# The Attorney General of Texas April 14, 1978 JOHNL.HILL AttorneyGeneral

723 Man. sulo $10 +4olJsDn.TX. 770x 7w2zsmol Honorable JohnWtlson

Chairman House Committee onHealth and Welfare State Capitol Austin, Texas 701ll Opinion No.H-1154 Re: Meetings of a county child welfare board.

Dear Mr.Wilson: Youhave requested our opinionconcerning the legality ofcertain closed meetings of the Montgomery County Child Welfare Board. You ask whether the Board may review case files of recipients of or applicants for public assistance without violating article 695c, section 33, V.T.C.S. -Youalso ask whether the Boardmay meet inclosed session to discuss such a case file. Article 695a, section 4, V.T.C.S., provides for the creation of a child welfare board by a county commissioners’ court and states that “it shall perform such duties as may be required of it by the said Commissioners’ Court and the State Department of Public Welfare.

. . .” The contract between the Montgomery County Commissioners’ Court and the Department establishes the following duties for the Board among others:

1)Todevelop M estimated budget andrecommend it to the Commissioners’ Court. 2)To implement the policies of the Commissionem’Court not In conflict with those of the Department. 3)To review and approve expenditures on behalf ofchild welfare. 4)To approve the expenditure of local funds by the staff of the Department for purposes for which the Commissionem’ Court has allocated funds.

p. 4679+4 : :
Honorable John Wilson - Page 2 (R-1154) .

The contract also provides that the Board will have access to all case records subject to applicable state laws concerning confidentiality. Article 595c, section 33,pro*ides inpart:

(1) It shall be unlawful, except for purposes directly connected with the administration ofgeneral assistance, aid to dependent children, or social services programs, and in accordance with the rules and regulations of the State Department, for any person or persons to solicit, disclose, receive, make use of, or to authorize, knowingly permit, participate in, or acquiesce in the use of, any list of, or names of, or any information concerning, persons applying for or receiving such assistance, directly or indirectly derived from the records, papers, files, or communications of the State Department or subdivisionsor agencies thereof, or acquired in the course of the performance of official duties. It would seem beyond question that the review ofcase files by the Board is
“directly connected with the administration of

. . . assistance.” Since the Board’s access to these files is provided ,by a contract with the Department of Public Welfare, in our opinion the review of case files by the Board would not violate article 695c, section 33. Your second question involves the application ofarticle 6252-17,V.T.C.S., the Gpen Meetings Act. Section l(c) thereof defines “governmental body” to include
“every deliberative body having rule-making or quasi-judicial power and classified as a department

. . . of a county.
. . .” Article 995a, section 4, provides that a Commissioners’ Court may appoint “a Child Welfare Board for the county.” The members “hold office during the pleasure of the Commissioners’ Court.” The size of the Board is determined by the Commissionem’ Court. These provisions, in conjunction with those ofthe contract reproduced above, indicate that the Board is a department of the County, notwithstanding the fact that it is also “an entity of the State Department of Public Welfare for the purposes of providing coordinated state and local public welfare services for children and their families

. . .I’ Thus whether the Boardisa “governmental body”within the Open Meetings Act depends upon whether it is a “deliberative body having rule-making or quasi-judicial
~.power. . . .” ln Attorney General Opinion H-467(1974)westated: Rule-making authority is legislative in nature and involves broad policy considerations. (CitatiOtE omitted). An

p. 4690*

.

. a . . I. , * *

. Honorable John Wilson - Page 3 (II-1154)

administrative agency determining the rights ofoneor more parties under a general rule, regulation, ordinance, or statute is exercising a quasi-judicial power. (citations omitted). Weneed not decide whether the approval ofexpenditures wouldbe an exercise ofa quasi-judicial power, for in our view the implementation of policies of the nCommissionem’ Court not in conflict with the State Department of Public Welfare’s policies” involves the exerciae of rule-making authority. Thus in our opinion the Boardis agovernmental bodyunder the Open Meetings Act. Nevertheless, we believe the Board may meet in executive session for the limited purpose of discussing case files where an open meeting would result in a violation of section 33of article 695~. AColorado appellate court was faced with a similar question jnvolving meetings of the Denver Inter-Agency Committee on Child Abuse. The Committee was subject to the provisions ofThe Colorado Public Meetings Law, but another statute prohibited disclosure of the contents of child abuse reports. The court concluded that the committee could meet in executive session to discuss child abuse reports. Gillies v. Schmidt, 556 P.2d 82 (Cola. Ct. App. 1976). It is ourview that Texas law compels the conclusion that such limited closed sessions are not “meetings” within article 6252-17,section l, for the consideration of information made confidential by law does not constitute the discussion of
‘public business.” Attorney General Opinions H-780(19761, H-464(1974). SUMMARY The Montgomery County Child Welfare Board is a governmental body within the meaning of the Open Meetings Act but may meet in closed session for the limited purpose of discussing particular case files of persons receiving or applying forpublic assistance.

Attorney General ofTexas

p. 4681- .

Honorable John Wilson - Page 4 (R-1154)

Opinion Committee

p. 4682