Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1977 )

Dr. Charles Lemaistre Opinion Wo. B- 994 Chancellor The University of Texam System Re: Whether committee appointed 201 West 7th Street, by chairxan of Board of Regents Aumtin, Texas 70701 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 applicabilityof the Texas Open Meetings Act, article 6252-ll,~'V.T.C.S.,to a corn- mittee appointed by the Chairman of the Board of Regents. The committee,designated the 'Committeeto Study the Selection Process of Chief AdxinimtrativeOfficers of the Component In- mtitutionmof The University of Texan Symtem," is campomed of three regents, the premidents of three institutionsin the Uni- vermity of Texas system, one reprementativefrom the Ex-Students' Amsociation,four faculty memberm, and four mtudentm. The Board of Regent0 authorimed the Commmitteeto make an extenmive mtudy of the process of selecting a chief adminimtrativeofficer and to m&nit itm recommendationsto the Board. You advime urn that this im an example of numerous comnmitfeesemtablimhed in the University Symtex., The Open Meetings Act applier to every *meeting" of a 'governmentalbody" am thome term6 are defined in the Act. Section l(c) of the Act provides in parts "Governmentalbody" meana any board, com- mimmion, department,committee, or.agency within the executive or legimlativede- partment of the state, which is unaer the . . direc,tionof one or more elected or ap- pointed mmmberm. . . . section l(a) provides in part1 “Meeting’means any deliberationbetween 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 governmentalbody ham muPervimionor control is discuamedor con- sidered, or at which any formal action is taken. The Committee is an entity within the executive branch com- POSed of appointedmemberm. See Attorney General Opinions H-772 (1976)rR-436 (1974)tMm6 (1967). It thereforemeets the statutorydefinitionof governmentalbody. If the Committeemeets to discuss "any public business or public policy over which [it] ham supervisionor 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 mupervimeor control public business. In determiningwhether a governmentalbody ham such power we have looked to the resolutionsthat 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 recommendationsto the Board of Regents. ~Thimrem- olution appears to make the Committee an advisor body only, without power to superviseor control public bum1nemm. 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 informationand 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~thatthe presence of three Regents on the fifteen- member committeedoes not bring it within the provisionm,ofthe 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 themselvessubject to it, noting the danger that the full'boardmight become the rubber stamp of its committees. we think that this danger is diminished in the present came by &e appointmentof twelve other memberm who might repre- gent different viewpoint6within the university system. We mtrongly caution, however, that should the council actually function am a committee of the Board or aa somethingmore than p. 4126 I , 1 Dr. Charles Lemaimtre - page 3 (H-994) an advisory body, and in fact rupervire or control public bumi- nem8 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 Univer- 8ity 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, "