October 11, 1974 . .
The Honorable William T. Keenan Opinion No. H- 419
Executive Director
Office of tha Govemor’r Committee Re: Validity of Committee
on Aging meeting under epan Meetings
Box 12786. Capitol Station Act, Article 62S2-17, V. T. C. S.
Austin, Texas 70711
Dear 14r. Keenut:
You have asked whether the Governor’s Committee on Aging complied
with the requirements of the Open Meetinga Law, Art. 6252-17, V. T. C. S.,
under the circumstances set out below.
The Committee on Aging is directed by a nine member board
appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate,Art.
694k, V. T. C. S., and aa such is a governmental body within the scope of
the Open Meetings Law, Art. 6252-17, $1(c), V. T. C.S.
On December 14, 1973. the Committee on Aging filed notice with
the Secretary of State for a Committee meeting to be held 3 days later,
stating as its subject: “Regular Meeting. ” At the meeting on December
17, 1973, the Committee authorized the selection of a staff “grant review
committee” led by the Committee’s Executive Director and the Board
Chairman to act at a formal seesion on the Committee’s behalf@ encumber
any federal funds which might become available prior to the year’s end.
It was further resolved that a telephone poll would be taken of all members
of the Governor’s Committee on Aging for the purpose of approving any
grant review committee actbn.
The federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare notified
the Committee on Aging on December 27, 1973. of the availability of additional
funds subject to their being obligated by the last day of the month. The next
p. 1952
/ -~
i The Honorable William T. Keenan page 2 (H-4191
day the Executive Director, the Chairman of the Board, and the grant
review committee met and did, in fact, act to encumber the federal
monies, and a telephone poll was subsequently conducted. Thir formal
meeting was without notice of any kind to the public althou& one news
reporter war present.
Subrequently at a regular meeting of the Committee a motion was
passed to ratify the actions taken by the grant review committee on the
preceding December 28. Although notice was given for this committee
meeting, there was no ipecific indication in the notice that the Board
would seek to ratify the prior acts of the grant review cornmitt&. In
order to cure this defect the Committee posted notice for another meeting
which would include consideration of ratification of the actions of prior
meetings which were all identified by date only. At the meeting a motion
wan adopted to ratify the a&oar of the prior meetinga.
It is our conclusion that up:to and including this meeting the actions
of the Committee relating to the tncunibrancs: of the federal funds did not
fulfill the rubjeot-matter notice provision of $,3(A) (a) of the Open Meetinga
kW. Notice that the subject-matter of a meeting will be ati Commitee’s
“regular meeting” or thit the Committee intends to “ratify acti& of December
17, 1973 meeting ” does not appri se the public, even in general terms, of
what is to be discussed, or ratified. The expressed intention of the
requirement of s 3A of Art. 6252-17, V. T. C. S., that 72 hour0 notice be
given of a meeting, is not only to let the public know of the meeting but
also to advise of the subject matter. Subsection 3A(a) provider:
Written notice of the date, hour, place, and rublect
of each meeting held by a governmental body shall
begiven before the meeting as prescribed by this
section. (Emphasis added)
Thir Office stated in Attorney General Opinion M-494 (1969) :
The notice should specifically set out any special or
unusual matters to be considered or any matter in which
the public has a particular interest, ae well ae general
1
/ ‘;
p. 1953
I
The Honorable William T. Keenan page 3 (H-419)
statements concerning routine matters.
Of courre. an
itemized agenda of all matters to be considered would
be in strict compliance with the mandate of Section 3(A) (a)
of the Act.
Failure to substantially comply with the Open Meetings Law makes
an otherwise valid action taken at a meeting of a governmental body voidable.
Tovah Independent School District v. Pccos-Barstow Independent School District.
466 S. W. 2d 377. 380 (Tex. Civ. App., San Antonio, 1971, no writ). Con-
sequently, action taken by the Commitee without adequate notice under the
Open Records Act was voidable. Even though a governmental body “may
effectively ratify what it could theretofore have lawfully authorized in the
first piace, ” Faurettv. King, 470 S. W. td 770, 773 (Tex. Civ. App., El
Paso, 1971, no writ). we are unable to conclude that notice that the Committee
intended to ratify actions taken at prior meetings, without specifying
nhat action. would be sufficient notice to the public that the actions of the
Committee encumbering federa) funds would be one subject of the meeting.
In order to be sure that the prior actions were properly ratified,
the Committee posted a more detailed notice for its meeting of August 30,
1974. That notice included an item two stating:
Ratification of Action of the grant review committee of December 28,1973
encumbering Federal Funds, as follows
Grants recommended for approval subject to polling the Board:
United Action for the Elderly. Inc. - Mobile Meals,
Austin - $45,265.00.
San Antonio Nutritional Day Care Project for the
Elderly, San Antonio - $17, 270.
City of Abilcne Nutrition Progrdm for the -Aging -
$182,717. DO.
Approval of use of statt. funds as matching in Senior Community
S YORK Firat Asa etant
3fskx&iL
DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman
Opinion Committee
lg
p. 1955