Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is defending the constitutionality of the Texas Open Meetings ACT (TOMA), arguing that “The First Amendment protects citizens against government oppression – not government against citizen oversight.” The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas couldn’t agree more.
In a brief filed in the Western District of Texas United States District Court July 12, General Abbott goes on to say “Open government laws are based on the same premise: that public officials work for the people. For these reasons, openness in government is a First Amendment virtue, not a First Amendment violation.” FOIFT stands strongly with the AG in support of this position and has filed an amicus brief in support. Click here for more details.
Follow us on Twitter!
Support us on Facebook!
View our Flickr photos!
Watch our YouTube videos!
City Attorney: City commissioners did not violate Open Meetings Act
July 14, 2010
By JERRY DEAL
Contrary to reports being circulated about the city, the three city commissioners who attended a joint meeting with the Economic Development Board did not violate the Texas Open Meetings Act, according to City Attorney Roxan Pais Cotroneo.
The reports had claimed that commissioners Jerry Prepechal, Kori Marra and Robert Leftwich were a quorum, so because the meeting was not posted, they had violated the Open Meetings law.
Cotroneo explained that under Texas law, a quorum means a majority of members, unless defined differently by charter of the governmental body.
“Pursuant to Article V, Section 1 of the Harlingen City Charter, three city commissioners and a presiding mayor or mayor pro tem constitute a quorum,” she said.
“Neither the mayor nor the mayor pro tem were present so there was no quorum, so there was no violation of the Open Meetings Act.”
Cotroneo, who also was at the meeting, held at the Harlingen Area Chamber of Commerce building, added, “If I knew or believed there was a violation, I would have immediately stopped the meeting.”
She said a notice of the meeting was posted on the front bulletin board at City Hall, but that City Secretary Sylvia Trevino forgot to post it on the internet.
“But, because there was no quorum, no violation,” she concluded.
City Commissioners Did Violate Open Meetings Act!
July 14, 2010
By Chuck Lee
I take the opposite position. I believe the 3 city commissioners in attendance were a quorum at the EDC bonifide meeting and violated the Texas Open Meetings Act.
If Harlingen City Attorney Roxann Cotroneo’s interpretation of the Harlingen City Charter mentioned below is valid, then 3 or 4 city commissioners can meet at will, discuss city business, and decide how to vote on city business at will without repercussions, as long as the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem is not present during their meetings.
This sets a dangerous precedent for city government and will not stand. The City Charter must line up and comply with the State of Texas Constitution and State Statutes. They take precedent over city law.
“This aggression will not stand man.” The Dude, in the cult classic movie, “The Big Labowski”
No posting of an “Attendance and Participation” meeting on City of Harlingen Website in the event a quorum of city commissioners is present at EDC July 13, 2010 meetings:
http://www.myharlingen.us/default.aspx?name=citycommission.agendas.2010
No posting of any meeting for July 13, 2010 on City of Harlingen Website:
http://www.myharlingen.us/default.aspx?name=citycommission.agendas.2010
A posting of the EDC meetings for July 13, 2010 on City of Harlingen Website:
http://www.myharlingen.us/default.aspx?name=devcorps.agenda.2010
Harlingen City Charter
ARTICLE V. LEGISLATION (ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS)
SECTION 1. MEETINGS OF CITY COMMISSION. The City Commissioner shall meet at such time as may be prescribed by the ordinance or resolution, but at least once a month. The Mayor, any two City Commissioners or the City Manager (hereinafter provided for) may call special meetings of the City Commission at any time deemed advisable. The City Commission shall establish by ordinance how an item may be placed on the agenda. All meetings of the City Commission shall be public except such executive sessions as may be provided for by law, and any citizen shall have access to the minutes and records of meetings at all reasonable times in accordance with the Open Meetings Act, the Public Information Act and/or any other applicable laws, all as may be amended in the future. The City Commission shall determine its own rules and order of business and shall keep a journal of its proceedings. However, if the City Commission has not determined its own rules and order of business for any matter, then parliamentary procedures shall be followed in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order. (Res. 79-R-7, passed 2-24-79)
SECTION 2. LEGISLATIVE AND BUSINESS PROCEDURE. Three (3) City Commissioners and a presiding Mayor or Mayor Pro tempore shall constitute a quorum to do business. The City Commission shall conduct its business by adoption or rejection of ordinances or resolutions or motions. (Ord. 73-30, passed 11-7-73)
Notice Requirements
Texas Local Government Code
§ 551.050. Municipal Governmental Body: Place of Posting Notice A municipal governmental body shall post notice of each meeting on a bulletin board at a place convenient to the public in the city hall.
§ 551.056. Additional Posting Requirements for Certain Municipalities, Counties, School Districts, Junior College Districts, and Development Corporations
Section 551.056 requires certain governmental bodies and economic development corporations to post notice on their Internet Web sites, in addition to other postings required by the Act. This provision applies to the following entities, if the entity maintains an Internet Web site or has a Web site maintained for it:
(1) a municipality;
(2) a county;
(3) a school district;
(4) the governing body of a junior college or junior college district, including a
college or district that has changed its name in accordance with Chapter 130, Education Code; and
(5) a development corporation organized under the Development Corporation
Act (Subtitle C1, Title 12, Local Government Code).
(6) a regional mobility authority included within the meaning of an “authority” as defined by Section 370.003, Transportation Code.
If a covered municipality’s population is 48,000 or more and a county’s population is 65,000 or more, it must also post the agenda for the meeting on its Web site.
(c) The following governmental bodies and economic development corporations must also
concurrently post the agenda for the meeting on the Internet website of the governmental body or economic development corporation:
(1) a municipality with a population of 48,000 or more;
(2) a county with a population of 65,000 or more;
(3) a school district that contains all or part of the area within the corporate boundaries of a
municipality with a population of 48,000 or more;
(4) the governing body of a junior college district, including a district that has changed its name in accordance with Chapter 130, Education Code, that contains all or part of the area within the corporate boundaries of a municipality with a population of 48,000 or more;
(5) a development corporation organized under the Development Corporation A ct (Subtitle C1, Title 12, Local Government Code)
that was created by or for:
(A) a municipality with a population of 48,000 or more
Sections 551.143 and 551.144 of the Government Code establish criminal sanctions for certain conduct that violates openness requirements. A member of a governmental body must be found to have acted “knowingly” to be found guilty of either of these offenses. Section 551.143 provides as follows:
(a) A member or group of members of a governmental body commits an offense if the member or group of members knowingly conspires to circumvent this chapter by meeting in numbers less than a quorum for the purpose of secret deliberations in violation of this chapter.`
(b) An offense under Subsection (a) is a misdemeanor punishable by:
(1) a fine of not less than $100 or more than $500; (2) confinement in the county jail for not less than one month or more than six
months; or (3) both the fine and confinement.