February 22, 1974

The Honorable Joe Resweber County Attorney Harris County Courthouse Houston, Texas 77002 Opinion No. H- 238
Re: May Board of Managers ofhospital district meet in closed session prior to open meetings and related questions? Dear Mr. Resweber: Your opinion request requires that we consider the meaning ofTexas’ Open Meetings Act, Art. 6252-17, V. T. C.S. More specifically you ask:

“1. May the Board of Managers of the Harris County Hospital District meet in closed session prior to an open meeting and, if so, what topics would the Board be limited to discuss?

“2. May the Board continue tohold closed committee meetings? ” The Legislature enacted the Open Meetings Act in order to assure the public an opportunity to be informed concerning the transaction ofpublic business. Its provisions are mandatory and are tobe construed liberally in order to effect its purpose. Toyah Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Pecos-Barstow Ind. Sch. Dist., 466 S. W. 2d 377. (Tex. Civ. ADD.. San Antonio. 1971, nowrit). While -- ** the Act was amended by the 63rd Legislature (Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 31, p. 45) primarily inorder to clarify its meaning and to close any loopholes that might have existed in its coverage, its basic thrust remains unchanged. Subject to certain specified exceptions, it requires every regular, special, or called meeting or session of every governmental body tobe open to the public. “Governmental body” is broadly defined in $l(c) ofthe Act, and included inthis definition is “the governing board of every special district heretofore or hereafter created by law. I1

po 1106The Honorable Joe Resweber, page 2 (H-238)

The answer to your first question is quite plain. The Harris County Hospital District is a special district created under the authority ofArt. 4494n, V. T. C.S. (1966). The Board of Managers is its governing board, and, as such, it is a “governmental body” as that term is defined in $l(c) of the Open Meetings Act. Therefore its meetings must be open to the public unless the topic tobe considered is one ofthose not required tobe considered inan open meeting according to $2of the Act. For example, 52(f) does not require deliberations pertaining to the acquisition of real property to be held inpublic. Other pertinent exceptions are made in §2(e)(certain consultations with attorney), $2(g)(appointment or dismissal of officers and employees), and 52(j)(security matters). Even when a closed session is permitted by the Act, its scheduling must first be announced and the authority for it identified, at aprior open meeting for which notice has been properly’given. 52(a). Furthermore any final action on a matter originally considered in closed session can only be taken at ameeting open to the public. $2u. Unless it is considering one ofthe topies listed in $2as being suitable for closed deliberations, the Board of Managers ofthe Harris County Hospital District must hold all of its meetings open to the public and may not conduct any deliberations in closed session beforehand. Your second question raises the issue of closed committ~ee meetings.. Apparently the Board of Managers ofthe Hosp~ital,District has formed-six standing committees, each one ofwhich is composed ofthree Board members. Although these committees have no authority to take.final action on any business. pending before the Board, they domake recommendations which are acted upon by the Board inopen meetings. You ask whether the meetings held by these standing committees composed of Board members may be closed to the public.
InAttorney General Opinion H-3 (1973) we considered virtually the same question. The Texas Board of Mental Health and Mental Retardation proposed to divide its membership into several committees. Each matter pending before the Board was to be assigned to the appropriate committee which would meet with members ofthe Board’s staff to discuss and study the matter andwould then recommend a course of action to the Board at its next open public meeting. Final action on any matter could be taken only by the full Board. The Board requested our opinion onwhether the Open Meetings Act required the proposed committee meetings to be open to the public.

p, 1107The Honorable Joe Resweber, page 3 (H-238)

We ruled that the Open Meetings Act required meetings of committees composed of members of governmental bodies covered by the Act tobe open to the public

. Our ruling was inpart based on the fear that, ifsthe public were excluded from such committee meetings, itwould be deprived of access tothe actual decision-making process and the purpce eof the Act would be thwarted. We recognized that when a governing board divides its membership into several committees for preliminary consideration ofpending business there arises a real danger that the board itself may become merely a “rubber stamp” for the actions or recommendations of its committees. The rationale preferred in H-3 fully applies tothe question now before us. Despite their preliminary, non-binding nature, the deliberations of the committees into which the Board of Managers has divided itself are an important part ofthe Board’s decisionmaking process. The Open Meetings Act was intended to expose the entire decision-making process ofthegovernmental bodies it covers to the view ofthe interested public. Itwould be substantially undermined ifthese committee meetings were not included within its coverage. The Act simply does not contemplate pro forma public approval by governmental bodies ofmatters already privately determined by its members sitting in closed committee meetings. We do not believe that the amendments to the Act made by the 63rd Legislature undermine what was said inH-3 or require a different result inthis instance. Itis true that “meeting ” is now defined inthe act as “any deliberation between a quorum ofmembers of a governmental body atwhich any public business or public policy.

. .is discussed.

. . .” 5l(a). But the “quorum” requirement was placed inthe Act to indicate that informal meetings of afew members of governmental bodies at social functions were not subject to its coverage. Inour opinion that language was not intended tobe interpreted to subvert the purpose of the Act so that governmental bodies could divide their membership into committees ofless than aquorum for the purpose of conducting important, though preliminary, deliberations about public business in secrecy. Furthermore, “governmental bodyI’is now broadly defined inthe Act as including any “board, commission, department, committee, or agency within the executive or legislative department of the state.
. . ” $l(c). Inlight of this broad definition and inlight of the mandate to construe this Act liberally, we do not believe the Legislature intended for the Act’s coverage tobe limited by the “quorum” language. Rather it is our opinion that the Act should be liberally construed to require all meetings of committees composed of members ofa governmental

‘body covered by the Act, atwhich public.business is discussed, tobe open to the public.

pa1108The Honorable Joe Resweber, page 4 (H-238)

Accordingly meetings of committees composed ofmembers of the Board of Managers ofthe Harris County Hospital District must comply with the “notice” and “open meetings” provisions of the Open Meetings Act. SUMMARY Subject to certain. limited exceptions, meetings ofthe governing board of every special district must be open to the public under the provisions of the Open Meetings Act. Furthermore meetings of committees composed ofmembers of governmental bodies, such as the governing board of a special district, must comply with the Act’s “notice” and “open meeting” provision. Yours very truly,

JOHN L. HILL Attorney General of Texas

Opinion Committee

p0 1109