Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1985 )

The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MATTOX July 11. 1985
Attorney General
supramfCaNl sulMing Mr. Jim Boyle opinion lb. JM-331
P. 0. Box 12548 Public Counsel
Austin, TX. 73711-2543 Office of PublicUt!.lltyCounse$ l&Z: Whether the citizensadvi-
5121475-2501
Telex 91w374.1367
8140 Mopac, Westparl:
III sory panel of the Office of
T.fleoOplar512/47502e8
Suite 120 public Utility Counsel is sub-
Amtin, Texas 787!8 ject to the Open MeetingsAct,
articles6252-~~,P.T.c.s.
714 Jeakson.Suite 700
~Tx.75202-4508 Dear Mr. Boyle:
21u742-3244
In your requestletteryou stated:
The.Officeof PublicUtility C-e1 was eatab-
+lied'~in!;eptember 1983 by'the Texas Legislature
Urtlcle.l.4A6c:~SectionlS[A] and [article1446~1,
moi T-, sun0 700 * section 9.07, ~Vernon'aTexas Civil .Statutea)to
NaJston,lx. 77002-3111 representuhe interestsof residentialand small
713n23a36 commercial.utility customers in Texas. In June
1984 :the clfflceestablisheda citiaens advisory
306 Sad&y. Suite 312
panel to. provide adoice and 'suggestionsto the
f&e&4, TX. 79401-3479 pubtic cckael. on-the ~concerps.of resider&la1
2cw747623a utility (xmtomars.~,The comnittee Is advisory
.oalYS haf no statutory or official duties and
receives no camp-tion or reimbursement for
4309N. Tenth, Suite B
McAlffm-8.
TX. 75501-1535
expenses. I am writing to inquire about whether
5126824347 meetings k:F this ccmadtteeare subject to public
notice requirements.
200 Yahl Plaza, sune 400
&I Attorney General 0pinion H-772 '(1976).
this office said that
San Anton&. TX. 732052727
51212254181
before the [Open Heetlngs Act, article 6252-17.
V.T.C.S.] :Laapplicableto a meeting of a atate-
An Equal Opportunltyl tide publk body, five .prerequi&tesmust be met.
Afffmmtlve ActIon Employee Theae~are::
(1) The body must be an entity with&the
executiveor legtslativedepartmentof the state;
(2) The entity must be under the control of
one or mo?reelectedor appointedmembers;
(3) Tlw meeting must involve formal action or
deliberat:ltm
between a quorum of members. Compare
p. 1515
Hr. Jim Boyle - Page 2 (JM-331)
Attorney General opinions E-238 (1974) and E-3
(1973) holding that meetings of committees
consistingof leas than a quorum of the parent
body must be open;
(4) The discussion or action must involve
public businessor public policy;and
(5) The entity must have supervision or
controlover that publicbusinessor policy.
The first four of these criteriaare probably satisfiedin this
instance. Even if this is so, however,we conclude,on the strength
of the facts that you have furnished,that the fifth criterionis not
met here. Accordingly, we ;msveryour questionin the negative:
Attorney General Gpinion E-772 dealt, Inter alla, with the
question of whether meetings of the Texas Tech UniversityAthletic
Council are subject to the act. In the course of answering this
questionwith a qualified%o," the opinionsaid:
[Bloth the structure.of the. Council and the
resolution grantlug it powersindicate that the
Texaa Tech Athletic Council is an-advisory body
,andhas no paver, actual or implied;to superPiae
or control public business. Compare Attorney
General OpinionH-438 (1974),where the structure
.ofa similarbody and all~briefasubmittedto the
Attorkey Generalson-behalfof thatbody Indicated
that it axerciried supervisory aathority over
public business or' policy. We Cannot resolve
disputed questions of fact, and we necessarily
have relied on the facts presented by the
IJaiveraity. According to those. facts, the
'meetings'of the Texas Tech Athletic Council do
not meet the definitionof that term set out in
the Open Meetings Act, and its proceedingswould
not be required':obe held in conformitywith the
dictatesof that Act.
Bowever. we strongly caution that should the
Councilactuallyfunctionas somethingmore than a
mere3.yadvjsorybody with the result that it in
fact supervises or controls public business or
policy, it would have to comply with the mandate
of the Qpen MeetJngs Act regardingpublic notice
and open meetkgs. and in that instance. its
members may be subject to sanctions imposed for
failureto compl:rwith the Act.
p. 1516
- .
Mr. Jim Boyle - Page 3 (J&331)
We take the sawe approasch
here. The facts at hand indicatethat
this citizens advisorypanol "is an advisorybody and has no power,
actual or implied, to supemise or control public business." Id.
Therefore,its meetingsare 'notsubjectto the Open MeetingsAct. We
caution, however, that "should the [panel] actually fuuction as
somethingwore than a werely advisorybody with the result that it in
fact supervisesor controlr; public business or policy, It would have
to complywith" the act. Axoruey GeneralOpinionE-772 (1976).
SUMMARY
Under the fa'xs provided, meetings of the
citizensadvisorypanel appointedby the Office of
Public Utility Counsel, article 1446c, section
15A. V.T.C.S., are not subject to the Open =
Meetings Act, article6252-17,V.T.C.S.
JIM MATTOX
AttorneyGeneralof Texas
TOMGREEN
First AssistantAttorneyGenIesal
DAVID R. REWARDS
ExecutiveAssistantAttorneyGeneral
ROBRRT GRAY
SpecialAssistantAttorneyGeneral
RICK GILPIW
Chairman,Opinion Cowmittee
Preparedby Jon Bible
AssistantAttorney General
APPROVED:
OPINIONCOMWITTEE
Rick Gilpin.Chairman
Jon Bible
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Tony Guilloty
Jim Hoelliuger
JenniferRiggs
Nancy Sutton
Bruce Youngblood
p. 1517