Can a Texas commissioners court hold one public-comment period for the whole agenda and limit how long each speaker talks?

Plain-English summary

The Texas Legislature added section 551.007 to the Government Code, requiring certain governmental bodies, including a county commissioners court, to let the public comment on items on the agenda for an open meeting. The Blanco County Attorney asked the AG two questions about how that works: whether a county may hold a single public-comment period at the start of a meeting to cover all agenda items, or instead must hold a separate comment period right before each item, and whether the county may cap the total time a speaker gets to address all the items.

On the first question, the AG read the statute's plain text. Subsection 551.007(b) says the body must let each member of the public who wants to address it about an agenda item do so "before or during the body's consideration of the item." Because the statute says "before or during," the county can choose either timing. And nothing in the text requires that the comment happen immediately adjacent to the item's discussion or be kept separate from comment on other items; courts cannot graft extra requirements onto a statute's text. So the only requirement is that the chance to comment come before or during the body's consideration of the item, and a county can meet that by holding one public-comment period at the beginning of the meeting to address all agenda items.

On the second question, the AG explained that subsection 551.007(b) gives the public a right to address the body on agenda items, but subsection (c) lets the body adopt reasonable rules about that right, including rules limiting the total time a member of the public may address the body on a given item. The key requirement subsection (c) imposes is reasonableness, and the statute also generally bars a body from prohibiting public criticism and requires extra time for speakers using a translator. So a rule capping the total time a speaker has to address all agenda items is allowed only if it is reasonable. Whether a particular time period is reasonable to address all desired items depends on factors like the number of agenda items and their complexity, which is a fact question for the county to decide in the first instance, subject to judicial review.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2020. 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 mentioned here.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

For Blanco County and other governmental bodies subject to section 551.007, the opinion's reading at the time gave them practical flexibility. They did not have to break public comment into a separate slot before every agenda item; a single comment period at the start of the meeting, covering all items, complied with the statute, because the law only required the opportunity to come before or during the body's consideration of an item. They could also limit speaker time, including a total cap on how long one person could speak across all items, provided the limit was reasonable. The AG put the reasonableness call on the body in the first instance, tied to facts like the number and complexity of agenda items, and noted the body still could not use its rules to bar public criticism and had to give translator-assisted speakers extra time. The opinion read the statute as written and declined to add requirements the text did not contain.

Common questions

Q: Can a commissioners court take all public comment at the start of the meeting?
A: Yes. The AG concluded section 551.007 lets the body take comment before or during its consideration of an item and does not require item-by-item comment periods, so a single comment period at the start covering all agenda items complies.

Q: Can the body limit how long a speaker talks?
A: Yes, if the limit is reasonable. Subsection 551.007(c) lets a body adopt reasonable rules, including limits on the total time a member of the public may address it on a given item.

Q: Who decides whether a time limit is reasonable?
A: The governmental body, in the first instance, subject to court review. Whether a particular time is reasonable depends on facts like the number and complexity of agenda items, which the AG said is outside the opinion process.

Q: Are there limits on these rules?
A: Yes. The statute generally prohibits a body from barring public criticism, and a time-limit rule must give a speaker using a translator at least twice the time so non-English speakers get an equal opportunity.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion construed Government Code section 551.007, including subsection (b) (the right to address the body before or during consideration of an item), subsection (c) (reasonable rules, including time limits), subsection (d) (extra time for translator-assisted speakers), and subsection (e) (no prohibition on public criticism), with the meaning of "including" drawn from section 311.005(13). The AG applied the plain-language approach from Silguero v. CSL Plasma, Inc., 579 S.W.3d 53 (Tex. 2019), the disjunctive meaning of "or" from Jones v. State, 175 S.W.3d 927 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.), and the rule against engrafting extra-statutory requirements from PHI, Inc. v. Texas Juvenile Justice Department, 2019 WL 1873431 (Tex. 2019). It cited prior opinions H-188 (1973) (no unfair discrimination among views) and KP-0178 (2018) and LO-96-111 (fact questions outside the opinion process).

Citations and references

Statutory provisions:

• Tex. Gov't Code § 551.007; § 311.005

Cases:

• Silguero v. CSL Plasma, Inc., 579 S.W.3d 53 (Tex. 2019)
• Jones v. State, 175 S.W.3d 927 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.)
• PHI, Inc. v. Tex. Juv. Justice Dep't, No. 18-0099, 2019 WL 1873431 (Tex. Apr. 26, 2019)

Prior AG opinions referenced: H-188 (1973); KP-0178 (2018); LO-96-111.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/ken-paxton/kp-0300
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2020/kp-0300.pdf

Original opinion text

April 22, 2020

The Honorable Deborah Earley
Blanco County Attorney
Post Office Box 471
Johnson City, Texas 78636

Opinion No. KP-0300

Re: Authority of a governmental body subject to section 551.007 of the Government Code to regulate public comment sessions during open meetings (RQ-0313-KP)

Dear Ms. Earley:

The Texas Legislature recently added section 551.007 to the Government Code, requiring certain governmental bodies-including a county commissioners court-to permit public comment on an item on the agenda for an open meeting. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 551.007. You ask whether section 551.007 permits a county to hold one public comment period at the beginning of an open meeting to address all agenda items, or instead, whether section 551.007 requires a county to hold separate public comment periods immediately before each agenda item.[1]

Subsection 551.007(b) provides:

A governmental body shall allow each member of the public who desires to address the body regarding an item on an agenda for an open meeting of the body to address the body regarding the item at the meeting before or during the body's consideration of the item.

Id. § 551.007(b) (emphasis added). The statute's plain text allows the county to determine whether the opportunity for public comment will occur either before or during the body's discussion of an agenda item. Id.; see Silguero v. CSL Plasma, Inc., 579 S.W.3d 53, 59 (Tex. 2019) ("A statute's plain language is the most reliable guide to the Legislature's intent."); Jones v. State, 175 S.W.3d 927, 932 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.) ("Typically, the term 'or' is disjunctive and . . . separates words or phrases in the alternate relationship, indicating that either of the separated words or phrases may be employed without the other."). Moreover, if the county determines the opportunity will occur prior to the consideration of an agenda item, the text does not require that the public comment occur immediately adjacent to the discussion of the item or that it occur separate from public comment on other agenda items. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 551.007(b); see also PHI, Inc. v. Tex. Juv. Justice Dep't, No. 18-0099, 2019 WL 1873431, at *6 (Tex. Apr. 26, 2019) ("But no court has the authority, under the guise of interpreting a statute, to engraft extra-statutory requirements not found in a statute's text."); see also WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INT'L DICTIONARY 197 (2002) (defining "before" as "preceding: earlier than"). Rather, the only requirement is that the opportunity occur at the public meeting before or during the body's consideration of the agenda item. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 551.007(b). Accordingly, a county may satisfy subsection 551.007(b)'s requirements by having a single public comment period at the beginning of an open meeting to address all items on the agenda.

You also ask whether section 551.007 permits a county to limit the total amount of time it gives a speaker to address all desired agenda items. See Request Letter at 2-3. Subsection 551.007(b) vests the public with the right to address certain governmental bodies on "an item on an agenda for an open meeting." TEX. GOV'T CODE § 551.007(a), (b). But subsection (c) of that statute recognizes that the governmental body may adopt reasonable rules regarding this right, including time limitations:

A governmental body may adopt reasonable rules regarding the public's right to address the body under this section, including rules that limit the total amount of time that a member of the public may address the body on a given item.[2]

Id. § 551.007(c) (emphasis and footnote added); see id. § 311.005(13) ("'Includes' and 'including' are terms of enlargement and not of limitation or exclusive enumeration, and use of the terms does not create a presumption that components not expressed are excluded."). Subsection (c) mandates a requirement of any rule affecting the public's right to address an agenda item: reasonableness. Id. § 551.007(c); see also id. § 551.007(e) (generally prohibiting governmental body from prohibiting public criticism); Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. H-188 (1973) at 2 (providing, in part, that commissioners court may not unfairly discriminate among views seeking expression). Thus, a rule capping the total amount of time a speaker has to address all agenda items is permissible only if the rule is reasonable. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 551.007(c). Whether a particular period of time is reasonable to address all desired agenda items at an open meeting will depend on many factors, including the number of agenda items and their complexity, and is a fact question for the county to determine in the first instance subject to judicial review. See generally Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. KP-0178 (2018) at 3 (noting that this office does not resolve questions of fact in the opinion process), LO-96-111, at 1.

S U M M A R Y

Government Code subsection 551.007(b) requires certain governmental bodies to permit public comment on an item on the agenda for an open meeting either before or during the body's consideration of the item. A governmental body may satisfy subsection 551.007(b)'s requirements by holding a single public comment period at the beginning of an open meeting to address all items on the agenda.

Government Code subsection 551.007(c) authorizes a governmental body subject to its provisions to adopt reasonable rules regarding the public's right to address the body, including time limitations. Pursuant to subsection 551.007(c), a governmental body may adopt a rule capping the total amount of time a member of the public has to address all items on the agenda if the rule is reasonable.

Very truly yours,

KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas

JEFFREY C. MATEER
First Assistant Attorney General

RYAN L. BANGERT
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General

RYAN M. VASSAR
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee

[1] See Letter from Honorable Deborah Earley, Blanco Cty. Att'y, to Office of the Att'y Gen. at 2-3 (Oct. 25, 2019), https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinion/requests-for-opinion-rqs ("Request Letter").

[2] The statute specifically addresses time for translation, providing: A rule adopted under Subsection (c) that limits the amount of time that a member of the public may address the governmental body must provide that a member of the public who addresses the body through a translator must be given at least twice the amount of time as a member of the public who does not require the assistance of a translator in order to ensure that non-English speakers receive the same opportunity to address the body. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 551.007(d).