The Attorney General of Texas
April 14, 1978
JOHN L. HILL
Attorney General
Honorable John Wtlson Opinion No. H-1154
Chairman
House Committee on Health Re: Meetings of a county child
and Welfare welfare board.
State Capitol
Austin, Texas 701ll
Dear Mr. Wilson:
You have requested our opinion concerning the legality of certain closed
meetings of the Montgomery County Child Welfare Board. You ask whether
the Board may review case files of recipients of or applicants for public
assistance without violating article 695c, section 33, V.T.C.S. -You also ask
723 Man. sulo $10 whether the Board may meet in closed session to discuss such a case file.
+4olJsDn. TX. 770x
7w2zsmol
Article 695a, section 4, V.T.C.S., provides for the creation of a child
welfare board by a county commissioners’ court and states that “it shall
perform such duties as may be required of it by the said Commissioners’
Court and the State Department of Public Welfare. . . .” The contract
between the Montgomery County Commissioners’ Court and the Department
establishes the following duties for the Board among others:
1) To develop M estimated budget and recommend
it to the Commissioners’ Court.
2)To implement the policies of the Commis-
sionem’ Court not In conflict with those of the
Department.
3)To review and approve expenditures on behalf
of child welfare.
4)To approve the expenditure of local funds by
the staff of the Department for purposes for
which the Commissionem’ Court has allocated
funds.
p. 4679
.
+4 : :
Honorable John Wilson - Page 2 (R-1154)
The contract also provides that the Board will have access to all case records
subject to applicable state laws concerning confidentiality.
Article 595c, section 33, pro*ides in part:
(1) It shall be unlawful, except for purposes directly
connected with the administration of general assistance, aid
to dependent children, or social services programs, and in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the State
Department, for any person or persons to solicit, disclose,
receive, make use of, or to authorize, knowingly permit,
participate in, or acquiesce in the use of, any list of, or
names of, or any information concerning, persons applying
for or receiving such assistance, directly or indirectly
derived from the records, papers, files, or communications
of the State Department or subdivisions or agencies thereof,
or acquired in the course of the performance of official
duties.
It would seem beyond question that the review of case files by the Board is
“directly connected with the administration of . . . assistance.” Since the Board’s
access to these files is provided ,by a contract with the Department of Public
Welfare, in our opinion the review of case files by the Board would not violate
article 695c, section 33.
Your second question involves the application of article 6252-17, V.T.C.S., the
Gpen Meetings Act. Section l(c) thereof defines “governmental body” to include
“every deliberative body having rule-making or quasi-judicial power and classified
as a department . . . of a county. . . .” Article 995a, section 4, provides that a
Commissioners’ Court may appoint “a Child Welfare Board for the county.” The
members “hold office during the pleasure of the Commissioners’ Court.” The size
of the Board is determined by the Commissionem’ Court. These provisions, in
conjunction with those of the contract reproduced above, indicate that the Board is
a department of the County, notwithstanding the fact that it is also “an entity of
the State Department of Public Welfare for the purposes of providing coordinated
state and local public welfare services for children and their families . . .I’ Thus
whether the Board is a “governmental body” within the Open Meetings Act depends
upon whether it is a “deliberative body having rule-making or quasi-judicial
~.power. . . .”
ln Attorney General Opinion H-467 (1974) we stated:
Rule-making authority is legislative in nature and involves
broad policy considerations. (CitatiOtE omitted). An
p. 4690
* .
.
. .
a I. , *
* .
Honorable John Wilson - Page 3 (II-1154)
administrative agency determining the rights of one or more
parties under a general rule, regulation, ordinance, or
statute is exercising a quasi-judicial power. (citations
omitted).
We need not decide whether the approval of expenditures would be an exercise of a
quasi-judicial power, for in our view the implementation of policies of the
nCommissionem’ Court not in conflict with the State Department of Public
Welfare’s policies” involves the exerciae of rule-making authority. Thus in our
opinion the Board is a governmental body under the Open Meetings Act.
Nevertheless, we believe the Board may meet in executive session for the
limited purpose of discussing case files where an open meeting would result in a
violation of section 33 of article 695~. A Colorado appellate court was faced with
a similar question jnvolving meetings of the Denver Inter-Agency Committee on
Child Abuse. The Committee was subject to the provisions of The Colorado Public
Meetings Law, but another statute prohibited disclosure of the contents of child
abuse reports. The court concluded that the committee could meet in executive
session to discuss child abuse reports. Gillies v. Schmidt, 556 P.2d 82 (Cola. Ct.
App. 1976).
It is our view that Texas law compels the conclusion that such limited closed
sessions are not “meetings” within article 6252-17, section l, for the consideration
of information made confidential by law does not constitute the discussion of
‘public business.” Attorney General Opinions H-780 (19761,H-464 (1974).
SUMMARY
The Montgomery County Child Welfare Board is a govern-
mental body within the meaning of the Open Meetings Act
but may meet in closed session for the limited purpose of
discussing particular case files of persons receiving or
applying for public assistance.
Attorney General of Texas
p. 4681
- .
Honorable John Wilson - Page 4 (R-1154)
Opinion Committee
p. 4682