Could a quorum of a Texas public board meet privately to hear information and ask questions if the members did not discuss public business with one another?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1984. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Texas law, with citations.
Texas AG Opinion JM-248: Private Board Information Sessions
Plain-English summary
The Employees Retirement System board sometimes met with individuals to receive information about matters within the board's jurisdiction, and board members asked the presenter questions. The request asked whether those gatherings could occur without admitting the public. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0248.pdf
JM-248 concluded that members could meet privately to receive information and ask questions so long as "no discussion of public business takes place between members." Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0248.pdf
The opinion focused on the statutory definition of deliberation as "a verbal exchange between a quorum of members" attempting to reach a decision on public business. If the members only listened to and questioned the presenter, without discussing the matter among themselves, JM-248 found no deliberation and therefore no statutory meeting. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0248.pdf
The opinion cautioned that the line between deliberation and non-deliberation was "very thin" and said a governmental body should err on the side of opening such a gathering to the public. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0248.pdf
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1984. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Common questions
Could a quorum attend a private briefing under JM-248?
Yes, if the members merely listened to and asked questions of the person providing information and did not discuss public business with one another. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0248.pdf
Did questions directed to the presenter count as deliberation?
Not by themselves under the opinion's reading. JM-248 said there was no deliberation if board members "merely listen to and ask questions of an individual providing information" and no discussion occurred between members. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0248.pdf
What verbal exchange did the statute cover?
Section 1(b) defined deliberation as an exchange between a quorum of a governmental body attempting to arrive at a decision on public business. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0248.pdf
Did JM-248 treat the private-briefing line as easy to apply?
No. It warned that the line was "very thin" and recommended caution to avoid violating the act inadvertently or otherwise. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0248.pdf
Background and statutory framework
Article 6252-17, section 1(a), defined a meeting as deliberation between a quorum about public business or policy under the body's supervision or control, or a gathering at which formal action was taken. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0248.pdf
Section 1(b) defined deliberation as a verbal exchange between a quorum attempting to reach a decision on public business. JM-248 treated that exchange among members as necessary for a gathering to qualify as a meeting under the definition it applied. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0248.pdf
The opinion relied on The Pea Picker litigation, where a factual dispute existed over whether deliberation had occurred during a commissioners court session held to hear reports from agents and employees. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0248.pdf
Citations and references
- The Pea Picker, Inc. v. Reagan, 632 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.), addressed whether a gathering to hear reports involved the deliberation required for a statutory meeting. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0248.pdf
- Attorney General Opinion H-785 (1976) appeared as support for JM-248's conclusion. The opinion also cautioned readers to compare sections 3 and 4 of article 6252-17. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0248.pdf
Source
- Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0248
- Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0248.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.
The Attorney General of Texas
December 13, 1984
Mr. Clayton T. Garrison
Executive Director
Employees Retirement System of Texas
P. O. Box 13207
Austin, Texas 78711
Opinion No. JM-248
Re: Whether members of a public body may meet to receive information and ask questions without violating the Open Meetings Act, article 6252-17, V.T.C.S.
Dear Mr. Garrison:
You have requested our opinion regarding whether members of a governing body may meet without complying with the Open Meetings Act to receive information and to ask questions. You indicate that the board of trustees of the Employees Retirement System finds it necessary occasionally to meet with particular individuals to be informed about specific matters over which the board has jurisdiction. On these occasions, the board members usually ask questions of the individual providing information. You ask whether the board may conduct such meetings without opening them to the general public.
"Meeting" is defined in section 1(a) of article 6252-17, V.T.C.S., the Open Meetings Act, as
any deliberation between a quorum of members of a governmental body at which any public business or public policy over which the governmental body has supervision or control is discussed or considered, or at which any formal action is taken.
In The Pea Picker, Inc. v. Reagan, 632 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. App. - Tyler 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the court considered whether a meeting held by the Henderson County Commissioners Court for the purpose of "hearing reports from agents and employees" was a "meeting" within the terms of article 6252-17, V.T.C.S. The trial court, in granting the county's motion for summary judgment, found that the meeting in question was not a "meeting" under the statute because no "deliberation" had occurred. "Deliberation" is defined in section 1(b) of the act as
a verbal exchange between a quorum of members of a governmental body attempting to arrive at a decision on any public business.
The appellate court concluded that summary judgment was improper because a fact issue existed as to whether deliberation had in fact occurred during the meeting in question. The appellate court did not, however, question the trial court's conclusion that a "meeting" for purposes of article 6252-17 occurs only where there is "deliberation," i.e., "a verbal exchange between a quorum of members."
We agree with the trial court's construction of article 6252-17 in The Pea Picker, Inc. v. Reagan, supra. In our opinion, a meeting is a "meeting" as defined by section 1(a) of that statute only in those instances in which a "verbal exchange" occurs between or among a quorum of members of a governmental body. If the board members merely listen to and ask questions of an individual providing information, and no discussion takes place between board members, there is no "deliberation" and hence no "meeting" for purposes of article 6252-17. In such instances, the board may convene without admitting the general public. We conclude that members of a governmental body may meet without complying with the Open Meetings Act to receive information and to ask questions, so long as no discussion of public business takes place between members. See Attorney General Opinion H-785 (1976). But cf. art. 6252-17, sections 3 and 4. We caution, however, that the line between "deliberation" and "non-deliberation" is very thin. Therefore, in order to avoid violating the act, whether by inadvertence or otherwise, a governmental body should err on the side of caution in determining whether to open to the public a convocation like the one described here.
SUMMARY
The members of a governmental body may meet to receive information and to ask questions, without violating article 6252-17, V.T.C.S., so long as no discussion of public business takes place between members during such meeting.
Very truly yours,
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Tony Guillory
Jim Moellinger
Jennifer Riggs
Nancy Sutton
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1984 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.