JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General ” 

Supreme Court Building 

P. 0. BOX 12546 

Austin, TX. 76711. 2546 

512/475-2501 

Telex 9101674-1367 

Telecopier 5121475-0266 

714 Jackson, Suite 700 

Dallas, TX. 75202.4508 

2141742.6944 

4024 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 

El Paso, TX. 76005-2793 

9151533.3464 

- 

Jl Texas, Suite 700 

Hwsto”, TX. 77002-3111 

713223.5686 

806 Broadway, Suite 312 

Lubbock, TX. 79401-3479 

6061747-5236 

4309 N. Tenth, Suite B 

McAllen, TX. 76501-1685 

512/662-4547 

200 Main Plaza, Suite 400 

San A”t,,“lq TX. 762052797 

51212254191 

An Equal OpportunityI 

Alflrmatlve Action Employer 

The Attorney General of Texas 

December 30. 1983 

Mr; Robert J. Provan 

General Counsel 

Opinion No. JM-116 

Stephen F. Austin State University 

Nacogdoches, Texas 75962 

Re: Whether the Gulf Star 

Conference is subject to the 

Open Meetings and Open Records 

Acts 

Dear Mr. Provan: 

You have informed us that Stephen F. Austin State University and 

five other universities are "engaged in the organization and 

establishment' of a new intercollegiate athletic conference to be 

called the Gulf Star Conference." The proposed constitution of this 

conference states that one of tbe two' general purposes of the 

conference is: 

Fou:,'have 

[~t]o form and maintain among universities of 

approximately the same size and comparable 

,educatidnal programs an athletic conference, the 

members of which shall incorporate intercollegiate 

athletics within their respective educational 

programs and shall place and maintain such 

athletics under the same administrative and 

academic'control as that which obtains in their 

other educational programs. 

asked whether this conference will be subject to the Open 

Meetings Act, article 6252-17. V.T.C.S., and to the Open Records Act, 

article 6252-17a. V.T.C.S. 

Both acts apply to "governmental bodies." Section l(c) of the 

open Meetings Act defines a "governmental body" as: 

any board. commission, department, committee, or 

age~ncy within the executive or legi@.ative 

department of the state, which is under' the 

direction of one or more elected or appointed 

members; and every Commissioners Court and city 

council in the state, and every deliberative body 

having rule-making or quasi-judicial power and 

classified as a department, agency, or political 

subdivision of a county or city; and the board of 

trustees of every school district, and every 

p. 489 
Mr. Robert J. Provan - Page 2 (JM-116) 

county board of school trustees and county board 

of education; and the governing board of every 

special district heretofore or hereafter created 

by law. 

Section 2(l) of the Open Records Act defines a "governmental body" as: 

(A) any board, comtaission, department, 

committee. institution, agency, or office within 

the executive or legislative branch of the state 

government, or which is created by either the 

executive or legislative branch of the state 

government, and which is under the direction of 

one or more elected or appointed members; 

(B) the commissioners court of each county and 

the city couucil or governing body of each city in 

the state; 

(C) every deliberative body having rulemaking 

or quasi-judicial power and classified as a 

department, agency, ox political subdivision of a 

county or city; 

(D) the board of trustees of every school 

district, and every county board of school 

trustees and county board of education; 

(E) the governing board of every special 

district; 

(P) the part, section. or portion of every 

organization, corporation, comisslon. committee, 

institution, or agency which is supported in whole 

or in part by public funds, or which expends 

public funds. Public funds as used herein shall 

mean funds of the State of Texas or any 

governmental subdivision thereof; 

(G) the Judiciary is not included within this 

definition. 

The conference will be a voluntary association of SiX 

iustitutions, three of which are in Louisiana. It is therefore not 

"within the executive or legislative department of the state." Thus, 

the only provision in the definition of "governmental body" contained 

in the Open Meetings Act that could conceivably apply to the 

conference is inapplicable. We therefore conclude that the proposed 

conference will not be subject to this act. ? 

p. 490 
i 

Mr. Robert J. Provan - Page 3 (.D+116) 

On the other hand, we conclude that the conference will be 

subject to the Open Records Act. You have informed us that each 

member university will pay an initial membership fee of $20,000 and 

then will pay $10,000 to the conference each year thereafter. Under 

section 2(l) of the Open Records Act, "governmental body" includes 

"the part, section, or portion of every organization . . . which is 

supported in whole or in part by public funds, or which expends public 

funds." Two prior Open Records Decisions have construed this 

provision. Open Records Decision No. 228 (1979) concluded that the 

North Texas Commission, "a private, nonprofit corporation chartered 

for the purpose of promoting the interests of the Dallas-Fort Worth 

metropolitan area," is a "governmental body" under this provision. 

The decision stated as follows: 

Under a sample contract submitted by the 

Commission, the City of Fort Worth was obligated 

to pay the Commission $80,000 a year for three 

years. The Cormnission also receives funds from 

several other units of government . . . [W]e have 

examined the contract in question here, and we do 

not believe it imposes a specific and definite 

obligation on the Commission to provide a 

measurable amount of service in exchange for s 

certain amount of money as would be expected in a 

typical arms-length contract for services between 

a vendor and purchaser. Specifically, one 

provision of the contract purports to obligate the 

Commission to: 

(e) Continue its current successful 

programs and implement such new and innovative 

programs as will further its corporate 

objectives and common City's interests and 

activities. 

Even if all other parts of the contract were found 

to represent a strictly arms-length transaction, 

we believe that this provision places the various 

governmental bodies which have entered into the 

contract in the position of 'supporting' the 

operation of the Commission with public funds 

within the meaning of section Z(l)(F) . . . . We 

are holding . . . that these records of the North 

Texas Commission are public under the Open Records 

Act since it receives funds from serveral public 

entities and has entered into contracts with these 

entities which result in at least a portion of the 

public funds paid to the Commission being used for 

the general support of the Connnission rather than 

being attributable to specific payment for 

specific measurable services. 

p. 491 
Mr. Robert J. Provan - Page 4 (JR-116) 

Relying upon Open Records Decision No. 228, Open Records Decision No. 

302 (1982) held that the Brasos County Industrial Foundation is also a 

"governmental body." This decision held that the Foundation was 

"similar in many respects to the North Texas Connnission." In 1980, it 

received an unrestricted grant of $48,000 from the city of Bryan. The 

decision stated that: 

Open Records Decision No. 228 (1979) held that the 

phrase 'supported in whole or in part by public 

funds' refers to any agreement between a political 

subdivision and any 'organisation, corporation, 

cowwission, cosimittee, institution, or agency' 

which transfers public funds from the political 

subdivision to such entity, but fails to '[impose] 

a specific and definite obligation on the [entity] 

to provide a measurable amount of service in 

exchange for a certain amount of money as would be 

expected in a typical arms-length contract for 

services between a vendor and purchaser.' This 

agreement failed to provide adequate consideration 

flowing to the political subdivision, and the 

public funds passing to such entity. although in 

the possession of private, hands, retained their 

character as public funds. 

We believe that the present situation is virtually identical to 

the situations with which these two decisions dealt. In our view, the 

member universities must be deemed to be in the position of 

"supporting" the athletic conference with public funds, because the 

funds that they will pay to the conference will be used for its 

"general support . . . rather than being attributable to specific 

payment for specific measurable services." Open Records Decision No. 

228 (1979). Because the conference will be "supported . . . in part 

by public funds," it will be a "governmental body" subject to the Open 

Records Act. 

SUMMARY 

The proposed Gulf Star Conference will not be 

subject to the Open Meetings Act, article 6252-17, 

V.T.C.S.. but will be subject to the Open Records 

Act, article 6252-17a. V.T.C.S. I 

Attorney General of Texas ' 

p. 492 
“. 

Mr. Robert J. Provan - Page 5 (~~-116) 

TOM GREEN 

First Assistant Attorney General 

DAVID R. RICHARDS 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by Jon Bible 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Rick Gilpin, Chairman 

Jon Bible 

Colin Carl 

Susan Garrison 

Jim Moellinger 

Nancy Sutton 

p. 493