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?ar Mr. Jordan: for broadcast: at a later time. 

In your request for an opinion from this office you 

state the following: 

“The Commlssioners I Court of McCulloch 

County, Texas, has asked that I request an 

opinion of your office as to the meaning of 

Senate Bill Number 94, passed May 23, 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. A local 

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 60th Legislature, 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 a right Is thus conferred or obligation 

Imposed, said court has Implied authorlty to exercise a broad 

discretion to accomplish the pui-poses intended. Dodson v. Mb!rshali,. 

118 S.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, we think 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 15 Tex.Jur.2d 265, Counties, Section 37, It is 

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, and the expression ‘county business’ 

Is to be given a broad 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 now or may hereafter be prescribed by law. 

Section 15, Vernon’s Civil Statutes. 

Article 2351, 

Where a right 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 

v. Wood, 137 Tex. 201, 152 S.W.2d lo84 (1941). 

In Southwestern Broadcastin Co. v. 011 Center Broadcasting Co., 210 S W 2d ?30 (Texd~l?T4”~~%~ ref n r e 

thecourt held thai an Independent school dlst:‘lct has the rigit 

to prevent a broadcasting company from transmitting radio broadcasts from the school district football field. At page 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 a right 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’rom the field. . .-. - 

“In our opinion, the appellants have no grounds 

to complain of a temporary 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 Company has no right to maintain 0’;1 the. field 

against the will of the District. . . . 

The commissioners court has the authority to make 

reas,>nable rules and regulations concerning its meetings and has 

the authority to prevent the live radio broadcast of Its meetings or the taping thereof for broadcast at a Inter 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.lied In 

Senate B1.11 94, Acts 60th Legislature, flcKlllar 

,SnIsion, Ch. 271, p. 537 (codified as Art i~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-