Dr. Charles Lemaistre 

Chancellor 

Opinion Wo. B- 994 

The University of Texam System 

201 West 7th Street, 

Re: Whether committee appointed 

Aumtin, Texas 70701 

by chairxan of Board of Regents 

to study procemm for selecting 

chief administrative officers is 

mubject to the Open Meeting8 Act. 

Dear Dr. Lexafmtrer 

You have amked our opinion on the applicability of the 

Texas Open Meetings Act, article 6252-ll,~'V.T.C.S., to a cornmittee appointed by the Chairman of the Board of Regents. The 

committee, designated the 'Committee to Study the Selection 

Process of Chief Adxinimtrative Officers of the Component Inmtitutionm of The University of Texan Symtem," is campomed of 

three regents, the premidents of three institutions in the Univermity of Texas system, one reprementative from the Ex-Students' 

Amsociation, four faculty memberm, and four mtudentm. The 

Board of Regent0 authorimed the Commmittee to make an extenmive 

mtudy of the process of selecting a chief adminimtrative officer 

and to m&nit itm recommendations to the Board. You advime urn 

that this im an example of numerous comnmitfees emtablimhed in 

the University Symtex., 

The Open Meetings Act applier to every *meeting" of a 

'governmental body" am thome term6 are defined in the Act. 

Section l(c) of the Act provides in parts 

"Governmental body" meana any board, commimmion, department, committee, or. agency 

within the executive or legimlative department of the state, which is unaer the 

. . 

direc,tion of one or more elected or appointed mmmberm. . . . 

section l(a) provides in part1 

“Meeting’ means any deliberation between 

a quorum of menberm of a governmental 

p. 4125 
. . 

. . 

#I - 

P 

. 

Dr. Charles Lemaimtre - page 2 (R-994) 

.- 

body at which any public buminemm or public 

policy over which the governmental body ham 

muPervimion or control is discuamed or considered, or at which any formal action is 

taken. 

The Committee is an entity within the executive branch comPOSed of appointed memberm. See Attorney General Opinions 

H-772 (1976)r R-436 (1974)t Mm6 (1967). It therefore meets 

the statutory definition of governmental body. 

If the Committee meets to discuss "any public business or 

public policy over which [it] ham supervision or control," 

itm meetings will be covered by the Act. In Attorney General 

Opinion R-772 (1976), we determined that the Open Meetings Act 

did not apply to a purely advisory body which had no power to 

mupervime or control public business. In determining whether 

a governmental body ham such power we have looked to the 

resolutions that define itm'powerm , and we have indicated that 

the evidence may show that it exercises additional authority 

am a matter of practice. See Attorney General Opinion R-430 

(1974). The resolution crxing the Committee mtates that it 

ir to make an extensive study of the selection proces8 and 

submit its recommendations to the Board of Regents. ~Thim remolution appears to make the Committee an advisor 

1 

body only, 

without power to supervise or control public bum nemm. We 

have been supplied no facts as to how the Board looks upon 

'the.committee'm recommendations -- whether it accepts them am 

final decisions, or merely consider6 them along with other 

information and opinions. In the absence of facts showing 

. that the Committee is more than an advisory body, we cannot 

may that its meetings are required to be open by the open 

Meetings Act. 

We think~that the presence of three Regents on the fifteenmember committee does not bring it within the provisionm,of the 

open Meetings Act as a committee of the board. Bee Attorney 

General Opinions R-238 (1974); R-3 (1973). Cf. Gn Records 

mcigfon No. 02 (1975) (report by committee rfour Regentm). 

We have determined that committees of boards 8ubject to the 

Act are themselves subject to it , noting the danger that the 

full'board might become the rubber stamp of its committees. 

we think that this danger is diminished in the present came 

by &e appointment of twelve other memberm who might repregent different viewpoint6 within the university system. We 

mtrongly caution, however, that should the council actually 

function am a committee of the Board or aa something more than 

p. 4126 
I 

, 1 

Dr. Charles Lemaimtre - page 3 (H-994) 

an advisory body, and in fact rupervire or control public buminem8 or policy, it will have to comply withthe Act’8 provirionm 

on notice and public meetings. In that instance, it8 mambmrm 

MY be subject to sanctions imposed for failure to comply with 

the Act. V.T.C.S. art. 6252-17, 6 4s Attorney General Opinion 

H-772 (1976). 

.SUMMARY 

The'Committee to Study the Selection 

Procerm of Chief Adminimtrative Officer8 

of Component Inmtitution8 of.The Univer8ity of Texam~System" appointed by the 

Chairman of the Board of Regents 18 not 

required to comply with the Open Meetings 

Act, ad long as it has no rup,ervision 

or control over public burine8r or policy, 

however, the factr may be much that the 

Committee will be brought within the 

coverage of the Act. 

. 

Opinion Commnittee 

hall 

‘I’ 

p. 4127, "