January 

### 4, 1968

Honorable V. Murray Jordan Opinion No. M-180 County Attorney McCulZoch County Re: Whether under S.B. 94, Acts Brady, Texas 60th Legislature, Regular Session, Ch. 271, p. (codlf led as Article &&-1’7, V.C.S.) the phrase “open to the public ”‘requires the county commissioners court to allow live radio broadcast of Its meetings or to permlt the taping thereof Df?arMr. Jordan: for broadcast: at a later time.

In your request for an opinion from this office you state the following:

“The Commlssioners ICourt of McCulloch County, Texas, has asked that I 

### request an opinion of your office as to the meaning of Senate Bill Number94, passed May23, 1967, concerning public meetings of governmental bodies.

“The particular Inquiry requested concerns the meaning of the phrase ‘open to the public’ as used in Section 1 (a) of the Act. Alocal radio station has stated that It intends to broadcast live over the radio the actual proceedings of the Commissioners1 Court, and in the alternative it intends to tape record the meetings and broadcasb them at a later time over the radio.

“The question the Court would like answered 1s whether or not the phrase ‘open to the public’ encompasses the requirement that the Court allow, first, the live broadcast of its meeting and,Hon. V. Murray Jordan, page 2 (M-I&O)
second, the taping of Its meeting for broadcast at a later tl~me. If the Court requires the removal of broadcasting and/or recording equipment, would it be a violation of the terms of said Act.

“Please consider that Court meetings are generally Informal with far ranging topics discussed In such an atmosphere that actual broadcast of the proceedings would tend to limit free discussion by both commissioners and persons appearing before the Court. As far as I know, the Court sessions have always been open to all members of the public lncludlng 

### press and radlo without any problem of llmltlng free discourse. ” Senate Bill 94, Acts 

### 60thLegislature, Regular Se:sslon, Ch. 271, p. 597 (codified as Article 

### 6252-17,Vernon’s Civl:t Statutes), provides that ever’y meeting of every governmental body shall be open to the public. The caption to this statute provides that It Is an act to prohibit governmental bodies from holding meetings which are closed to the public.

The commissioners court Is the active governing body of the county; while Its authority over the county’s business is limited to that speclflcally conferred by the Constitution and the statutes, where aright Is thus conferred or obligation Imposed, said court has Implied authorlty to exercise abroad discretion to accomplish the pui-poses intended. Dodson v. Mb!rshali,. 

### 118S.W.2d 

### 621(Tex.Clv.App. 

### 1938,error dlsm.). At page bBr court stated:

?Jnder the provisions of the Constitution and the statutes above quoted, wethink It clear. that the commissioners’ court Is charged with the duty of providing a courthouse and has at least Implied authority to regulate the use thereof within reasonable bounds.

. . .”
In 

### 15Tex.Jur.2d 

### 265,Counties, Section 

### 37,Itis stated that a commissioners court has Implied authority to do what may be necessary in the exercise of the duties or powers expressly conferred on It, andthe expression ‘county business’ Is to be given abroad and liberal construction so as not to defeat the purposes of the law. Said court shall have all such other 

### powers and ,jurlsdlctlon, and shall perform all other duties., as are nowor mayhereafter be prescribed by law. Section 

### 15,Vernon’s Civil Statutes. Article 2351,

Where aright is conferred or obligation imposed on the commlssloners court it has implied authority to exercise a



### '-862-

. . *,
lion. V. Murray ,Jordan, page 3 (M-180)

broad discretion to accomplish the purposes intended. Anderson Wood, v. 137Tex. 201, 152 S.W.2d lo84 (1941).

In Southwestern Broadcastin Co. v. 011 Center Broadcasting Co., 210 SW2d ?30 (Texd~l?T4”~~%~ ref nr e thecourt held thai an Independent school dlst:‘lct has the rigit to prevent abroadcasting company from transmitting radio broadcasts from the school district football field. Atpage 234, the court held as follows:

11 1

. .If the Dlstrlct does not deslr#e KOSA to broadcast from the football field which it owns, and has aright to exclusive possession and control, It has a rjght to prevent such conduct. In case the party falls to cease such conduct, It has the ?lght to use such force as It fiicj’ necessary to +zject him I’romthe field.

. .-. -

“In our opinion, the appellants have nogrounds to complain of atemporary lnjunctlon that forbids them from broadcasting from premises In the exclusive control of the District and which enjoins them from using the field equipment which the Telephone Companyhas noright to maintain 0’;1the. field against the will of the District.

. . . The commissioners court has the authority to make reas,>nable rules andregulations concerning its meetings and has the authority to prevent the live radio broadcast of Its meetings or the taping thereof for broadcast at aInter time. The prevention of such,,broadcazt would not keep ths meett.lngs.from being open to the public. Ester, v. Texas, 91 U.S. 532 (1965) SUMMARY The phrase “open to the publl~c” conta l.liedIn Senate B1.1194, Acts 60th Legislature, flcKlllar ,SnIsion, Ch. 271, p. 537 (codified 

### as Arti~cle 6252-17, \‘c:rnon’s Civil Statutes), does not requlre the c?mmlssloners court to allow the live broadcast ol?its meetings or to permit the ta.plng thereof for broadcast at a later time.
y truly yours,

-863-