QBfficeof tip !ZWnnep &neral %btateof tEtxa$ DAN MORALES ATTORNEY GENERAL March 16.1993
Honorable Renee Higginbotkm-Brooks OpinionNo. DM-207 CbdllMn Texas AlcoholicBeverage Commission lb: Whether the Open Meetings Act, P.O. Box 13127 V.T.C.S. article 625247, permits a member Austin, Texas 7871l-3127 of the Alcoholic Beverage Commission who kunabletoattendacommissionmeetingin person to participate by live video -0~ (RQ-428)
You have asked us to determine whether the open Meetings AC! (the "act"), V.T.C.S. article 6252-17. permits a member of the AlcoholicBeverage Commission who is unable because of schcdhg problems to attend a commkion meeting in person to participate in the meeting via live video tmnsmkion. You explain that the proposed arrangement would eneble the absent commissioner to be recorded live with video ~cladtelevisedsotharboththcmembersofthepublicandthewmmissionas present at the meeting can see and observe the absent commissioner. The absent commissionaalsowouldbeabletoseeMdobsembaththemembasofthepublicand the wmmissionas present. We conclude that the act does not permit such sn Mlmgamnt.
This office considemd a dmilar problem ia Anomcy Gmaal Opiioo N-584 (19a6),inwhichtkTcxasBomdofLicmsurc~N~iiomcM '* tm(the 'borrd")~wbahaitEwldm#1urdvoteon~bytdeconfermacall. Attorney Gend Opiion Jh4-584 (1986) at 1. This office did not limit the opinion to meetings of the board, ho-, instad, the opinion stated that its wnclusions would apply to alI m&ngsofaugovernm entd bodies that are subject to tbe act. Id. ti 3. hitialiy, the OfillhllOtCdthattbCrctdWSttOtexplidtlY answertkborrdlrquattoqbuttbeopinion ~natedthrtthelegislatunintendedthc~ct~tothe~~cthegwamnentlrl decision-msking process. Id..; sn Cm Eitters., Inc. v. Board of Trrrsres of the Aus& h&p. School Dist., 706 S.W2d 956,958 (TUL 1986).
While the opinion determined that deliions by teleconference could f&Uwitbin the act's definition of "meeting,"it cited several provisions in the act indicating that the le&dature assumed that members of a governmental body would appear in person at a
p. 1088 ¬able Renee H@hham-Brooks - Page 2 (DM-207)
meeting. AttonbEyGalaalopinionJht-5s4llt3.ThcopiniollAivrlurArevenlarch jnwkions:
Section l(a) provides that members of a go- bOdyUrWt prohiiied from gatbehg for eocial oc4asions or m at Mtiond wnventions and workhops gakings that -y itlv0h-e persond UtMdMce. Section3Aexemptah1nthenotice rquirement of article 6252-17. V.T.C.S.. limited answers to "en inquirymadeatsuchmeeting... madebyamemberoftbegenetd public or by a member of the governme-ntalbody." V.T.C.S. art. 6252~17.8 3A Thepublic hasno rightuadertheactto speak at m&ng!&tbatisamattercontrouedbythediacruionofttK govemmentdbodyor,insomecasqbyapartiwlarstatute. Attomey &nerd Opiion H-188 (1973) . . . Nonethdess, the section 3A procedure for handling inquiries from the public rests on the ~ptionthatbo~mmanberswillbeabletoharpeopleuteading the meeting. Section 3A also contemplates that the meeting shall be held in a "place" speci6ed in the notice. These provisions at least suggestthattbekgkkureassumedtbatboardmemberswouldbe physically present at meetings subject to the Open Meetings Act. Id. a! 3-4. In addition, the opinion relied upon the language of the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Cm Entrrpriscs, Inc., which implied that the public interest requhs board manberstoattaulmechgsiapersonZdat4.
F~,~~opinioncompsredthe~ctwahe9.lo(c)oftbeB~ Corpomtion Act, V.T.C.S. article l.Ol- 12.54. in which the legislature expre& has authorized a private corporation's shareholders, members of the board of directors, or mrmbasofacommin#thatthc~hs,dcsignatedtohold~~'bymclnsof -tdepboaeorsimilar-ons~bymeansofwidcllallpaonr . . . pmhapabnginthemeetingcenbearcachother." Zd.atrtS(quothgBus.Corp.Actut 9.10(C)). Of course, as the opinion pointed out, meethgs of shareholders and directors rrenotopentothepublic;asa~~awrporationneednotconsidatheplblicintaat whenitdecidestownductameetingbytdeconfkmnce. Zd.aS. Ontheotkrbmsl,the le&hueintcrdedthe~to~thepublicintaatia~tk~meking ~. _ pmcesmofgovuamcntaIboftiaZdat6.Theopiai~~~thnthcrcL itsdf does not permit a go- bodytoconductameUingbytdephoaeconfaence cau,althghthc~QcpT+Uhlmayruthorizc~~Id.at7.
Admittedly, some of the concetns we expressed in Attomey General Opiion m-584