ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

GREG ABBOTT 

October 30,2006 

The Honorable Allan Ritter 

Chair, Committee on Economic Development 

Texas House of Representatives 

Post Office Box 2910 

Austin, Texas 78768-2910 

Opinion No. GA-0477 

Re: Whether the ‘Open Meetings Act 

requires specific notice of a non-binding 

vote on a “personal endorsement” motion 

(RQ-0477-GA) 

Dear Representative Ritter: 

You ask about the notice required by the Open Meetings Act, Government Code chapter 551 

(the “Act”). See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. $5 551.001-,146 (Vernon 2004 & Supp. 2006). You first 

ask whether “a non-binding vote on a ceremonial ‘personal endorsement’ motion taken during the 

operrsession of a City Council meeting [must] be specifically noticed at least seventy-two hours 

prior to the meeting in order to fully comply with the . Act.“’ A letter from the city’s mayor states 

that the posted notice for the city council meeting listed “Discussion and Possible Action on Mayor’s 

Report.“’ At the meeting, the mayor announced that he had appointed a committee to investigate 

the disclosure of city banking information. See Hill Letter, supra note 2, at 1. After the 

announcement, a city council member offered a personal endorsement motion in support of the 

mayor’s action, which was approved by the city council. See id. It has been suggested that adoption 

of the motion violated the Act because’it was not specifically mentioned in the posted notice. Id 

The Act requires a governmental body to “give written notice of the date, hour, place, and 

subject of each meeting held by the governmental body.” TFX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 5 551.041 

(Vernon 2004). A local governmental body such as a city council must generally post the notice at 

least seventy-two hours before the scheduled time of the meeting. See id. § 55 1.043(a) (Vernon 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Supp.-2006) -Noticeis~adequatewhen-it-alertsa-reader-~b~~ considered-relative~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~

to a topic. See Cox Enters., Inc. Y. Bd. of Trs., 706 S.W.Zd 956,958 (Tex. 1986). And “[a]s long 

as a reader is alerted to the topic for consideration, it is not necessary to state [in the notice] all of 

the consequences which may flow from consideration of the topic.” Id.; see also Rettberg v. Tex. 

‘Letter from Honorable Allan Ritter, Chair, Committee on Economic Development, Texas l&use of 

Representatives, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas (Apr. 10, 2006) (on file with the Opinion 

Committee, also avaihble nf www.oag.state.tx.us) [hereinafier Request Letter]. 

‘Letter from Honorable Roy W. Hill, Mayor, City of Fairfield, to Honorable Byron Cook, Texas House of 

Representatives, at 1 (Feb. 22, 2006) (on file with the Opinion Committee) [hereinafter Hill Letter]: 
The Honorable Allan Ritter - Page 2 (GA-0477) 

Dep’t. ofHealth, 873 S.W.2d 408,411 (Tex. App.-Austin 1994, no writ) (“The fact that possible 

consequences [of discussion and evaluation of the board’s executive secretary’s duties] might 

include a change in job description, a raise in salary or even termination does not invalidate the 

action taken if the . . notice was sufficient to alert the reader of the topic under consideration.“). 

To determine if the notice adequately informs the public ofthe topic under consideration, a court will 

compare the content of the notice given and the action taken at the meeting. See Markowski v. City 

ofMarlin, 940 S.W.2d 720,726 (Tex. App.-Waco 1997, pet. denied). As part of that analysis, a 

court may consider the established notice-posting customs and practices ofthe governmental body. 

See RiverRd. NeighborhoodAss’nv. S. Tex. Sports, 720 S.W.2d551,557(Tex.App.-SanAntonio 

1986, writ dism’d) (holding that notice stating “discussion” did not alertthe public that action would 

be taken, in light of district’s well-established practice of stating “discussion/action” when action 

was contemplated and merely “discussion” when no action was taken). The notice must be more 

specific or detailed when the subject considered is of special or significant interest to the public. See 

Markowski, 940 S.W.2d at 726; Rettberg, 873 S.W.2d at 411. Whether the topic is of special or 

significant interest to the city residents is a question of fact. See Gardner v. Herring, 21 S.W;3d 767, 

773-74 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2000, no pet.). But “irrespective of whether the topic is of special 

or no interest, the Act still requires the governing body to make ‘full disclosure of the subject matter 

of the meetings.“’ Id. at 773. 

Turning back to your question, a notice ofthe city council meeting must alert the public that 

some action will be considered with respect to the topic of the personal endorsement motion. See 

Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 958; Gardner, 21 S.W.3d at 773. As long as the notice alerts the 

public of the topic, the Act permits the notice to specifically state that a personal endorsement 

motion or resolution will be considered for adoption or vote but doesnot require the notice to do so 

unless the city’s meeting notices routinely indicate when amotion or resolution will be adopted. See 

Cox Enters., Inc., 706 S.W.2d at 958; River Rd. NeighborhoodAss’n, 720 S.W.2d at 557; see also 

City of San Angelo v. Tex. Natural Rex Conservation Comm’n, 92 S.W.3d 624, 630 (Tex. 

App.-Austin 2002, no pet.) (“We hold . that the Commission did not have to include additional 

language indicating that it might act on issues under consideration.“). The posted notice “Discussion 

and Possible Action on Mayor’s Report” would generally alert the public that the city council may 

vote on such a matter. But whether the posted notice would adequately alert the public of the topic 

of the endorsement-investigation of the disclosure of city banking information as we understand 

it-and whether more specificity was required because of the topic’s significance to the city’s 

residents are questions of fact. See Gardner, 21 S.W.3d at 773-74. The attorney general’s office 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~does-not-determine~~q~i~~s~~~~a~t~i~~~~h~~~i~~~i~~~~r~eess~~ee,~~e~~~~.~e~~~~~~~y~~~~en

GA-0156 (2004) at 10 (stating that fact questions cannot be answered in the opinion process). 

You next ask: “If the City Council, at a subsequent meeting, re-adopts the non-binding, 

,ceremonial ‘personal endorsement,’ after that motion has been specifically set forth on the agenda 

and posted . , does that revote ‘cure’ any [shortcomings] in the prior action]?]” Request Letter, 

supra note 1, at 1. 

A court may void governmental actions taken in violation of the notice requirements of the 

Act. See TEX. GOV’T CODE~ANN. 3 551.141 (Vernon 2004); Swate v. Medina Cm@ Hosp., 966 
The Honorable Allan Ritter - Page 3 (GA-0477) 

S.W.2d 693,697-99 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1998, pet. denied). But such an invalid action can 

be ratified at a later, validly noticed meeting as long as there is no retroactive effect. Markowski, 940 

S.W:2d at 726. Accordingly, in the event that the city council’s adoption of the personal 

endorsement motion violated the Act’s notice provisions, the city council may cure the invalid action 

by readopting the motion at a subsequent meeting after giving adequate notice ofthe motion. In such 

an event, the motion would be effective only from the date of its readoption. 
The Honorable Allan Ritter - Page 4 (GA-0477) 

SUMMARY 

To comply with the Open Meetings Act (the “Act”), a city 

must give advance notice that it will consider the topic of a “personal 

endorsement” motion. The city may specifically state in the notice 

that a personal endorsement motion will be considered for adoption 

but is note required by the Act to do so unless the city’s meeting 

notices routinely indicate when a motion or resolution will be 

adopted. If adoptton of the personal endorsement motion was invalid 

because it violated the Act’s notice provisions, the invalid action may 

be cured by readopting the motion at a subsequent meeting after 

giving adequate notice. The motion would be effective only from the 

date of its readoption. 

Very truly yours, 

KENT C. SULLIVAN 

First Assistant Attorney General 

ELLEN L. WITT 

Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel 

NANCY S. FULLER 

Chair, Opinion Committee 

Sheela Rai 

Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee