February 22, 1974 

The Honorable Joe Resweber 

County Attorney 

Harris County Courthouse 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Opinion No. H- 238 

Re: May Board of Managers 

of hospital district meet in 

closed session prior to open 

meetings and related questions? 

Dear Mr. Resweber: 

Your opinion request requires that we consider the meaning of Texas’ 

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 to hold closed 

committee meetings? ” 

The Legislature enacted the Open Meetings Act in order to assure the 

public an opportunity to be informed concerning the transaction of public 

business. Its provisions are mandatory and are to be 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, no writ). While 

-- ** 

the Act was amended by the 63rd Legislature (Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 31, 

p. 45) primarily in order 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 to be open to the public. “Governmental body” is broadly defined in $ l(c) of the Act, and included in this 

definition is “the governing board of every special district heretofore or hereafter created by law. I1 

po 1106 
The 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 of Art. 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 to be 

considered is one of those not required to be considered in an open meeting 

according to $ 2 of the Act. 

For example, 5 2(f) does not require deliberations pertaining to the 

acquisition of real property to be held in public. Other pertinent exceptions 

are made in § 2( e)( certain consultations with attorney), $ 2 (g) (appointment or 

dismissal of officers and employees), and 5 2( 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 a prior open meeting for which notice has 

been properly’given. 5 2(a). Furthermore any final action on a matter originally 

considered in closed session can only be taken at a meeting open to the public. 

$2u. Unless it is considering one of the topies listed in $ 2 as being suitable 

for closed deliberations, the Board of Managers of the 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 of the Hosp~ital, District has formed-six 

standing committees, each one of which is composed of three Board members. 

Although these committees have no authority to take.final action on any business. 

pending before the Board, they do make recommendations which are acted upon 

by the Board in open meetings. You ask whether the meetings held by these 

standing committees composed of Board members may be closed to the public. 

In Attorney 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 of the Board’s staff to discuss and study the matter and would 

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 on whether the Open Meetings Act required the proposed 

committee meetings to be open to the public. 

p, 1107 
The 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 to be open 

to the public . Our ruling was in part based on the fear that, ifs the public were 

excluded from such committee meetings, it would be deprived of access to the 

actual decision-making process and the purpce e of the Act would be thwarted. 

We recognized that when a governing board divides its membership into several 

committees for preliminary consideration of pending 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 to the 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 of the Board’s decisionmaking process. The Open Meetings Act was intended to expose the entire 

decision-making process of the governmental bodies it covers to the view of the 

interested public. It would be substantially undermined if these committee 

meetings were not included within its coverage. The Act simply does not 

contemplate pro forma public approval by governmental bodies of matters 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 in H-3 or require a different result in this 

instance. It is true that “meeting ” is now defined in the act as “any deliberation 

between a quorum of members of a governmental body at which any public 

business or public policy. . . is discussed. . . . ” 5 l(a). But the “quorum” 

requirement was placed in the Act to indicate that informal meetings of a few 

members of governmental bodies at social functions were not subject to its 

coverage. In our opinion that language was not intended to be interpreted to 

subvert the purpose of the Act so that governmental bodies could divide their 

membership into committees of less than a quorum for the purpose of conducting 

important, though preliminary, deliberations about public business in secrecy. 

Furthermore, “governmental body I’ is now broadly defined in the Act as including 

any “board, commission, department, committee, or agency within the executive 

or legislative department of the state. . . ” $ l(c). In light of this broad definition and in light of the mandate to construe this Act liberally, we do not believe 

the Legislature intended for the Act’s coverage to be 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 of a governmental 

‘body covered by the Act, at which public.business is discussed, to be open 

to the public. 

pa 1108 
The Honorable Joe Resweber, page 4 (H-238) 

Accordingly meetings of committees composed of members of the Board 

of Managers of the 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 of the 

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 of members 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