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 citizens advisory 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 request letter you stated: 

The.Office of Public Utility C-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 

represent uhe interests of residential and small 

commercial. utility customers in Texas. In June 

1984 :the clfflce established a 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 Shaf no statutory or official duties and 

receives no camp-tion or reimbursement for 

expenses. I am writing to inquire about whether 

meetings k:F this ccmadttee are 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 elected or appointed members; 

(3) Tlw meeting must involve formal action or 

deliberat:ltm between a quorum of members. Compare 

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

Attorney General opinions E-238 (1974) and E-3 

(1973) holding that meetings of committees 

consisting of leas than a quorum of the parent 

body must be open; 

(4) The discussion or action must involve 

public business or public policy; and 

(5) The entity must have supervision or 

control over that public business or policy. 

The first four of these criteria are probably satisfied in 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 ;msver your question in 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 opinion said: 

[Bloth the structure. of the. Council and the 

resolution grantlug it powers indicate that the 

Texaa Tech Athletic Council is an-advisory body 

,and has no paver, actual or implied; to superPiae 

or control public business. Compare Attorney 

General Opinion H-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 Athletic Council do 

not meet the definition of that term set out in 

the Open Meetings Act, and its proceedings would 

not be required ':o be held in conformity with the 

dictates of that Act. 

Bowever. we strongly caution that should the 

Council actually function as something more than a 

mere3.y advjsory body with the result that it in 

fact supervises or controls public business or 

policy, it would have to comply with the mandate 

of the Qpen MeetJngs Act regarding public notice 

and open meetkgs. and in that instance. its 

members may be subject to sanctions imposed for 

failure to compl:r with the Act. 

p. 1516 
- . 

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

We take the sawe approaschere. The facts at hand indicate that 

this citizens advisory panol "is an advisory body and has no power, 

actual or implied, to supemise or control public business." Id. 

Therefore, its meetings are 'not subject to 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; public business or 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 Office of 

Public Utility Counsel, article 1446c, section 

15A. V.T.C.S., are not subject to the Open = 

Meetings Act, article 6252-17, V.T.C.S. 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

TOMGREEN 

First Assistant Attorney GenIesal 

DAVID R. REWARDS 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

ROBRRT GRAY 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RICK GILPIW 

Chairman, Opinion Cowmittee 

Prepared by Jon Bible 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMWITTEE 

Rick Gilpin. Chairman 

Jon Bible 

Colin Carl 

Susan Garrison 

Tony Guilloty 

Jim Hoelliuger 

Jennifer Riggs 

Nancy Sutton 

Bruce Youngblood 

p. 1517