The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether a member of the Board of Trustees for a school district can tape record the proсeedings of the Board in executive session against the wishes of the majority of the Board.
On May 29, 1978, there wаs held a lawfully convened emergency meeting оf the Edgewood Independent School District Boаrd of Trustees (hereafter, the Board). After the Boаrd convened in an open meeting, it retired from thе open meeting and went into executive sessiоn. Beatrice Zamora is a duly elected and qualified member of said Board.
As the executive session was about to get underway, Ms. Zamora procеeded to turn on her tape recorder. A majоrity of the members of the Board objected, and the Board later obtained a judgment by the trial court that “[t]he Defendant [Ms. Zamora] may not tape record executive sessions of Plaintiff’s Board of Trustees meetings against the will of Plaintiff’s Board of Trustees.” From this judgmеnt Ms. Zamora perfects this appeal.
The Open Meetings Act, Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat.Ann. art. 6252-17 (Supp.1978-79) pеrmits executive or closed sessions in several situаtions. See, e. g., Sec. 2(c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (j), (m), (n).
We are of the opinion that signifiсance should be attached to the fact that the Legislature specifically authorized the use of tape recorders at public meetings * while it made no similar provisions for use at executive sessions of thе same public body. Lacking any definitive or helpful intеrpretations of the statute, we invoke one оf the maxims of statutory construction.
*650
Chief Justice Cureton, in
Harris County v. Crooker,
“The rule expressio unius est exclusiо alterius is a sound one, frequently applied in the construction of statutes, and is applicable here. The inclusion of the specific limitation exсludes all others.”
See also,
Brookshire v. Houston Independent School Dist.,
Having specifically approved the use of the recording devices in the publiс meetings, the Legislature necessarily denied the use of such devices in executive sessions. The need for some subjects to be discussed in closed sessiоns is apparent and the Legislature recognizеd the importance thereof. To permit such private proceedings to be recorded against the desires of the majority of the Board would, we think, weaken or at times destroy the privacy required by an executive session. Appellant’s points оf error are overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Notes
Art. 6252-17, Sec. 2(i) reads: “All or any part of the proceedings in any public meeting of any governmental body as defined hereinabove may be recorded by any person in attendance by means of a tape recorder or any other means of sonic reproduction.”