JIMMATTOX AttorneyGeneral

Supreme Cowl Bulldin P.0. BOX125d9 Austin. TX. 7971% 2549 512,4752501 Telex 91W57C1357 Telecopier 51214750255

714Jackson. Sulle 7WJ Dallas, TX. 75202.4509 21417428944

4924 Alberta Ave.. Suite 180 ElPaso, TX. 79905.2793 915/533-3494

ITexas. Suite 700 Houston, TX. 77002-3111 71312236999

806 Broadway, Suite 312 Lubbock, TX. 79401.3479 909/747-5239

4309 N.Tenth, Suite S McAllen, TX. 79501-1595 51219524547

200 Maln Plaza. Suite 400 San Antonio. TX. 792052797 51212254191

An Equal OppOrtunilYl Aflirmstlvs Action Employer 

# TheAttorney Geneyd ofTexas
SepFember3,'i985

!

Honorable TimR. Ta:r:Lor Titus CountyAttorney P. 0. Box862 Mt. Pleasant, Texas 75455 Opinion No..JM-351 Re: Whether a comissioners court maybar video cameras from apublic meeting held under article 6252-17, V.T.C.S. Dear Ur. Taylor: Pou ask whethter article 6252-17. V.T.C.S.. the Texas Open Meetings Act, requires the commissioners court of Titus County to allow videotaping of its meetings. TheOpenI4eetin:gsAct provides in part:

All OX any part of the proceedings in auy public meeting of any governmental body as defined hereinabow may be recorded by any person in attendance by means of a tape recorder or any other meansof sonic reproduction. V.T.C.S. art. 6252*-1~7.CZ(1). This provision first appeared in the 1973revision of the OpenMeetings Act. Acts 1973. 63rd Leg., ch. 31, 12(i) at 46. The 1967 version of the Open Meetings Act did not expressly permit a,%youeto tape-record public meetings. Acts 1967, 60th Leg., ch. 271at 597. A 1968Attorney General Opinion considered whether the act required a cormPissioners court to allow its meetings to be broadcast ljve over the radio and taped for later broadcast. Attoruey General Opinion M-180 (1968) determined that the phrase "open to the public" in section l(a) of formar article 6252-17, V.T.C.S., did not require the?connissioners court to permit the live broadcast of its meetings or the taping thereof for later broadcast. See V.T.C.S. art. 625:2-17, 52(a) (present codification of quoted language). The cowissloners court had authority to mske reasonable rules and regulations for %ts meetings and could prohibit the broadcast or tape-recording of Its meetings. Attorney General Opinion n-180 (1968). A Texas court has considered whether a school trustee had a statutory right to tape-record executive session proceedings of the board of trustees. In Zsmorav. EdgewoodIndependent School District,

p. 1602Honorable TimR. Taylor - Paglt2 (JM-351)

592 S.W.Zd 649 (Tax. Civ. Al~p. - Beaumont 1979, writ ref ’d n.r.e.). the court determined that thtc trustee had no right to tape-record those proceedings over the objection of a majority of board.members. Thecourt stated as follows: i.

Weare of the opinion that significance should be attached to the fact. that the Legislature specifically authorized the use of tape recorders at public meetings while it made uo similar provisions for use-at executive sessions of the same public body. Lacking any definitive or helpful interpretations of the statute, we Invoke one of the maxims of statutory construction. (Footnote deleted). 592 S.W.Zd at 649. The cot,xt stated the rule expressio unlus est exclusio alterius: The exprEssion of a specific llxitatiou excludes all others. It continued as follows:

Having speclfic~illy approved the use of the recording devices :Ln the public meetings, the Legislature necessnrily denied the use of such devices in executive sessions. Id. at 650. - Attorney General Opinion M-180andZamorav. EdgewoodIndependent School District support the proposition that the Open Meetings Act includes uo implied right to tape-record meetings. Any such right mustbe based onexpress legislative authorization. These authorities also support the conclusior. that the Open Meetings Act does not lmpliedly permit amemberof the public to videotape public meetings. The 1973 addition of scmtion 2(i) to the act expressly granted membersof the public the right to record meetings by ameansof sonic reproduction. The dictionary, defines “sonic” as follows: “utilizing, produced by, or relating t13sound waves.” Webster’s Third Nev International Dictionary 2173361). (Emphasis added). This provision does not give mevimra of the public a right to videotape meetings. In the absence of :%specific provision permitting amember of the public to record its meetings by videotape, the comuissloners court mayprevent the videotqing of its meetings held pursuant to the Open Meetings Act. (1973). See gt,nerally Attorney Generals Opinion R-188

The commissioners 

### ctxrtrtmayallov 

### its public meetings to be videotaped, but the OpenHee,c:LngsAct does not entitle membersof the public to videotape the meetj.n.gsover the objections of the court.

p. 1603Honorable TimR. Taylor - Page!3 (JM-351)

jiU MMAR Y Article 6252-17, V.T.C.S.. the Texas Open Meetings Act, does not require the commissioners court of Titus County to allow videotaping of its meetings.

JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas TOMGREEN First Assistant Attorney General DAVIDR. RICBARDS Executive Assistant Attorney &neral ROBERT

GRAY Special Assistant Attorney Gewral RICRGILPIN Chairman. Opinion Committee Prepared by Susan Garrison Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINIONCOMMITTEE Rick Gllpin, Chairman JonBible Colin Carl Susan Garrison TonyGuillory JimMoellinger Jennifer Riggs Nancy Sutton Sarah Woelk Bruce Youngblood

p. 1604