Opinion No.
Background
- Bandera County River Authority and Groundwater District sought the Texas Attorney General's opinion on when electronic communications among board members may violate the Open Meetings Act (OMA).
- District raised three categories of electronic communications: emails among a quorum; emails to fewer than a quorum copied to the general manager; and messages to an internet-based group with unknown members.
- OMA requires open meetings and defines a meeting as a deliberation by a quorum (or between a quorum and another person) on public business, with action or discussion.
- Deliberation is a verbal exchange concerning issues within the body's jurisdiction; words need not be spoken in person to be considered deliberation.
- The opinion clarifies that electronic communications can still trigger the Act’s requirements; the analysis depends on facts, and factual questions cannot be resolved in an attorney general opinion.
- The summary conclusion states that electronic communications could, depending on the facts, constitute a deliberation and a meeting under the OMA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether electronic communications can constitute a meeting under the OMA | Sloan contends such communications could violate the Act | Abbott says facts determine applicability and cannot opine on specific messages | Electronic communications could constitute a deliberation/meeting depending on facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Willmann v. City of San Antonio, 123 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003) (defining walking quorum as serial meetings of less than a quorum)
- Esperanza Peace Justice Ctr. v. City of San Antonio, 316 F. Supp. 2d 433 (W.D. Tex. 2001) (describing walking quorum as overlapping series of meetings)
- Hitt v. Mabry, 687 S.W.2d 791 (Tex. App.-San Antonio, no writ) (same principle that physical presence not required for quorum)