**JIM MATTOX**  **Attorney General** 
**supramf**

**CaNl sulMing**  P. 0. Box 12548 **Austin, TX.**  **73711-**

**2543 5121475-2501**  **Telex 91w374.1367**  **T.fleoOplar**

**512/47502e8**

**714 Jeakson.** 

**Suite 700**  **~Tx.75202-4508 21u742-3244** 

**moi T-,**  **sun0 700**  **NaJston,**

**lx. 77002-3111**  **713n23a36**

**306 Sad&y.**  **Suite 312**  **f&e&4, TX.**  **79401-3479 2cw747623a** 

**4309 N.**  **Tenth, Suite**  **B McAlffm-8.** 

**TX. 75501-1535**  **5126824347**

200 Yahl Plaza, sune 400 **San Anton&.**  **TX. 732052727**  **51212254181**

**An Equal**  **Opportunltyl** Afffmmtlve ActIon Employee 

## The Attorney General of Texas
July 11. 1985

Mr. Jim Boyle Public Counsel opinion lb. JM-331 Office of PublicUt!.llty Counse$ 8140 Mopac,Westparl: III Suite 120 Amtin, Texas 787!8 l&Z: Whether the citizensadvisory panel of the Office of public Utility Counsel is subject to the Open Meetings**Act,** articles

6252-~~,P.T.c.s.
Dear Mr. Boyle:
In your requestletter you stated: The.Office

of PublicUtilityC-e1 was eatab- +lied'~in !;eptember 1983 by'the Texas Legislature Urtlcle.l.4A6c:~Section lS[A] and [article 1446~1, * section 9.07,~Vernon'a Texas Civil .Statutea) to representuhe interestsof residential and small commercial.

utility customers in Texas. In June 1984 :the clfflce

establisheda citiaens advisory panel to.provide adoice and 'suggestions to the pubtic cckael. on-the ~concerps .of resider&la1 utility (xmtomars. ~, The comnittee Is advisory .oalY S haf no statutory or official duties and receives no camp-tion or reimbursement for expenses. I am writing to inquire about whether meetingsk:Fthis ccmadtteeare subject to public notice requirements.
**&I Attorney**  **General 0pinion**  **H-772** '(1976). this office said that before the [Open Heetlngs Act, article 6252-17. V.T.C.S.] :La

applicable

to a meeting of a atatetide publk body, five .prerequi&tes must be met. Theae~ are:: (1) The body must be an entity **with&the** executive

or legtslative

department

of the state; (2) The entity must be under the control of one or mo?re

electedor appointed members; (3) Tlw meetingmust involve formal action or deliberat:ltm

betweena quorumof members. Compare

p. 1515Hr. Jim Boyle - Page 2 (JM-331)

Attorney General opinions E-238 (1974) and E-3 (1973) holding that meetings of committees consistingof leas than a quorum of the parent body must be open; (4) The discussion or action must involve publicbusiness

or publicpolicy;

and (5) The entity must have supervision or controlover that public businessor policy. The first four of these criteria are probably satisfiedin this instance. Even if this is so, however, we conclude,

on the strength of the facts that you have furnished, that the fifth criterion is not met here. Accordingly, we ;msveryour questionin the negative: Attorney General Gpinion E-772 dealt, Inter alla, with the question of whether meetings of the Texas Tech University **Athletic** Council are subject to the act. In the course of answering this question

with a qualified

%o," the opinionsaid: [Bloth the structure. of the. Council and the resolution grantlug it powers indicate that the Texaa Tech Athletic Council is an-advisorybody ,and has no paver, actual or implied;to superPiae or control public business. **Attorney** Compare General OpinionH-438 (1974), where the structure .of a similar

body and all~briefa submitted

to the **Attorkey** Generals

on-behalf

of thatbody Indicated that it **axerciried** supervisory aathority over public business or' policy. We Cannot resolve disputed questions of fact, and we necessarily have relied on the facts presented by the IJaiveraity. According to those. facts, the 'meetings'

of the Texas Tech AthleticCouncil do not meet the definition of that term set out in the Open MeetingsAct, and its proceedings would not be required ':o be held in conformity with the dictates

of thatAct. Bowever.we strongly caution that should the Councilactually

function

as something

more than a mere3.y

advjsory

body with the result that it in fact supervisesor controls public business or policy, it would have to comply**with the**  mandate of the Qpen MeetJngsAct regarding public **notice** and open meetkgs. and **in** that **instance.** its members may be subject to **sanctions** imposed for failureto compl:r

with the Act.

p. 1516- .
Mr. Jim Boyle - Page 3 (J&331)

We take the sawe approasch ere. The facts at hand indicatethat this citizensadvisory panol "is an advisory body and has no power, actual or implied, to supemise or control public business." Id. Therefore,

its meetingsare 'not subjectto the Open Meetings Act.We caution, however, that "should the [panel] actually fuuction as something

wore than a werely advisory body with the result that it in fact supervises

or controlr;

publicbusinessor policy, It would have to comply

with" the act. Axoruey General Opinion

E-772 (1976). SUMMARY Under the fa'xs provided, meetings of the citizens

advisory

panel appointed

by the Officeof Public Utility Counsel, article 1446c, section 15A. V.T.C.S., are not subject to the Open = **Meetings** Act, article6252-17, V.T.C.S.

JIM MATTOX Attorney

Generalof Texas TOMGREEN FirstAssistant

Attorney

GenIesal
DAVID R. REWARDS Executive

Assistant

Attorney

General ROBRRTGRAY Special

Assistant

AttorneyGeneral RICK GILPIW Chairman,

OpinionCowmittee Prepared

by Jon Bible Assistant

**Attorney** General APPROVED: OPINIONCOMWITTEE Rick Gilpin.Chairman Jon Bible Colin Carl SusanGarrison Tony Guilloty Jim Hoelliuger Jennifer

Riggs Nancy Sutton BruceYoungblood

p. 1517