u s t b e a u d i b l e t o t h e p u b l i c a t t h e l o c a t i o n s p e c i f i e d i n t h e n o t i c e

o f t h e m e e t i n g a s t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g

. ( c ) S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) d o e s n o t : ( 1 ) a u t h o r i z e t h e m e m b e r s o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y t o c o n d u c t a

m e e t i n g o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l , v i d e o

c o n f e r e n c e c a l l , o r c o m m u n i c a t i o n s o v e r t h e I n t e r n e t ; o r

( 2 ) c r e a t e a n e x c e p t i o n t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s s u b c h a p t e r

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 4 0 / 4 4 ( d ) S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) d o e s n o t a p p l y t o a c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h a n a t t o r n e y

w h o i s a n e m p l o y e e o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

. ( e ) F o r p u r p o s e s o f S u b s e c t i o n ( d ) , a n a t t o r n e y w h o r e c e i v e s

c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r l e g a l s e r v i c e s p e r f o r m e d , f r o m w h i c h e m p l o y m e n t t a x e s a r e
d e d u c t e d b y t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y , i s a n e m p l o y e e o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

. ( f ) S u b s e c t i o n ( d ) d o e s n o t a p p l y t o : ( 1 ) t h e g o v e r n i n g b o a r d o f a n i n s t i t u t i o n o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n a s
d e f i n e d b y S e c t i o n 6 1

. 0 0 3 , E d u c a t i o n C o d e ; o r

( 2 ) t h e T e x a s H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n C o o r d i n a t i n g B o a r d

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 0 1 , 7 7 t h L e g

. , c h

. 5 0 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. M a y 7 , 2 0 0 1

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 0 7 , 8 0 t h L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 5 3 8 ( S

. B

. 1 0 4 6 ) , S e c

. 4 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 7

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 3 0

. B O A R D O F T R U S T E E S O F T E A C H E R R E T I R E M E N T S Y S T E M O F

T E X A S : Q U O R U M P R E S E N T A T O N E L O C A T I O N

. ( a ) I n t h i s s e c t i o n , " b o a r d "

m e a n s t h e b o a r d o f t r u s t e e s o f t h e T e a c h e r R e t i r e m e n t S y s t e m o f T e x a s

. ( b ) T h i s c h a p t e r d o e s n o t p r o h i b i t t h e b o a r d o r a b o a r d c o m m i t t e e
f r o m h o l d i n g a n o p e n o r c l o s e d m e e t i n g b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l

. ( c ) T h e b o a r d o r a b o a r d c o m m i t t e e m a y h o l d a m e e t i n g b y t e l e p h o n e

c o n f e r e n c e c a l l o n l y i f a q u o r u m o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e b o a r d o r b o a r d c o m m i t t e e
i s p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t a t o n e l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g

. ( d ) A t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m e e t i n g i s s u b j e c t t o t h e n o t i c e

r e q u i r e m e n t s a p p l i c a b l e t o o t h e r m e e t i n g s

. T h e n o t i c e m u s t a l s o s p e c i f y :

( 1 ) t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g w h e r e a q u o r u m o f t h e b o a r d o r
b o a r d c o m m i t t e e , a s a p p l i c a b l e , w i l l b e p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t ; a n d

( 2 ) t h e i n t e n t t o h a v e a q u o r u m p r e s e n t a t t h a t l o c a t i o n

. ( e ) T h e l o c a t i o n w h e r e a q u o r u m i s p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t m u s t b e o p e n t o

t h e p u b l i c d u r i n g t h e o p e n p o r t i o n s o f a t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m e e t i n g

. T h e o p e n p o r t i o n s o f t h e m e e t i n g m u s t b e a u d i b l e t o t h e p u b l i c a t t h e
l o c a t i o n w h e r e t h e q u o r u m i s p r e s e n t a n d b e r e c o r d e d a t t h a t l o c a t i o n

. T h e

r e c o r d i n g s h a l l b e m a d e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p u b l i c

. ( f ) T h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g s h a l l p r o v i d e t w o
­ w a y c o m m u n i c a t i o n
d u r i n g t h e e n t i r e t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m e e t i n g , a n d t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

o f e a c h p a r t y t o t h e t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m u s t b e c l e a r l y s t a t e d

b e f o r e t h e p a r t y s p e a k s

. ( g ) T h e a u t h o r i t y p r o v i d e d b y t h i s s e c t i o n i s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e

a u t h o r i t y p r o v i d e d b y S e c t i o n 5 5 1

. 1 2 5

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 4 1 / 4 4 ( h ) A m e m b e r o f t h e b o a r d w h o p a r t i c i p a t e s i n a b o a r d o r b o a r d

c o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l b u t i s n o t p h y s i c a l l y

p r e s e n t a t t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g i s n o t c o n s i d e r e d t o b e a b s e n t f r o m

t h e m e e t i n g f o r a n y p u r p o s e

. T h e v o t e o f a m e m b e r o f t h e b o a r d w h o

p a r t i c i p a t e s i n a b o a r d o r b o a r d c o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e

c a l l i s c o u n t e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f d e t e r m i n i n g t h e n u m b e r o f v o t e s c a s t o n

a m o t i o n o r o t h e r p r o p o s i t i o n b e f o r e t h e b o a r d o r b o a r d c o m m i t t e e

. ( i ) A m e m b e r o f t h e b o a r d m a y p a r t i c i p a t e r e m o t e l y b y t e l e p h o n e

c o n f e r e n c e c a l l i n s t e a d o f b y b e i n g p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t a t t h e l o c a t i o n o f a
b o a r d m e e t i n g f o r n o t m o r e t h a n o n e b o a r d m e e t i n g p e r c a l e n d a r y e a r

. A

b o a r d m e m b e r w h o p a r t i c i p a t e s r e m o t e l y i n a n y p o r t i o n o f a b o a r d m e e t i n g b y

t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l i s c o n s i d e r e d t o h a v e p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e e n t i r e
b o a r d m e e t i n g b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l

. F o r p u r p o s e s o f t h e l i m i t

p r o v i d e d b y t h i s s u b s e c t i o n , r e m o t e p a r t i c i p a t i o n b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e

c a l l i n a m e e t i n g o f a b o a r d c o m m i t t e e d o e s n o t c o u n t a s r e m o t e

p a r t i c i p a t i o n b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l i n a m e e t i n g o f t h e b o a r d , e v e n
i f : ( 1 ) a q u o r u m o f t h e f u l l b o a r d a t t e n d s t h e b o a r d c o m m i t t e e

m e e t i n g ; o r

( 2 ) n o t i c e o f t h e b o a r d c o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g i s a l s o p o s t e d a s

n o t i c e o f a b o a r d m e e t i n g

. ( j ) A p e r s o n w h o i s n o t a m e m b e r o f t h e b o a r d m a y s p e a k a t t h e

m e e t i n g f r o m a r e m o t e l o c a t i o n b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 1 1 , 8 2 n d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 4 5 5 ( S

. B

. 1 6 6 7 ) , S e c

. 3 , e f f

. S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 1

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 4 7 1 ) , S e c

. 1 4 , e f f

. M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 3

. A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 1 0 7 8 ( H

. B

. 3 3 5 7 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. J u n e
1 4 , 2 0 1 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 3 1

. W A T E R D I S T R I C T S

. ( a ) I n t h i s s e c t i o n , " w a t e r
d i s t r i c t " m e a n s a r i v e r a u t h o r i t y , g r o u n d w a t e r c o n s e r v a t i o n d i s t r i c t , w a t e r

c o n t r o l a n d i m p r o v e m e n t d i s t r i c t , o r o t h e r d i s t r i c t c r e a t e d u n d e r S e c t i o n
5 2 , A r t i c l e I I I , o r S e c t i o n 5 9 , A r t i c l e X V I , T e x a s C o n s t i t u t i o n

. ( b ) T h i s s e c t i o n a p p l i e s o n l y t o a w a t e r d i s t r i c t w h o s e t e r r i t o r y
i n c l u d e s l a n d i n t h r e e o r m o r e c o u n t i e s

. ( c ) A m e e t i n g h e l d b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l o r v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e

c a l l a u t h o r i z e d b y t h i s s e c t i o n m a y b e h e l d o n l y i f :3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 4 2 / 4 4 ( 1 ) t h e m e e t i n g i s a s p e c i a l c a l l e d m e e t i n g a n d i m m e d i a t e a c t i o n
i s r e q u i r e d ; a n d

( 2 ) t h e c o n v e n i n g a t o n e l o c a t i o n o f a q u o r u m o f t h e g o v e r n i n g
b o d y o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e w a t e r d i s t r i c t i s d i f f i c u l t o r i m p o s s i b l e

. ( d ) A m e e t i n g h e l d b y t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l m u s t o t h e r w i s e c o m p l y

w i t h t h e p r o c e d u r e s u n d e r S e c t i o n s 5 5 1

. 1 2 5 ( c ) , ( d ) , ( e ) , a n d ( f )

. ( e ) A m e e t i n g h e l d b y v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l i s s u b j e c t t o t h e n o t i c e

r e q u i r e m e n t s a p p l i c a b l e t o o t h e r m e e t i n g s

. I n a d d i t i o n , a m e e t i n g h e l d b y

v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e c a l l s h a l l :

( 1 ) b e v i s i b l e a n d a u d i b l e t o t h e p u b l i c a t t h e l o c a t i o n

s p e c i f i e d i n t h e n o t i c e o f t h e m e e t i n g a s t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e m e e t i n g ;

( 2 ) b e r e c o r d e d b y a u d i o a n d v i d e o ; a n d
( 3 ) h a v e t w o
­ w a y a u d i o a n d v i d e o c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h e a c h

p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h e m e e t i n g d u r i n g t h e e n t i r e m e e t i n g

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 2 0 ( S

. B

. 2 9 3 ) , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. M a y
1 0 , 2 0 1 3

.

S U B C H A P T E R G

. E N F O R C E M E N T A N D R E M E D I E S ; C R I M I N A L V I O L A T I O N S

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 4 1

. A C T I O N V O I D A B L E

. A n a c t i o n t a k e n b y a g o v e r n m e n t a l

b o d y i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h i s c h a p t e r i s v o i d a b l e

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 4 2

. M A N D A M U S ; I N J U N C T I O N

. ( a ) A n i n t e r e s t e d p e r s o n , i n c l u d i n g a m e m b e r o f t h e n e w s m e d i a , m a y b r i n g a n a c t i o n b y m a n d a m u s o r
i n j u n c t i o n t o s t o p , p r e v e n t , o r r e v e r s e a v i o l a t i o n o r t h r e a t e n e d v i o l a t i o n

o f t h i s c h a p t e r b y m e m b e r s o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

. ( b ) T h e c o u r t m a y a s s e s s c o s t s o f l i t i g a t i o n a n d r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y
f e e s i n c u r r e d b y a p l a i n t i f f o r d e f e n d a n t w h o s u b s t a n t i a l l y p r e v a i l s i n a n

a c t i o n u n d e r S u b s e c t i o n ( a )

. I n e x e r c i s i n g i t s d i s c r e t i o n , t h e c o u r t s h a l l

c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e a c t i o n w a s b r o u g h t i n g o o d f a i t h a n d w h e t h e r t h e

c o n d u c t o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y h a d a r e a s o n a b l e b a s i s i n l a w

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 4 3

. C O N S P I R A C Y T O C I R C U M V E N T C H A P T E R ; O F F E N S E ; P E N A L T Y

. ( a ) A m e m b e r o r g r o u p o f m e m b e r s o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y c o m m i t s a n o f f e n s e
i f t h e m e m b e r o r g r o u p o f m e m b e r s k n o w i n g l y c o n s p i r e s t o c i r c u m v e n t t h i s3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 4 3 / 4 4 c h a p t e r b y m e e t i n g i n n u m b e r s l e s s t h a n a q u o r u m f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f s e c r e t

d e l i b e r a t i o n s i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h i s c h a p t e r

. ( b ) A n o f f e n s e u n d e r S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) i s a m i s d e m e a n o r p u n i s h a b l e b y : ( 1 ) a f i n e o f n o t l e s s t h a n $ 1 0 0 o r m o r e t h a n $ 5 0 0 ; ( 2 ) c o n f i n e m e n t i n t h e c o u n t y j a i l f o r n o t l e s s t h a n o n e m o n t h o r

m o r e t h a n s i x m o n t h s ; o r

( 3 ) b o t h t h e f i n e a n d c o n f i n e m e n t

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 4 4

. C L O S E D M E E T I N G ; O F F E N S E ; P E N A L T Y

. ( a ) A m e m b e r o f a

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y c o m m i t s a n o f f e n s e i f a c l o s e d m e e t i n g i s n o t p e r m i t t e d

u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r a n d t h e m e m b e r k n o w i n g l y :

( 1 ) c a l l s o r a i d s i n c a l l i n g o r o r g a n i z i n g t h e c l o s e d m e e t i n g ,

w h e t h e r i t i s a s p e c i a l o r c a l l e d c l o s e d m e e t i n g ;

( 2 ) c l o s e s o r a i d s i n c l o s i n g t h e m e e t i n g t o t h e p u b l i c , i f i t i s

a r e g u l a r m e e t i n g ; o r

( 3 ) p a r t i c i p a t e s i n t h e c l o s e d m e e t i n g , w h e t h e r i t i s a r e g u l a r ,

s p e c i a l , o r c a l l e d m e e t i n g

. ( b ) A n o f f e n s e u n d e r S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) i s a m i s d e m e a n o r p u n i s h a b l e b y : ( 1 ) a f i n e o f n o t l e s s t h a n $ 1 0 0 o r m o r e t h a n $ 5 0 0 ; ( 2 ) c o n f i n e m e n t i n t h e c o u n t y j a i l f o r n o t l e s s t h a n o n e m o n t h o r

m o r e t h a n s i x m o n t h s ; o r

( 3 ) b o t h t h e f i n e a n d c o n f i n e m e n t

. ( c ) I t i s a n a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e t o p r o s e c u t i o n u n d e r S u b s e c t i o n ( a )

t h a t t h e m e m b e r o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y a c t e d i n r e a s o n a b l e r e l i a n c e o n a

c o u r t o r d e r o r a w r i t t e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s c h a p t e r c o n t a i n e d i n a n

o p i n i o n o f a c o u r t o f r e c o r d , t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l , o r t h e a t t o r n e y f o r t h e

g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 9 , 7 6 t h L e g

. , c h

. 6 4 7 , S e c

. 3 , e f f

. A u g

. 3 0 , 1 9 9 9

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 4 5

. C L O S E D M E E T I N G W I T H O U T C E R T I F I E D A G E N D A O R R E C O R D I N G ;

O F F E N S E ; P E N A L T Y

. ( a ) A m e m b e r o f a g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y c o m m i t s a n o f f e n s e
i f t h e m e m b e r p a r t i c i p a t e s i n a c l o s e d m e e t i n g o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d y
k n o w i n g t h a t a c e r t i f i e d a g e n d a o f t h e c l o s e d m e e t i n g i s n o t b e i n g k e p t o r

t h a t a r e c o r d i n g o f t h e c l o s e d m e e t i n g i s n o t b e i n g m a d e

. ( b ) A n o f f e n s e u n d e r S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) i s a C l a s s C m i s d e m e a n o r

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

.3 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 7 G O V E R N M E N T C O D E C H A P T E R 5 5 1

. O P E N M E E T I N G S

h t t p : / / w w w

. s t a t u t e s

. l e g i s

. s t a t e

. t x

. u s / D o c s / G V

/ h t m / G V

. 5 5 1

. h t m 4 4 / 4 4 A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 4 7 1 ) , S e c

. 1 5 , e f f

. M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 3

. A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 4 7 1 ) , S e c

. 1 6 , e f f

. M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 3

.

S e c

. 5 5 1

. 1 4 6

. D I S C L O S U R E O F C E R T I F I E D A G E N D A O R R E C O R D I N G O F C L O S E D

M E E T I N G ; O F F E N S E ; P E N A L T Y ; C I V I L L I A B I L I T Y

. ( a ) A n i n d i v i d u a l ,

c o r p o r a t i o n , o r p a r t n e r s h i p t h a t w i t h o u t l a w f u l a u t h o r i t y k n o w i n g l y
d i s c l o s e s t o a m e m b e r o f t h e p u b l i c t h e c e r t i f i e d a g e n d a o r r e c o r d i n g o f a

m e e t i n g t h a t w a s l a w f u l l y c l o s e d t o t h e p u b l i c u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r :

( 1 ) c o m m i t s a n o f f e n s e ; a n d
( 2 ) i s l i a b l e t o a p e r s o n i n j u r e d o r d a m a g e d b y t h e d i s c l o s u r e
f o r : ( A ) a c t u a l d a m a g e s , i n c l u d i n g d a m a g e s f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r y o r
d a m a g e , l o s t w a g e s , d e f a m a t i o n , o r m e n t a l o r o t h e r e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s ;

( B ) r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s a n d c o u r t c o s t s ; a n d
( C ) a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i e r o f f a c t , e x e m p l a r y
d a m a g e s

. ( b ) A n o f f e n s e u n d e r S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) ( 1 ) i s a C l a s s B m i s d e m e a n o r

. ( c ) I t i s a d e f e n s e t o p r o s e c u t i o n u n d e r S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d a n

a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e t o a c i v i l a c t i o n u n d e r S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) ( 2 ) t h a t :

( 1 ) t h e d e f e n d a n t h a d g o o d r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h e d i s c l o s u r e w a s
l a w f u l ; o r

( 2 ) t h e d i s c l o s u r e w a s t h e r e s u l t o f a m i s t a k e o f f a c t c o n c e r n i n g

t h e n a t u r e o r c o n t e n t o f t h e c e r t i f i e d a g e n d a o r r e c o r d i n g

.

A d d e d b y A c t s 1 9 9 3 , 7 3 r d L e g

. , c h

. 2 6 8 , S e c

. 1 , e f f

. S e p t

. 1 , 1 9 9 3

. A m e n d e d b y :

A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 4 7 1 ) , S e c

. 1 7 , e f f

. M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 3

. A c t s 2 0 1 3 , 8 3 r d L e g

. , R

. S

. , C h

. 8 7 ( S

. B

. 4 7 1 ) , S e c

. 1 8 , e f f

. M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 3

.