OF TEXAS 

AUFWX-IN. TEXAS 78711 

April 28, 1975 

The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson 

Chairperson, Labor Committee 

House of Representatives 

P. 0. Box 2910 

Aystin, Texas 78767 

Opinion No. H- 594 

Re: Effect of a commissioners 

court’s failure to ratify action 

of a prior commissioners court 

creating a civil service system 

when it is alleged that the original 

action was taken in a proceeding 

which violated the Open Meetings 

Act. 

Dear Representative Johnson: 

You have requested our opinion regarding the effect of a 

commirsionerr court’s failure to ratify a prior commissioners court 

action that created a county civil service, when it is alleged that the 

original action was taken in a proceeding that violated the Open Meetings Act. 

You state that the Tarrant County Commissioners Court adopted 

the provisions of the County Civil Service Act, article 237211-6, V. T. C. S., 

thereby creating a civil service system in Tarrant County. See Green v. 

Stewart, 516 S. W. 2d 133 (Tex. Sup. 1974). A subsequently elected Commissioners Court was advised that prior proceedings of the Court had not 

been held in strict compliance with the terms of the Open Meetings Act, 

article 6252-17, V. T. C. S. It voted to validate all prior proceedings of 

the Court since 1971, and to except from such validation the proceedings 

at which county civil service had been adopted. Following such action, 

the Court pronounced civil service to be no longer in effect in Tarrant 

County,. The alleged defe,ct in the earlier meetings involved the posting 

of notice, and we have been informed that there is a dispute regarding the 

facts. 

Although the Open Meetings Act does not explicitly provide for 

invalidation of actions taken in violation of its requirements, three court 

decisions since 1971 have recognized that: 

p. 2645 
The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson, page 2 (H-594) 

[t]he terms of article 6252-17 are mandatory so 

as to require at least substantial compliance with 

its provisions in order to uphold proceedings to 

which the statute is applicable. Lipscomb Independent,School District v. County School Trustees 

of Lipscomb County, 498 S. W. 2d 364, 366 (Tex. 

Civ. App. --Amarillo 1973, writ ref’d., n. r. e. ). 

See also Hall v. Thomas, 474 S. W. 2d 276 (Tex. Civ. App. --Texarkana 

1971, writ diam’d.‘); Torah Indeuendent School District v. Pecos-Barstow 

Indeuendent School District, 466 S. W:2d 377 (Tex. Civ. App. --San Antonio 

1971, no writ). Since an entity to which the Act applies is authorized by 

its terms “to act only at a meeting which [is] open to the public, ” then 

“[it] is an anomaly to say that a meeting, the holding of which is forbidden 

by law, is a legal meeting. ” Togh, supra at 380. Action taken at a meeting 

which is not held in compliance with the Gpen Meetings Law has been held 

to be voidable. Tovah, sunra. Attorney General Opinions H-419 (1974); M-494 

(1969). Also see, La 

18 Tex.Sup. Ct. Journal No. 11, p1 125 (Dec. 11, 1974). 

The cases suggest that compliance with the provisions of the Act 

need be only “substantial. I’ m, s- at 380. The question of 

substantial~mmpliance, which necessarily involves determinations of fact, 

must be resolved eventually “in subsequent court proceedings initiated 

by persons adversely affected by such action. ‘I B, ..‘itip’,r’%. a-t: p’. : 3 7 8. 

In each of the three decisions we have mentioned, the validity of the proceeding had been challenged by an aggrieved party in an original court action. 

In the present instance, however, the Commissioners Court itself 

purported to render its.prior action void merely by failing to ratify it. We 

do not believe that such action was sufficient to abolish civil service in 

Tarrant County, in the absence of an adversary proceeding initiated by an 

aggrieved party. If such a proceeding ensues,. the factual issue of “substantial 

compliance” with the terms of the Open Meetings Act can be appropriately 

resolved. 

p. 2646 
The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson page 3 (H- 594) 

SUMMARY 

A commissioners court’s mere refusal to 

ratify a prior action allegedly taken fin violation 

of the Open Meetings Act does not in and, of 

itself have the effect of invalidating the prior 

action. Such invalidation can finally occur only 

after a finding of a lack of substantial compliance 

with the provisions of the Open Meetings Act 

arising from an adversary proceeding initiated 

by an aggrieved party. 

Very 

A 

truly yours; 

// Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

n 

V 

hQ-av-w& 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

Opinion Committee 

p. 2647