What happens to a Texas public videoconference meeting if technical problems cut off the public watching at a remote location?

TX AG Opinion DM-0480: Must a videoconference meeting stop if a remote site loses the feed?

Plain-English summary

When a Texas governmental body holds a meeting by videoconference call under Government Code section 551.126, the law sets strict access rules. Every part of the open meeting has to be visible and audible to the public at each location named in the meeting notice, all of those locations have to keep two-way communication with each other for the entire meeting, and the audio and video have to meet quality standards set by the Department of Information Resources. Carolyn Purcell, the department's executive director, asked the Attorney General what happens when technical difficulties break those conditions at a remote location.

The Attorney General answered her first question, whether the body must recess or adjourn when a glitch makes part of the open meeting inaccessible to the public at a remote location, by concluding that it must. The statute's language makes clear the Legislature intended the open portions to be visible and audible to the public at every listed location. If one listed location loses two-way communication with another during any part of the open meeting, the meeting no longer satisfies the statute. Likewise, if audio or video quality at any listed location falls below the statutory and regulatory standards, the public there cannot observe the voice and demeanor of each participant, so the meeting cannot continue.

On the second question, whether the body could avoid recessing by stating in its notice that the quorum would keep meeting if technical problems occurred, the Attorney General concluded it could not. The department's concern was practical: members who traveled from far-flung parts of the state, some uncompensated, would waste time and money waiting for problems to be fixed. The Attorney General acknowledged the concern but explained that section 551.126(d) and (e) let a member of the public choose whether to attend where the quorum is present or at a remote location. An agency that keeps meeting at the quorum's location despite difficulties that make the meeting impossible to see or hear at a remote location violates subsection (e) by depriving the people at the remote location of their right to see and hear it, and the suggested notice does nothing to fix that.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Government Code section 551.126 and the Department of Information Resources rules on videoconference meetings have been amended substantially since 1998. Confirm the current statute and current administrative rules before relying on any specific requirement here.

Who this opinion affected (as of 1998)

Texas governmental bodies using videoconference meetings: The opinion told them they had to recess or adjourn when a technical failure cut off the public at any listed location, and that they could not write around the rule with advance notice.

The Department of Information Resources: The opinion confirmed that the audio and video quality standards the department set by rule were part of what a body had to maintain at every listed location for the meeting to continue.

Members of the public attending at remote sites: The opinion protected their right to choose a remote location and to see and hear the entire open meeting from there, treating a failure of that access as a reason the meeting must stop.

Common questions

If a remote site loses the video feed during a Texas public meeting, can the meeting go on?
No, according to this opinion. If a technical failure means the public at a listed location cannot see or hear the open meeting, or two-way communication or signal quality drops below the standards, the governmental body must recess or adjourn.

Can a board just announce in advance that it will keep going if there are glitches?
No. The opinion concluded a governmental body cannot avoid recessing by stating in its notice that the quorum will continue despite technical difficulties. The public's right to see and hear the meeting at a remote location cannot be waived that way.

Why does it matter if only the remote site has problems?
The opinion explained that the law lets a member of the public choose to attend at a remote location instead of where the quorum sits. Continuing the meeting while that location is dark deprives those citizens of their right to observe it.

What standards did the audio and video have to meet?
The opinion pointed to Government Code section 551.126(h) and (i) and the Department of Information Resources rule (1 Texas Administrative Code section 201.16), which required signals good enough for the public at each location to observe the demeanor and hear the voice of each participant.

Background and statutory framework

In 1997 the Legislature adopted Government Code section 551.126 to let a governmental body hold a meeting by videoconference call. The opinion noted the Legislature was motivated in part by a desire to overcome Attorney General Opinion DM-207 (1993), which had concluded a governmental body could not conduct a meeting by videoconference call without express statutory authorization, and that legislators believed existing technology let participants and interested persons observe the demeanor of all participants (DM-207 itself drew on Attorney General Opinion JM-584 (1986)).

Section 551.126 allows a videoconference meeting only if a quorum is physically present at one location, requires the notice to specify the quorum's location and each other location a participating member will join from, and requires each location to be open to the public during the open portions. Subsection (e) requires each open portion to be visible and audible to the public at each location specified in the notice. Subsection (g) requires two-way communication between all listed locations during the entire meeting. Subsections (h) and (i) require the Department of Information Resources to set minimum audio and video standards by rule and require the signal quality perceptible to the public at each location to meet or exceed those standards and to be good enough for the public to observe the demeanor and hear the voice of each participant.

Reading subsections (e), (g), (h), and (i) together, the Attorney General concluded that a technical failure at any listed location, a loss of two-way communication or a drop below the quality standards, means the meeting does not satisfy the statute and cannot continue. The opinion cited the department's rule at 1 Texas Administrative Code section 201.16 (adopted at 23 Texas Register 1302 (1998)) as the source of the quality standards. It also cited Rivera v. City of Laredo, 948 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, writ denied), which found an Open Meetings Act violation where a city continued a recessed meeting two days later without posting notice of the continuation, as a caution about how recessing interacts with notice. On the second question, the Attorney General held that the proposed advance notice, deeming a remotely located member to have left and letting the meeting continue where the quorum sits, would not cure the deprivation of the remote public's right to see and hear the meeting under subsection (e).

Citations

Statutes and rules:

• Tex. Gov't Code § 551.126
• 1 Tex. Admin. Code § 201.16

Cases:

• Rivera v. City of Laredo, 948 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, writ denied)

Prior Attorney General opinions:

• Attorney General Opinion DM-207 (1993)
• Attorney General Opinion JM-584 (1986)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/dan-morales/dm-0480
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1998/dm0480.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas

DAN MORALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL

August 5, 1998

Ms. Carolyn Purcell
Executive Director
Department of Information Resources
P.O. Box 13564
Austin, Texas 78711-3564

Opinion No. DM-480

Re: Whether, under Government Code section 551.126, a governmental body must recess or adjourn a meeting held by videoconference call if technical difficulties render portions of the meeting inaccessible to the public at a remote location, and related question (RQ-1098)

Dear Ms. Purcell:

Under Government Code section 551.126(e), if a governmental body chooses to conduct a meeting by videoconference call, each portion of the open meeting must be visible and audible to the public at each location listed in the meeting notice. Additionally, each location listed in the meeting notice must, in accordance with section 551.126(g), have two-way communication with each other location during the entire meeting. You ask whether a governmental body must recess or adjourn its meeting if technical difficulties render portions of the meeting inaccessible to the public at a remote location. We conclude that it must. You also ask whether the governmental body may avoid having to recess or adjourn the meeting in the event of technical difficulties by specifying in its meeting notice that, if technical difficulties occur, the quorum will continue to conduct its business. We conclude it may not.

[Footnote: The Seventy-fifth Legislature adopted two versions of Government Code section 551.126. The first, Act of May 23, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 944, § 1, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 2952, 2952, permits the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to hold an open meeting by telephone conference call or videoconference call in certain circumstances. The second, Act of May 30, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 1038, § 1, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 3896, 3896-97, is the provision about which you ask. Throughout this opinion, we will use the term "section 551.126" to refer only to the provision about which you ask.]

As you point out, in 1997 the legislature adopted Government Code section 551.126 to permit a governmental body to hold a meeting via videoconference call. [Footnote: See Senate Comm. on State Affairs, Bill Analysis, C.S.S.B. 839, 75th Leg., R.S. (1997); cf. House Comm. on State Affairs, Bill Analysis, H.B. 1772, 75th Leg., R.S. (1997) (analyzing bill that was substantially identical to S.B. 839 as finally passed).] The legislature's effort was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to overcome a 1993 opinion of this office in which we stated that a governmental body could not conduct a meeting by videoconference call in the absence of express statutory authorization to the contrary. [Footnote: See House Comm. on State Affairs, Bill Analysis, H.B. 1772, 75th Leg., R.S. (1997); Attorney General Opinion DM-207 (1993) at 3.] Legislators apparently believed that, using existing technology, persons interested and participants in a public meeting can observe the demeanor of all participants. [Footnote: See House Comm. on State Affairs, Bill Analysis, H.B. 1772, 75th Leg., R.S. (1997); Attorney General Opinion DM-207 (1993) at 2-3 (citing Attorney General Opinion JM-584 (1986) at 4, 6).]

In our view, the language of the statute makes abundantly clear that the legislature intended the open portions of a meeting by videoconference call to be visible and audible to the public at every location the governmental body listed in its notice:

(a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, this chapter does not prohibit a governmental body from holding an open or closed meeting by videoconference call.

(b) A meeting may be held by videoconference call only if a quorum of the governmental body is physically present at one location of the meeting.

(c) A meeting held by videoconference call is subject to the notice requirements applicable to other meetings in addition to the notice requirements prescribed by this section.

(d) The notice of a meeting to be held by videoconference call must specify as a location of the meeting the location where a quorum of the governmental body will be physically present and specify the intent to have a quorum present at that location. In addition, the notice of the meeting must specify as a location of the meeting each other location where a member of the governmental body who will participate in the meeting will be physically present during the meeting. Each of the locations shall be open to the public during the open portions of the meeting.

(e) Each portion of a meeting held by videoconference call that is required to be open to the public shall be visible and audible to the public at each location specified under Subsection (d).

(f) The governmental body shall make at least an audio recording of the meeting. The recording shall be made available to the public.

(g) Each location specified under Subsection (d) shall have two-way communication with each other location during the entire meeting. Each participant in the videoconference call, while speaking, shall be clearly visible and audible to each other participant and, during the open portion of the meeting, to the members of the public in attendance at a location of the meeting.

(h) The Department of Information Resources by rule shall specify minimum standards for audio and video signals at a meeting held by videoconference call. The quality of the audio and video signals perceptible at each location of the meeting must meet or exceed those standards.

(i) The quality of the audio and video signals perceptible by the members of the public at each location of the meeting must:

(1) meet or exceed the quality of the audio and video signals perceptible by the members of the governmental body participating in the meeting; and

(2) be of sufficient quality so that members of the public at each location of the meeting can observe the demeanor and hear the voice of each participant in the open portion of the meeting.

(j) Without regard to whether a member of the governmental body is participating in a meeting from a remote location by videoconference call, a governmental body may allow a member of the public to testify at a meeting from a remote location by videoconference call. [Emphasis added.]

Subsections (e), (g), (h), and (i) in particular compel us to conclude, in answer to your first question, that if, due to technical difficulties, members of the public gathered at a location listed in the subsection (d) notice cannot see or hear the open meeting, the meeting must be recessed or adjourned. As we read subsection (g), for example, if one listed location loses two-way communication with another listed location during any part of the open meeting, then the meeting will not satisfy the statute. Likewise, under subsections (h) and (i), if audio or video quality at any location listed in the notice fails to meet the statutory and regulatory standards, [Footnote: See Tex. Dep't of Information Resources, 22 Tex. Reg. 10870 (1997), adopted 23 Tex. Reg. 1302 (1998) (codified at 1 Tex. Admin. Code § 201.16).] members of the public at each location will be unable to observe the voice and demeanor of each participant in the open meeting. Consequently, the meeting cannot continue. [Footnote: But see Rivera v. City of Laredo, 948 S.W.2d 787, 793 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, writ denied) (finding that city violated Open Meetings Act by continuing recessed meeting two days after meeting convened without posting notice of continuation of meeting).]

We conclude, in answer to your second question, that a governmental body may not avoid having to recess or adjourn the meeting in the event of technical difficulties by stating in its notice that the meeting will continue in such an event. You suggest that proper notice to the public that the quorum of the governmental body will continue its meeting despite the technical difficulties will avoid having the members of the governmental body, who may have gathered at one location from far-flung points of the state and who may be uncompensated, wasting time and money while the difficulties are resolved. [Footnote: You articulate what you suggest to be sufficient notice: "If technical difficulties should cause the remote location(s) to become no longer open to the public during any portion of the meeting that is required to be open to the public, the remotely located member of the governing board will be deemed to have left the meeting, and the meeting will continue at the location where the quorum is physically present."] While we understand your concerns, in our opinion Government Code section 551.126(d), (e) contemplates that a member of the public may choose whether to attend a governmental body's meeting at the location where the quorum is present or at a remote location. An agency that continues a meeting at the location where the quorum is present in spite of technical difficulties that make seeing or hearing the meeting impossible at a remote location violates subsection (e) by depriving citizens at the remote location of their right to see and hear the meeting. The notice you suggest in no way remedies this problem.

SUMMARY

Under Government Code section 551.126, a governmental body must recess or adjourn an open meeting conducted via videoconference call if technical difficulties cause the quality of the audio or video signal to fall below the standards set by the Department of Information Resources. The governmental body cannot avoid this result by notifying the public that, should technical difficulties occur, the quorum of the governmental body will continue its open meeting.

DAN MORALES
Attorney General of Texas

JORGE VEGA
First Assistant Attorney General

SARAH J. SHIRLEY
Chair, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Kymberly K. Oltrogge
Assistant Attorney General