Texas Attorney General Opinion: JM-1112 Page: 3 of 8
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Honorable Bob McFarland - Page 3
on behalf of a teachers' association argues that protection
of the individual employee's privacy is at issue here.
In addressing these concerns, we observe that an
employee does not achieve permanent confidentiality for his
grievance by keeping his name out of the notice. In
appealing a grievance he runs the risk that the public will
learn about his grievance, since any "final action,
decision, or vote" by the school board on the grievance
would have to be made in open session. V.T.C.S. art.
6252-17, 2(i). Thus, excluding an employee's name from
the posted notice would guarantee only a 72-hour delay in
the time at which information about his grievance became
public. I 3A(h) (notice must be posted for at least 72
hours before a meeting). Any embarrassment the employee
might feel at having other people know that he has a problem
related to his job would only be delayed, not avoided.2 It
is difficult to see how excluding his name from the notice
would prevent the "chilling effect" you refer to.
Nor does excluding an employee's name from the notice
prevent members of the school board from knowing about his
grievance before the meeting at which they will hear the
appeal. See, e.g., Attorney General Opinions JM-119 (1983)
(trustee of school district has access to all district
records needed in his official capacity); H-436 (1974)
(documents supporting agenda of regents meeting are distri-
buted to regents before meeting). Thus, the "chilling
effect" you refer to does not result from the board's
knowledge of the appeal.
The purpose of the notice is to inform the "general
public" of the meeting. V.T.C.S. art. 6252-17, 3A(h).
The general public in this case might include other school
district employees, parents of school children in the
district, and possibly members of the media. If the name of
the aggrieved employee is included in the notice, more
people might attend the meeting to learn how the board ruled
2. According to testimony in Hubert v. Harte-Hanks
Texas Newspapers, 652 S.W.2d 546, 554 n.2 (Tex. App. -
Austin 1988, writ ref'd n.r.e.), a candidate for the
presidency of Texas A & M University wanted confidential
treatment for his candidacy because his present employers
were likely to wonder why he was unhappy working for them.
If he was not chosen for the presidency, they would wonder
what was wrong with him.p. 5832
(JM-1112)
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-1112, text, November 3, 1989; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth273550/m1/3/?q=%22Government+and+Law+-+Elected+Officials+-+Attorneys+General%22: accessed July 10, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.