JIM MAnOX 

Attorney Cienerrl 

suprem cowl 8ulldlng 

p. 0.60x 12548 

AUSllh T-x. IQll- 2na 

512147,2501 

trl.1 9lw57l1x7 

Tslecopisr 5W475-0255 

714 Jackron. Sultr 100 

Dslkr. TX. 752Q245w 

214l7426944 , 

4824 Albwts An.. Suile 160 

El Paso. lx. 7vw52793 

915f%..33yor 

c-1; 

LOI Trxrr. Suiie 700 

wous1on. TX. 77002.3111 

7lY2235555 

ace 9irordrsy. SUIIS 312 

LubBcch. lx. 79ull.3479 

boM47.5235 

43W N. lenlk Sulls 8 

YcAnM, lx 75%1.1595 

512se2454 

200 Main Plaza. Sultc 400 

San Anlmlo. TX. 75205.2797 

512J2254191 

The Attorney General of Texas 

Dewmber 13, 1984 

Mr. Clayton T. Carrinon 

Executive Director 

Rmployece Rttircmewt System 

of Texar 

P. 0. Box 13207 

Austin, Texas. 79711 

Opiulon No. .11i-2&8 

Re: Whether members of a public 

body ary meet to receive informtton end l sk questions vithout 

violating the Open Reetlags Act, 

l rticlt 6252-17, V.I.C.S. 

Dear klr. Garrison: 

You have requested our opinion regarding vhether members of a 

governing body msy meet without complying with the Opeu Meetlugs Act 

to receive lnforsatlon and to ask question& You indiutt that the 

board of trustees of the Dmployttr Retirement System find6 it 

necessary occ~8ic~nally to meet vltb particular lndividwls to be 

informed about spw:lfLc Patters over which the board her jurisdiction. 

On these occasiour~, the boerd mtmbtrs usually ask questions of the 

individual provitll.np ioformetlon. Tou ask whether the board asi 

conduct such meetings vithout opening them to the general public. 

-nee t ing” Is defined in section l(a) of article 6252-17. 

V.T.C.S.) the Open Meetiligs Act. eo 

eny deliberetion between l quorum of member8 of a 

governsental body at which any public buslntsr or 

public policy over uhfeh the Rovernmentel body his 

aupervjsioo or control io discursed or considered. 

or at which my formal action is tsken. 

In The Pea Picker, Inc. v. Reagan. 632 S.U.2d 674 (Tu. App. - Tyler 

1982. wit rcf’d u.r.e.1. the court considered whether l meeting held 

by the Rcnderacn Couury Comolssloncra Court for the purpose of 

“hewing reporta from agents end cmployecr” ua6 l “meeting” ulthfn the 

tenss of article 6252-17. V.T.C.S. The trial court, la granting the 

county’s motfon for nuxuary judgment. found that the meeting in 

qucetioa var Ilot . “mce t ing” under the statute because no 

“dcliberntion” had occurred. “Deliberation” 18 defined In section 

l(b) of the act pi; 

p. 1110 
l verbal exchengt bttvew t quorum of aambbrs of l 

g o ver nmenr ~l body ttrempting fo arrive at t 

dtcirioa on my public bwlaets. 

The tppellatt court concluded that sumary judgmeaf vex Improper 

because l feet Issue existed as (,a~ whether dtllber~tion had fo fact 

occurred during he ntetlog in queritlw. The appellate court did not, 

however. question chr trial court’s conclusion rbac a “mtetlng” for 

purpotte of article 6252-17 occurs only vhert there it “dtllberttioo.” 

Lt., *a verbal txchaoge betvttn t quorum of umbtr8.” 

We tgrto with rhe rdal coum’s coosrructtoa of l rrlcle 6252-17 

in Tbe Pu Plcknr, Inc. v. Reagan, w IO our opinloo, l weting 

It a “outlog” at dtfloed by ttc:::too l(a) of that statum ooly in 

thou luscanctt in vhfch a “verbtl exchange” occurs between or among a 

quonm of rabtrt of a govtruneotal body. If the board members merely 

Sirceo to l od ask questions of am. individual providing lnfomtloa. 

and no dircusalon talcs phct between board msmbern, there it no 

“dellbtrrcion” end beoct oo “mtttlng” for purponen of artlclo 62.52-17. 

In such fnotaoceo. ehe board may cowtoe without l dr ittlnthe g general 

public. We conclude that members of l governante body mey noC 

vlthout coaplylng vlth tbt Open Mcwtlngr Act to receive loformation 

and to ask qutsriona. l o long as no dlocussioo of public butloets 

takes place betutto umber& Set ACtormy General Opinion g-785 

(1976). But cf. art. 6252-17. ee=caoe 3 end 4. We cation, however, 

that chelipttvetn “dellbtraticnw and “non-deliberatloQ it very 

tltin. Therefore. ln order to avcld violating tht wt. whether by 

inadvertence or oLhtzwlst, a govtrnneotel body should err on the side 

of uutiot In determining whether to open to the public t convocation 

like the OIU described here. 

I 

S’U M II A R T 

--- 

Tkt here of l govtrwsotal body uy meet to 

receive inforastlon god to ttk questions, without 

violeriag trtlclt 6252-17, V.T.C.S., M long as no 

discussion of gubllc business take. place between 

hers during such mttHc.g. 

very truly your 

.1’ A &I 

, 

TOI4 GREEN 

First Aseistsot Attorney General 

I-- J I I4 MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texar 

p. 1111 
nt. Clayton T. Cnrrison - Pqc 3 (J?I-248) 

DAVID R. RICHARDS 

Exacutivc Amlstmt Attotmy General 

RlCK CILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Comlttu 

Prepared by Rick Gilpin 

hristaat Attorney General. 

APPROVED: 

OPINION CO!WlTEE 

Rick Gilpin, Chairman 

Colin Carl 

Suua Carriaon 

Tony cu1110ry 

JL Moellinger 

Jennifer Rig(la 

Nancy Sutton