JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General 

Supreme Cowl Bulldin 

P. 0. BOX 125d9 

Austin. TX. 7971% 2549 

512,4752501 

Telex 91W57C1357 

Telecopier 51214750255 

714 Jackson. Sulle 7WJ 

Dallas, TX. 75202.4509 

21417428944 

4924 Alberta Ave.. Suite 180 

El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 

915/533-3494 

I Texas. 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 

The Attorney Geneyd of Texas 

SepFember 3,'i985 

! 

Honorable Tim R. Ta:r:Lor 

Titus County Attorney 

P. 0. Box 862 

Mt. Pleasant, Texas 75455 

Opinion No. .JM-351 

Re: Whether a comissioners court 

may bar video cameras from a public 

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. 

The Open I4eetin:gs Act 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 means of sonic reproduction. 

V.T.C.S. art. 6252*-1~7. CZ(1). This provision first appeared in the 

1973 revision of the Open Meetings Act. Acts 1973. 63rd Leg., ch. 31, 

12(i) at 46. The 1967 version of the Open Meetings Act did not 

expressly permit a,%youe to tape-record public meetings. Acts 1967, 

60th Leg., ch. 271 at 597. A 1968 Attorney 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. 62 5:2-17, 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 Zsmora v. Edgewood Independent School District, 

p. 1602 
Honorable Tim R. Taylor - Paglt 2 (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. 

The court stated as follows: i. 

We are 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-180 and Zamora v. Edgewood Independent 

School District support the proposition that the Open Meetings Act 

includes uo implied right to tape-record meetings. Any such right 

must be based on express legislative authorization. These authorities 

also support the conclusior. that the Open Meetings Act does not 

lmpliedly permit a member of the public to videotape public meetings. 

The 1973 addition of scmtion 2(i) to the act expressly granted 

members of the public the right to record meetings by a means of sonic 

reproduction. The dictionary, defines “sonic” as follows: “utilizing, 

produced by, or relating t13 sound waves.” Webster’s Third Nev 

International Dictionary 2 173361). (Emphasis added). This 

provision does not give mevimra of the public a right to videotape 

meetings. In the absence of :% specific provision permitting a member 

of the public to record its meetings by videotape, the comuissloners 

court may prevent the videotqing of its meetings held pursuant to the 

Open Meetings Act. 

(1973). 

See gt,nerally Attorney Generals Opinion R-188 

The commissioners ctxrtrt may allov its public meetings to be 

videotaped, but the Open Hee,c:Lngs Act does not entitle members of the 

public to videotape the meetj.n.gs over the objections of the court. 

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

jiU M M AR 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 

TOM GREEN 

First Assistant Attorney General 

DAVID R. RICBARDS 

Executive Assistant Attorney &neral 

ROBERT GRAY 

Special Assistant Attorney Gewral 

RICR GILPIN 

Chairman. Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Susan Garrison 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Rick Gllpin, Chairman 

Jon Bible 

Colin Carl 

Susan Garrison 

Tony Guillory 

Jim Moellinger 

Jennifer Riggs 

Nancy Sutton 

Sarah Woelk 

Bruce Youngblood 

p. 1604