Texas Attorney General Opinion: JM-584 Page: 4 of 7
7 p.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Mr. Karl E. Bishop - Page 4 (JM-584)
(1973); see, e.g., V.T.C.S. art. 1269k, 13a(a); Tax Code art. 26.06.
Nonetheless, the section 3A procedure for handling inquiries from the
public rests on the assumpt:Lon that board members will be able to hear
people attending the meetir.g. Section 3A also contemplates that the
meeting shall be held in a "place" specified in the notice. These
provisions at least suggest: that the legislature assumed that board
members would be physically present at meetings subject to the Open
Meetings Act.
The Texas Supreme Court has determined that an open meeting may
not be convened without a quorum present in the meeting room, and has
stated as follows:
The newspaper argues that the Act clearly contem-
plates that a quorum be present at the meeting
place, that section 2(a) requires an open meeting
to be convened before the Board may go into
executive session, and that there is no 'meeting'
unless a quorum is present and physically able to
'deliberate.' Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art.
6252-17, 1(a) and (b).
We agree with the newspaper. By all appear-
ances, only two members may have been present.
The public is entitled to know which members are
present for the closed session and whether there
is a quorum. We hold that the School Board failed
to comply with the Act's requirements. (Emphasis
added).
Cox Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Austin Independent
School District, 706 S.W.2d at 959. The court did not address the
question of telephone delierations, but its language suggests that
the public interest requires board members to attend meetings in
person.
The legislature's silence on telephone meetings for governmental
bodies can be contrasted with its express authorization of such
meetings for the directors, shareholders, and committees of a corpora-
tion. Bus. Corp. Act art. 9.10(C). An examination of this legisla-
tive authorization and the underlying legislative policy leads us to
believe that telephone conference calls do not comply with the Texas
Open Meetings Act and that the legislature would expressly authorize
governmental bodies to meet by telephone conference if it wished them
to have that power.
Article 9.10 of the Texas Business Corporation Act states in
part:
C. Subject to the provisions required or
permitted by th.s Act for notice of meetings,p. 2616
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: JM-584, text, December 11, 1986; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth273022/m1/4/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.