October 11, 1974
. .

The Honorable William T. Keenan Executive Director Opinion No. H- 419 Office oftha Govemor’r Committee on**Aging** Box 12786. Capitol Station Austin, Texas 70711 Re: Validity **of** Committee meeting under epan Meetings **Act,** Article 62S2-17, V. T. C.S.

Dear 14r. **Keenut:**

You have asked whether the Governor’s Committee onAging complied with the requirements of the Open Meetinga Law, Art. 6252-17, V. T. C.S., under the circumstances set out below.

The Committee onAging is directed by a nine member board appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent ofthe Senate,Art. 694k, V. T. C.S., and aa such is a governmental body within the scope of the Open Meetings Law, Art. 6252-17, $1(c), V. T. C.S.

On December 14, 1973. the Committee onAging filed notice with the **Secretary** ofState **for** a Committee meeting to be held 3days later, stating as its subject: “Regular **Meeting.** ” 

### At the meeting **on** December 17, 1973, the Committee authorized the selection of a staff “grant review committee” led by the Committee’s Executive Director and the Board Chairman toact at a formal seesion on the Committee’s behalf@ encumber any federal funds which might become available prior tothe year’s end. Itwas further resolved that a telephone poll would be taken of all members ofthe Governor’s Committee onAging for the purpose ofapproving any grant review committee actbn.

The federal Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare notified the Committee onAging on December 27, 1973. ofthe availability of additional funds subject totheir being obligated by the last day ofthe month. The next

p. 1952/ -~

i The Honorable William T. Keenan page 2 (H-4191



# 1 /‘; I daytheExecutive Director, the Chairman ofthe Board, and the grant

review committee met and did, in fact, act to encumber 

### thefederal monies, and atelephone poll was subsequently conducted. Thir 

### formal meeting was without notice ofany kind tothe public althou& one news reporter war present.

Subrequently at a regular meeting 

### ofthe Committee a motion was passed to ratify the actions taken by the 

### grant review committee **on** the preceding December 28. Although notice was given for this committee meeting, 

### there was no ipecific indication in

### thenoticethattheBoard would seek to ratify the prior acts of the grant review cornmitt&. In order to

### cure this defect the Committee posted notice for another meeting which would include consideration of ratification of theactions of prior meetings which were all identified by date only. At the meeting a motion 

### wanadopted toratify the a&oar of

### theprior 

### meetinga.

It is our conclusion that up:to and including this meeting the actions of the Committee relating tothe tncunibrancs: ofthefederal funds did not fulfill the rubjeot-matter notice provision of $,3(A) (a) ofthe Open Meetinga **kW.** Notice that the subject-matter ofa meeting will be ati Commitee’s “regular meeting” **or** thit the Committee intends to “ratify acti& **of** December 17, 1973meeting ” does not appri se the public, even in general terms, **of** what is to be discussed, or ratified. The expressed intention ofthe requirement of s3A ofArt. 6252-17, V. T. C.S., that 72

### hour0 notice be given ofa meeting, is not only to let the public know ofthe meeting but also toadvise ofthe subject matter. Subsection 

### 3A(a) provider:

Written notice ofthe date, hour, place, and rublect **of** each meeting held by a governmental body shall begiven before the meeting as prescribed by this section. (Emphasis added) Thir Office stated inAttorney General Opinion M-494 (1969):

The notice should specifically set out any special or unusual matters to be considered or any matter in which the public 

### has **a** 

### particular interest, aewell ae general

p. 1953The Honorable William T. Keenan page 3 (H-419)

statements concerning routine matters. Of courre. an itemized agenda of all matters tobe considered would be in strict compliance with the mandate of Section 3(A) (a) ofthe Act. Failure to substantially comply with the Open Meetings Law makes an otherwise valid action taken at a meeting of a governmental body voidable. Tovah Independent School District v. Pccos-Barstow Independent School District. 466 S.W. 2d 377. 380 (Tex. Civ. App., San Antonio, 1971, no writ). Consequently, action taken by the Commitee without adequate notice under the Open Records Act was voidable. Even though a governmental body “may effectively ratify what it could theretofore have lawfully authorized in the first piace, ” Faurettv. King, 470 S.W. td 770, 773 (Tex. Civ. App., El Paso, 1971, nowrit). we are unable to conclude that notice that the Committee intended to ratify actions taken at prior meetings, without specifying nhataction. would be sufficient notice to the public that the actions ofthe Committee encumbering federa) funds would be one subject ofthe meeting.

In order tobe 

### sure that the prior actions were properly ratified, the Committee posted a more detailed notice for its meeting ofAugust 30, 1974. That notice included an item two stating: Ratification ofAction ofthe grant review committee of December 28,1973 encumbering Federal Funds, as follows

Grants recommended for approval subject to polling the Board:

United Action for the Elderly. Inc. - Mobile Meals, Austin - $45,265.00. San Antonio Nutritional Day Care Project for the Elderly, SanAntonio - $17,270. City ofAbilcne Nutrition Progrdm for the -Aging - $182,717. DO. Approval of use ofstatt. funds as matching in Senior Community S<rrvic.*.tl, Corpus Christi.

p. 1954The Honorable William T. Keenan page 4 (H-419)

. Thir notice did specify what actions were sought tobe taken and which matter8 were intended~ to be ratified. Consequently,~ the notice for the August 30, 1974meeting was in conformity with the Open Meeting8 Law. Aa ouch, the prior actions ofthe Committee encumbering federal funds, were validated when ratified onAugust 30. 1974. Faurett v. King. aupra. SUMMARY Notice that **a** meeting of **a** governmental body ir to be a regular meeting br that it ia to ratify action taken at another meeting, without lieting specific matter8 to be considered ia not sufficient notice to meet the requirementa ofthe Open Meeting6 Law, Article 6252-17. V. T. C.S. Very truly yours.

Attorney General **of** Texar

LARfiy F> YORK Firat Asa etant 

# c --. 3fskx&iL

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman Opinion **Committee** 

## lg

p. 1955