Dr. Charles Lemaistre Opinion Wo. B- 994
Chancellor
The University of Texam System Re: Whether committee appointed
201 West 7th Street, by chairxan of Board of Regents
Aumtin, Texas 70701 to study procemm for selecting
chief administrative officers is
mubject to the Open Meeting8 Act.
Dear Dr. Lexafmtrer
You have amked our opinion on the applicabilityof the
Texas Open Meetings Act, article 6252-ll,~'V.T.C.S.,to a corn-
mittee appointed by the Chairman of the Board of Regents. The
committee,designated the 'Committeeto Study the Selection
Process of Chief AdxinimtrativeOfficers of the Component In-
mtitutionmof The University of Texan Symtem," is campomed of
three regents, the premidents of three institutionsin the Uni-
vermity of Texas system, one reprementativefrom the Ex-Students'
Amsociation,four faculty memberm, and four mtudentm. The
Board of Regent0 authorimed the Commmitteeto make an extenmive
mtudy of the process of selecting a chief adminimtrativeofficer
and to m&nit itm recommendationsto the Board. You advime urn
that this im an example of numerous comnmitfeesemtablimhed in
the University Symtex.,
The Open Meetings Act applier to every *meeting" of a
'governmentalbody" am thome term6 are defined in the Act.
Section l(c) of the Act provides in parts
"Governmentalbody" meana any board, com-
mimmion, department,committee, or.agency
within the executive or legimlativede-
partment of the state, which is unaer the
. . direc,tionof one or more elected or ap-
pointed mmmberm. . . .
section l(a) provides in part1
“Meeting’means any deliberationbetween
a quorum of menberm of a governmental
p. 4125
. .
. .
.-
#I -
P
.
Dr. Charles Lemaimtre - page 2 (R-994)
body at which any public buminemm or public
policy over which the governmentalbody ham
muPervimionor control is discuamedor con-
sidered, or at which any formal action is
taken.
The Committee is an entity within the executive branch com-
POSed of appointedmemberm. See Attorney General Opinions
H-772 (1976)rR-436 (1974)tMm6 (1967). It thereforemeets
the statutorydefinitionof governmentalbody.
If the Committeemeets to discuss "any public business or
public policy over which [it] ham supervisionor control,"
itm meetings will be covered by the Act. In Attorney General
Opinion R-772 (1976),we determined that the Open Meetings Act
did not apply to a purely advisory body which had no power to
mupervimeor control public business. In determiningwhether
a governmentalbody ham such power we have looked to the
resolutionsthat define itm'powerm, and we have indicated that
the evidence may show that it exercises additional authority
am a matter of practice. See Attorney General Opinion R-430
(1974). The resolution crxing the Committee mtates that it
ir to make an extensive study of the selection proces8 and
submit its recommendationsto the Board of Regents. ~Thimrem-
olution appears to make the Committee an advisor body only,
without power to superviseor control public bum1nemm. We
have been supplied no facts as to how the Board looks upon
'the.committee'm recommendations-- whether it accepts them am
final decisions, or merely consider6 them along with other
informationand opinions. In the absence of facts showing
. that the Committee is more than an advisory body, we cannot
may that its meetings are required to be open by the open
Meetings Act.
We think~thatthe presence of three Regents on the fifteen-
member committeedoes not bring it within the provisionm,ofthe
open Meetings Act as a committee of the board. Bee Attorney
General Opinions R-238 (1974);R-3 (1973). Cf. Gn Records
mcigfon No. 02 (1975) (report by committee rfour Regentm).
We have determined that committees of boards 8ubject to the
Act are themselvessubject to it, noting the danger that the
full'boardmight become the rubber stamp of its committees.
we think that this danger is diminished in the present came
by &e appointmentof twelve other memberm who might repre-
gent different viewpoint6within the university system. We
mtrongly caution, however, that should the council actually
function am a committee of the Board or aa somethingmore than
p. 4126
I
, 1
Dr. Charles Lemaimtre - page 3 (H-994)
an advisory body, and in fact rupervire or control public bumi-
nem8 or policy, it will have to comply withthe Act’8 provirionm
on notice and public meetings. In that instance, it8 mambmrm
MY be subject to sanctions imposed for failure to comply with
the Act. V.T.C.S. art. 6252-17, 6 4s Attorney General Opinion
H-772 (1976).
.SUMMARY
The'Committee to Study the Selection
Procerm of Chief Adminimtrative Officer8 .
of Component Inmtitution8 of.The Univer-
8ity of Texam~System" appointed by the
Chairman of the Board of Regents 18 not
required to comply with the Open Meetings
Act, ad long as it has no rup,ervision
or control over public burine8r or policy,
however, the factr may be much that the
Committee will be brought within the
coverage of the Act.
Opinion Commnittee
hall
‘I’
p. 4127, "
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion