The Attorney General of Texas
June 29, 1978
JOHN L. HILL
Attorney General
Honorable Chet Brooks Opinion No. II- 1198
Chairman
Senate Committee on Human Re: Whether the Tarrant
Resources County Hospital District violated
State Caoitol the Open Meetings Act by reach-
ing a settlement agreement
regarding the .termination of an
employee and by issuing a check
to that employee when the
formal action in open session was
taken fbur days later.
Dear Senator Brooks:
You have asked our opinion on a question which raises the issue of the
extent of action which may be taken in closed sessions of governmental
bodies.
The fact situation which forms the basis of your request involves a
meeting of the Board of Managers of the Tarrant County Hospital District.
You indicate that the board met in a closed session the night of February 28
and early morning of March 1 and reached a mutual agreement with the
attorneys for the district administrator to terminate the administrator’s
employment March 6. A check for $13,266.75 in settlement of salary and
vacation was given to the administrator. The check was dated February 28
and was cashed March 1. A “compromise settlement agreement of full
release” was signed during the meeting on March 1 by the members of the
board, by the hospital administrator, and by the attorneys for the district and
for the administrator. The agreement was released to the public following a
meeting of a committee of the board on March 4, 1978. While there is a
disagreement regarding the legal effect of these actions, there appears to be
agreement as to the controlling facts and for purposes of this opinion we have
accepted them as true.
Your question is whether, given this fact situation, there has been
compliance with the requirements of section 2(2 of the Texas Open Meetings
Act, article 6252-17, V.T.C.S., which provides:
p. 4815
Honorable Chet Brooks - Page 2 (.x+1198)
(1) Whenever any deliberations or any portion of a meeting
&e closed to the public as permitted by this Act, no final
action, decision, or vote with regard to any matter con-
sidered in the closed meeting shall be made except in a
meeting which is open to the public and in compliance with
the requirements of Section 3A of thii Act.
While we assume that portions of the February 28/March 1 meeting were
properly closed under section 2(g) of the Open Meetings Act, we believe that final
actions were taken or decisions were made in violation of section 2(1). This
conclusion is apparent from the face of the compromise settlement agreement.
The attorney for the board contends, however, that the agreement made at the
.February 2S/Mareh 1 meeting was not a final action, vote or decision within the
meantng of section 2(L) since any decision was conditional on events which would
transpire on March 4. Specifically, the administrator insisted that no final action
.~be taken.until March 4 at which time he would have an opportunity to present a
summary ~ofhis accomplishments and objectives. While the compromise settlement
agreement does indicate a March 4 meeting was to occur, the effect of the
agreement is not made contingent on that occurrence. In fact, the agreement
specifically provides that “this compromise settlement agreement is the full
agreement of the parties hereto [with one exception not relevant herel.” The
check in settlementof the salary and vac,ation claim was issued and cashed prior to
March 4. Additionally, we have been presented no indication that any specific
action was taken on March 4 to formally adopt the agreement.
it is our opinion that the Open Meetings Act does not permit a governmental
. . .: body ‘to’,@ntei~into ,an ,agfeement and authoriee the expanditure of funds without
,acting in a ~session which,is open ~to the public.
SUMMARY
A governmental body may not take action or enter into an
‘- agreement in a closed meeting.
Attorney General of Texas
APPRQVED:
p. 4816
Honorable Chet Brooks - Page 3 (H-1198)
C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman
Opinion Committee
jsn
P. 4817
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion