# 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 ofeach meeting held by agovernmental body be posted at least 72 hours preceding the day of the meeting, except under certain emergency conditions.
You have asked our interpretation ofthis provision and, inyour brief, suggest that the notice provisions were enacted to prescribe amethod 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 aSaturday, aSun&y or a legal holiday.
Section 1ofthe amended law defines it terms. Section 2defines its scope. Section 3authorizes 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 ofeach 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 ofState, who shall then post the notice on abulletin board to be located in the main office ofthe Secretary ofState at a place convenient to the public.

p. 1754The Honorable Franklin L. Smith, page 2 (H-373) (c) A city governmental body shall have a notice posted on abulletin board to be located at aplace convenient to the public in the city hall. (d) A county governmental body shall have a notice posted onabulletin board located at aplace convenient to the public in the county courthouse. (e) A school district shall have a notice posted
onabulletin board located at a place convenient to the public inits central administrative office and, in addition, shall either furnish anotice tothe county clerk inthe county inwhich most, if notall, ofthe school district’s pupils reside or shall give notice by telephone or telegraph to any news media requesting such notice and consenting topay any and all expenses incurred by the school district inproviding special notice. (f) A governmental body of awater district or other district or political subdivision covering all or part offour or more counties shall have a notice posted at aplace convenient to the public inits administrative office, and shall also furnish the notice to theSecretary ofState, who shall then post the notice onabulletin board located in the main office ofthe Secretary of State at aplace convenient to the public; andit shall also furnish the notice to the county clerk ofthe county inwhich the administrative office ofthe district ofpolitical subdivision is located, who shall thenpost the notice on a bulletin board located at aplace convenient to the public inthe county courthouse. (g) The governing body ofawater district, other district, or other political subdivision, except a district or political subdivision described inSubsection (f) ofthis section, shall have a notice posted at a place convenient to the public inits administrative office, and shall also furnish the notice to thecounty clerk or clerks ofthe county or counties inwhich the district or political subdivision is located. The county clerk shall then post the notice on a bulletin board located at aplace convenient to the public inthe county courthouse.

p. 1755The Honorable 

### Franklin L. Smith, page 3 (H-373)

(h) Notice ofameeting must be posted for at leaat 72 hours preceding the day ofthe 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 ofthe 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 inproviding such special notice. Thennotice provisions for legislative committee meetings shall be as provided by the rules ofthehouse and senate.
In construing this language, of course, itis our obligation to attempt to determine the legislative intent. Article 10, V, T.C.S. We cannot ascribe to the Legislature an intention towrite ameaningless statute. Therefore, like you, we conclude itwas the intention ofthe Legislature that the public be given at least 72 hours effective notice prior to the holding ofameeting covered by the law. Certainly this cannot be achieved by posting notice inside abuilding which is locked over aweek-end or holiday.

Were we at liberty to freely interpret the notice requirement we would be inclined to put the greatest emphasis onits requirement that the posting be at aplace convenient to the public, and that it be accessible to the public for the full 72 hours even though some ofthem 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. InLipscomb 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, 466S.W. 2d 377 (Tex. Civ. APP.. San Antonio 1971. nowrit) to the effect that the terms ofArticle 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 andwas unavailable to the public:

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

. . . The statute requires the notice tobeposted at a convenient place in the courthouse (court’s emphasis) atleast three days prior to the meeting, butmakes no requirement that such notice be accessible tothe public atall 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 tothe public. There is noevidence 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 ofthe appellants, admits ina sworn deposition that he
was present at the May 26meeting. Mr. Carl Hanshu,
a county school trustee, testified by sworn deposition that not only was Mr. Beard present at the May 26 meeting, butthat he had an opportunity to speak and otherwise participate in the discussion, butfailed to do so. After a careful review ofthe record, itbecomes apparent the situation upon which theholding in the Td case was based is not applicable here and there is sufficient evidence to support afinding that the county school trustees substantially complied with the provisions ofArt. 6252-17. Appellant’s first four points are overruled. (Emphasis added) 498 S.W. 2d at 366.
The application for writ oferror filed in the Lipscomb case made no mention ofArticle 6252-17 and asserted noerror inthe interpretation ofit by the Court of Civil Appeals. The notation by theSupreme Court that the application was “Refused, No Reversible Error”was the Court’s indication that, while itwas not satisfied that the opinion ofthe Court of Civil Appeals in all respects had correctly declared the law, the application presented no error requiring rev-ersal. Rule 483, Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure.
The Lipscomb Court stressed the statutory language ofSection 3A requiring that notice be posted i_nthe county courthouse and ignored language requiring that it be at aplace 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, itwill hold that the public is entitled to effective notice for the full statutory period, either by requiring that notice be posted at aplace accessible to the public or that perioda when it is 

### unacceseible notbe counted.
However, our function is advisory only and atthis time we cannot ignore the clear holding in Liuscomb that the statute does not unalterably exclude Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays, and other days onwhich 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 themeeting 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 toita amendment in 1973. At that time, it only required notice 

### “for at leapt the three days preceding the day ofmeeting. ” In our opinion the 1973 amendments, requiring notice of 72 hours, donomore than tomake certain that the three days are three full days before the day of themeeting.
SUMMARY
Judicial precedent. which we may notignore, 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, ifthere 

### is no evidence that anyone was denied an opportunity to attend. The better practice, in our opinion, and thepractice that probably will best reflect the legislative intent ifthe matter is ever squarely presented to the Supreme Court is to provide the public effective

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

notice for the full statutory period, either by requiring that notice be posted at aplace accessible to the public or that periods when it is inaccessible notbe counted.

JOHN L. HILL Attorney General of Texas
APPWVED:

Opinion Committee

p. 1759