TREA'ITORNEYGENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

Aum-rxw'lksam 787ll 

August 20. 1974 

The Honorable Franklin L. Smith 

Nuecee County Attorney 

Nueces County Courthouse 

Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 

Opinion No. H- 373 

Re: Notice requirement of 

the Open Meetings Law 

(Art. 6252-17, V. T. C. S. ) 

Dear Mr. Smith: 

Section 3A, Article 6252-17, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutee, as amended 

in 1973 (Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 31, p.47). the Cpen Meetings Law, requires that written notice of each meeting held by a governmental body be 

posted at least 72 hours preceding the day of the meeting, except under 

certain emergency conditions. 

You have asked our interpretation of this provision and, in your brief, 

suggest that the notice provisions were enacted to prescribe a method 

of effectively giving the public actual notice of meetings. You concluded 

that the requirement of 72 hours notice required that those hours should 

elapse during working days and not on a Saturday, a Sun&y or a legal 

holiday. 

Section 1 of the amended law defines it terms. Section 2 defines its 

scope. Section 3 authorizes enforcement by mandamus or injunction. 

Section 3A. with which your question is concerned, reads: 

Sec. 3A. (a) Written notice of the date, hour, 

place, and subject of each meeting held by a governmental body shall be given before the meeting as 

prescribe.d by this section. 

(b) A State governmental body shall furnish 

notice to the Secretary of State, who shall then 

post the notice on a bulletin board to be located 

in the main office of the Secretary of State at a 

place convenient to the public. 

p. 1754 
The Honorable Franklin L. Smith, page 2 (H-373) 

(c) A city governmental body shall have a notice 

posted on a bulletin board to be located at a place 

convenient to the public in the city hall. 

(d) A county governmental body shall have a 

notice posted on a bulletin board located at a place 

convenient to the public in the county courthouse. 

(e) A school district shall have a notice posted 

on a bulletin board located at a place convenient to 

the public in its central administrative office and, 

in addition, shall either furnish a notice to the county 

clerk in the county in which most, if not all, of the 

school district’s pupils reside or shall give notice 

by telephone or telegraph to any news media requesting 

such notice and consenting to pay any and all expenses 

incurred by the school district in providing special 

notice. 

(f) A governmental body of a water district or 

other district or political subdivision covering all or 

part of four or more counties shall have a notice posted 

at a place convenient to the public in its administrative 

office, and shall also furnish the notice to the Secretary 

of State, who shall then post the notice on a bulletin 

board located in the main office of the Secretary of 

State at a place convenient to the public; and it shall 

also furnish the notice to the county clerk of the county 

in which the administrative office of the district of political subdivision is located, who shall then post the notice 

on a bulletin board located at a place convenient to the 

public in the county courthouse. 

(g) The governing body of a water district, other 

district, or other political subdivision, except a district or political subdivision described in Subsection 

(f) of this section, shall have a notice posted at a 

place convenient to the public in its administrative 

office, and shall also furnish the notice to the county 

clerk or clerks of the county or counties in which 

the district or political subdivision is located. The 

county clerk shall then post the notice on a bulletin 

board located at a place convenient to the public in the 

county courthouse. 

p. 1755 
The Honorable Franklin L. Smith, page 3 (H-373) 

(h) Notice of a meeting must be posted for at 

leaat 72 hours preceding the day of the meeting, except 

that in case of emergency or urgent public necessity, 

which shall be expressed in the’ notice, it shall be 

sufficient if notice is posted two hours before the meeting 

is convened. In the.event of an emergency meeting, the 

presiding’officer or the member calling such meeting 

shall, if request therefore ‘containing all pertinent 

information has previously been filed at the headquarters 

of the governmental body, give notice by telephone or 

telegraph to any news media requesting such notice and 

consenting to pay any and all expenses incurred by the 

governmental body in providing such special notice. 

Then notice provisions for legislative committee meetings 

shall be as provided by the rules of the house and senate. 

In construing this language, of course, it is our obligation to attempt to 

determine the legislative intent. Article 10, V, T. C.S. We cannot ascribe 

to the Legislature an intention to write a meaningless statute. Therefore, 

like you, we conclude it was the intention of the Legislature that the public 

be given at least 72 hours effective notice prior to the holding of a meeting 

covered by the law. Certainly this cannot be achieved by posting notice 

inside a building which is locked over a week-end or holiday. 

Were we at liberty to freely interpret the notice requirement we would 

be inclined to put the greatest emphasis on its requirement that the posting 

be at a place convenient to the public, and that it be accessible to the 

public for the full 72 hours even though some of them might fall on a 

Saturday, Sunday or Holiday. 

However, the Amarillo Court of Civil Appeals has held that public, accessibility or convenience is not determinative. In Lipscomb Independent School 

District v. County School Trustees, 498 S. W. 2d 364 (Tex. Civ.App., Amarillo 

1973, writ ref’d., n. r. e. ), the Court citing Toyah Independent School District 

v. Pecos-Barstow Independent School District, 466 S. W. 2d 377 (Tex. Civ. 

APP.. San Antonio 1971. no writ) to the effect that the terms of Article 6252-17 

are mandatory and that at least substantial compliance with its provisions 

is required, held that, even though the notice was locked inside the courthouse from Friday afternoon until Monday morning and was unavailable to 

the public: 

P. 1756 
The Honorable Franklin L. Smith, page 4 (H-373) 

. . . The statute requires the notice to be posted at a 

convenient place in the courthouse (court’s emphasis) 

at least three days prior to the meeting, but makes no 

requirement that such notice be accessible to the public 

at all times during that three day period, nor does the 

statute exclude Saturdays and Sundays from such three 

day time period requirement. There is no evidence 

that the trustees had any intent to keep such meeting 

closed to the public. There is no evidence that anyone who desired to attend the meeting failed to attend, 

nor is there any evidence that anyone who desired to 

attend was denied admittance. Mr. Don Beard, one 

of the appellants, admits in a sworn deposition that he 

was present at the May 26 meeting. Mr. Carl Hanshu, 

a county school trustee, testified by sworn deposition 

that not only was Mr. Beard present at the May 26 

meeting, but that he had an opportunity to speak and 

otherwise participate in the discussion, but failed to 

do so. After a careful review of the record, it becomes apparent the situation upon which the holding 

in the Td case was based is not applicable here 

and there is sufficient evidence to support a finding 

that the county school trustees substantially complied 

with the provisions of Art. 6252-17. Appellant’s first 

four points are overruled. (Emphasis added) 498 S. W. 2d 

at 366. 

The application for writ of error filed in the Lipscomb case made no 

mention of Article 6252-17 and asserted no error in the interpretation of it 

by the Court of Civil Appeals. The notation by the Supreme Court that the 

application was “Refused, No Reversible Error”was the Court’s indication 

that, while it was not satisfied that the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals 

in all respects had correctly declared the law, the application presented no 

error requiring rev-ersal. Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The Lipscomb Court stressed the statutory language of Section 3A 

requiring that notice be posted i_n the county courthouse and ignored language requiring that it be at a place convenient to the public. We believe it 

p. 1757 
. . 

. . 

The Honorable Franklin L. Smitbb page 5 (H-373) 

erred and would predict tliat, when the Supreme Court paeses squarely 

on the question, it will hold that the public is entitled to effective notice 

for the full statutory period, either by requiring that notice be posted 

at a place accessible to the public or that perioda when it is unacceseible not be counted. 

However, our function is advisory only and at this time we cannot 

ignore the clear holding in Liuscomb that the statute does not unalterably 

exclude Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays, and other days on which the 

posted notice is hidden from public view from being counted in determining 

compliance with Article 6252-17, V. T. C. S. We are unable to discern 

from a reading of Lipscomb how much significance the court attached to 

the absence of evidence that anyone desiring to attend the meeting failed 

to attend or was denied admittance or that the trustees intentionally 

kept the meeting closed. For the present, the rule established by 

Lipscomb is one requiring substantial compliance with the notice requirement considering all the relemnt facts and circumstances. 

Lipscomb was decided under the statute prior to ita amendment in 

1973. At that time, it only required notice “for at leapt the three days 

preceding the day of meeting. ” In our opinion the 1973 amendments, 

requiring notice of 72 hours, do no more than to make certain that the 

three days are three full days before the day of the meeting. 

SUMMARY 

Judicial precedent. which we may not ignore, 

has established that the notice requirement of 

Article 6252-17. the C$en Meetings Law,’ may be 

satisfied by substantial compliance including the 

posting of notice in a courthouse closed for a 

week-end or holiday, if there is no evidence that 

anyone was denied an opportunity to attend. The 

better practice, in our opinion, and the practice 

that probably will best reflect the legislative intent 

if the matter is ever squarely presented to the 

Supreme Court is to provide the public effective 

p. 1758 
The Honorable Franklin L. Smith, page 6 (H-373) 

notice for the full statutory period, either by 

requiring that notice be posted at a place 

accessible to the public or that periods when 

it is inaccessible not be counted. 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPWVED: 

Opinion Committee 

p. 1759