Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, GA-1079

Background

Texas AG provides advisory on Open Meetings Act and videoconference rules for open-enrollment charter school governing boards.
Question 1 asks whether an in-person meeting may occur outside the charter school’s geographic service area.
Questions 2–4 concern whether a meeting may be held by videoconference under § 551.127 and whether members may participate from locations outside the service area or state.
Education Code § 26.007 requires district boards to meet within district boundaries, but its applicability to open-enrollment charters is limited by statute.
Two 2013 amendments (HB 2414 and SB 984) govern videoconference rules; harmonization is required when conflicting.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can an open-enrollment charter board hold an in-person meeting outside its geographic area?	Williams argues in-person meetings outside territory may be allowed.	Open Meetings Act requires location accessible to public within or near the body’s territory.	Cannot conclude as a matter of law; fact-intensive accessibility test may limit out-of-territory meetings.
May a charter school board meet by videoconference under § 551.127 when service area is not three counties?	Not explicitly addressed beyond general videoconference allowances.	Subsection (c) applies with harmonization; videoconference permitted under § 551.127 and its amendments.	Yes; videoconference allowed provided presiding member is at a public location within reasonable distance of charter territory.
Can board members participate in videoconference from locations outside the service area or state?	SB 984 and HB 2414 implications about geographic limits raise questions on remote participation.	Harmonized rule allows remote participation from outside territory once presiding member is at public location.	Yes; non-presiding members may participate remotely outside the charter’s geographic area, including outside the state.
How should HB 2414 and SB 984 be harmonized for videoconference rules?	Two bills potentially conflict; need consistent application.	Rules can be harmonized so that state/government bodies or those extending into three+ counties comply with both subsections (c).	Harmonized interpretation requires presiding member at public location and limits for state or multi-county bodies; applies to charters via § 551.127.

Key Cases Cited

Garcia v. State, 669 S.W.2d 169 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1984) (irreconcilable conflict exists only if impossible to comply with both provisions)
Wright v. Broeter, 196 S.W.2d 82 (Tex. 1946) (repeal by implication not favored; need close alignment of contemporaneous acts)
State v. Jackson, 370 S.W.2d 797 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston (1st Dist.) 1963) (irreconcilable conflict difficult to find; legislative amendments harmonizable)