Texas Attorney General Opinion: DM-95 Page: 3 of 6
6 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:
Honorable Gary Watkins - Page 3
V.T.C.S. art. 6252-17, 1(a). "Deliberation" is defined as
a verbal exchange during a meeting between a quorum of
members of a governmental body, or between a quorum of
members of a governmental body and any other person,
concerning any issue within the jurisdiction of the governmental
body or any public business.
Id 1 (b). The act provides criminal penalties for a member of a governing body
who knowingly calls or aids in calling an improper closed meeting. Id 4(a). The
act also criminally sanctions a member of a governing body who knowingly conspires
to circumvent the act by meeting with other members in numbers less than a
quorum for secret deliberations. Id 4(b). The act provides mandamus or
injunction as civil remedies to stop, prevent, or reverse violations of the act. Id
3(a). Actions taken by a governmental body in violation of the act are voidable.
If it were established as a matter of fact that members of a governmental
body had gathered together in numbers sufficient for a quorum to discuss the
wording of a letter concerning public business or public policy over which the
governmental body had control or supervision, and if such gathering were not open
to the public or preceded by notice in compliance with the act, it would follow from
the definitions quoted above that a violation of the act had occurred.
A more problematic fact situation occurs when one or more members, but
less than a quorum, drafts a letter, and then presents the material (or has the
material presented) to the other signatories, always meeting in numbers less than a
quorum. In this way a "meeting" and a "deliberation" as defined in the act are
arguably avoided because even though the verbal exchange among the council
members may at any one time engage less than a quorum of the council, the verbal
exchanges do not occur during a meeting where a quorum of members is
simultaneously in each other's physical presence.'
1The possibility of finding that deliberations in violation of the act have occurred would be
much less likely in the situation where a letter was circulated among a quorum of the council, but
where no two members of the council at any time discussed the contents of the letter. Again, however,
the totality of circumstances would have to be considered if the governmental body's actions were
challenged under the act. See Attorney General Opinions MW-32 (1979) (a procedure permitting
individual members of a governmental body to write to the executive director suggesting items to placep. 480
(DM- 9 5)
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: DM-95, text, March 4, 1992; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth273904/m1/3/: accessed April 28, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.