Can a Texas commissioners court continue a meeting for up to a week without posting a new notice?

TX AG Opinion DM-0482: Can a commissioners court continue a meeting for a week without new notice?

Plain-English summary

The El Paso County Attorney, Jose Rodriguez, asked whether a commissioners court could continue (recess and reconvene) a meeting for a period of up to one week without reposting notice. His theory was that because the Local Government Code lets a commissioners court hold a "regular term" that "may continue for one week," the court could adjourn a properly posted meeting and pick it back up any time during that week without posting a fresh notice.

The Attorney General concluded the one-week "term" provision does not change the notice rule. The Open Meetings Act requires a governmental body to give written notice of the date, hour, place, and subject of each meeting. In Rivera v. City of Laredo, the appeals court addressed, as a matter of first impression, whether a body must repost notice for a recessed meeting. Drawing on a 1977 Attorney General opinion (H-1000) that allowed recessing "from day to day" for a long subject so long as it was in good faith and not an evasion, the Rivera court read that to mean a recess can only run to the next day, and it held that continuing a meeting two days later without reposting violated the Act.

The Attorney General adopted the Rivera standard for all governmental bodies: anything more than a day-to-day continuance requires reposting. The commissioners court's one-week "term" under Local Government Code section 81.005(a) is about something else. As a leading county-law treatise explains, the "term" concept mainly governs the court's authority to rescind or modify its own orders during a term, not the posting of meeting notices. So the one-week term is not the "statutory provision to the contrary" that Rivera said would be needed to depart from the day-to-day rule. The same answer applied to the County Attorney's follow-up question about section 81.005(h), which lets a commissioners court designate an alternate regular-term day; that provision is likewise about the court's term, not about notice. The conclusion: a commissioners court may continue a meeting to the following day without reposting, but if it continues to any later day, it must repost notice under Government Code section 551.041.

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.

The Open Meetings Act notice provisions and the Local Government Code commissioners-court term provisions cited here have been amended since 1998, and later cases and opinions may bear on recessed-meeting notice. Confirm the current statutes and case law before relying on any specific rule.

Who this opinion affected (as of 1998)

Commissioners courts and county clerks: The opinion told them they could carry a meeting to the next day without reposting but had to post fresh notice for any longer continuance, and that the one-week "term" did not give them a notice shortcut.

County attorneys advising on open-meetings compliance: The opinion gave a clear rule (day-to-day continuance only) and explained why the term statutes did not override it.

Members of the public and the press tracking county meetings: The opinion protected their notice rights, ensuring a meeting could not quietly resume days later without a new posting.

Common questions

Could a Texas commissioners court recess and reconvene a week later without new notice?
No. The opinion concluded that anything more than a day-to-day continuance requires reposting notice under the Open Meetings Act, so a week-long gap would need a fresh posting.

What about the law saying a commissioners court term can last a week?
The opinion explained that the one-week "term" in Local Government Code section 81.005(a) concerns the court's authority to act and to rescind its orders during a term, not meeting notice. It is not a statutory provision overriding the Open Meetings Act's notice rule.

When can a meeting continue without reposting?
According to the opinion, only to the very next day. If the meeting is continued to any day other than the one immediately following, the commissioners court must repost notice under section 551.041.

Where did this day-to-day rule come from?
The opinion relied on Rivera v. City of Laredo, which in turn drew on a 1977 Attorney General opinion (H-1000) allowing recess "from day to day" for a long subject, read to mean only to the next day.

Background and statutory framework

The Open Meetings Act, Government Code chapter 551, requires a governmental body to give written notice of the date, hour, place, and subject of each meeting (Gov't Code § 551.041). In Rivera v. City of Laredo, 948 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, writ denied), the court considered, as a matter of first impression, whether a body must post notice under section 551.041 for a recessed meeting. It relied on Attorney General Opinion H-1000 (1977), which had said a governmental body may recess "from day to day when it does not complete consideration of a particularly long subject so long as the action is in good faith and does not serve as an evasion of the Act." The Rivera court read that to imply a recess can run only to the next day, and held that a two-day continuation without reposting violated the Act, reasoning that "in the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary," the city had to post notice before its later meeting regardless of whether it viewed the meeting as a continuation.

The County Attorney suggested Local Government Code section 81.005(a) might dictate a different result for a commissioners court. That statute requires the court to designate a weekday on which it convenes a regular term each month and provides that "[a] regular term may continue for one week but may be adjourned earlier if the court's business is completed." Quoting David B. Brooks, County and Special District Law, the Attorney General explained that the "term" concept has primary relevance to the court's authority to rescind or modify a judicial-character order during a term, not to Open Meetings Act notice. The Attorney General concluded the one-week term provision has no bearing on whether notice must be reposted and is not "a statutory provision to the contrary." The same reasoning answered the second question about section 81.005(h) (which lets the court designate an alternate regular-term day): that provision is about the court's term, not notice. So a meeting may be continued to the following day without reposting, but a continuance to any later day requires reposting under section 551.041.

Citations

Statutes:

• Tex. Gov't Code § 551.041
• Tex. Local Gov't Code § 81.005(a), (h)

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 H-1000 (1977)

Secondary authority:

• 35 David B. Brooks, County and Special District Law § 5.5 (Texas Practice 1989)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/dan-morales/dm-0482
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1998/dm0482.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 28, 1998

The Honorable Jose R. Rodriguez
El Paso County Attorney
500 East San Antonio, Room 203
El Paso, Texas 79901

Opinion No. DM-482

Re: Whether a commissioners court may continue a meeting for a period of up to one week without reposting notice (RQ-1121)

Dear Mr. Rodriguez:

You have requested our opinion as to whether a commissioners court may continue a meeting for a period of up to one week without reposting notice.

The Open Meetings Act, Government Code chapter 551, requires a governmental body to "give written notice of the date, hour, place, and subject of each meeting held by the governmental body." Gov't Code § 551.041. In Rivera v. City of Laredo, 948 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, writ denied), the court considered "[w]hether a governmental body must post notice under section 551.041 for a recessed meeting." As the court noted, the matter was one "of first impression for Texas courts." Id. at 793. The court relied on Attorney General Opinion H-1000, in which this office had held that a governmental body may recess "from day to day when it does not complete consideration of a particularly long subject so long as the action is in good faith and does not serve as an evasion of the Act." Attorney General Opinion H-1000 (1977). "This statement," according to Rivera, "seems to imply that the recess can only be to the next day." Rivera, 948 S.W.2d at 793. The Rivera court thus held that a two-day continuation without reposting notice constituted a violation of the Open Meetings Act:

In the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary and in light of the attorney general opinion requiring notice of each daily session, we find that the City was required to post notice of its May 6th meeting before convening, regardless of whether it considered the meeting a continuation from a recessed meeting held two days previous.

Id.

In the situation you present, however, the governmental body is not a city council but a commissioners court, and you suggest that subsection 81.005(a) of the Local Government Code may dictate a result different from that of Rivera. That statute requires a commissioners court to "designate a day of week on which the court shall convene in a regular term each month." It further provides that "[a] regular term may continue for one week but may be adjourned earlier if the court's business is completed." Because this statute specifically provides for a "term" of one week, you believe that a commissioners court may adjourn a posted meeting and reconvene at any time within the "term" without reposting notice.

According to David Brooks in County and Special District Law,

[t]he matter of the commissioners court sitting at a certain term has primary relevance to the court's authority to rescind or modify an order, judicial in character, during any particular term or at subsequent terms. For example, a judicial act such as approving or disapproving a claim presented to the commissioners court cannot be rescinded at a subsequent term of the commissioners court.

35 David B. Brooks, County and Special District Law § 5.5 (Texas Practice 1989). In our opinion, the statutory provision permitting the continuation of a commissioners court's "term" for one week has no bearing on the issue of whether notice must be reposted under the Open Meetings Act. We believe that the standard adopted by the Rivera court--anything more than a day-to-day continuance requires reposting--is the proper one for the meetings of all governmental bodies. As the court there said, this result is mandated, inter alia, "in the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary." Rivera, 948 S.W.2d at 793. The authority granted to a commissioners court for a one-week "term" is not "a statutory provision to the contrary."

[Footnote: Brooks also states that "[t]he matter of recesses between sessions of the commissioners court brings into question whether the notices required under the Open Meetings Act must be posted before each session may be resumed. This question has not been definitively resolved." This statement was written, however, prior to the court's opinion in Rivera.]

You also ask whether, if we answer your first question in the negative, a commissioners court may rely on subsection 81.005(h) of the Local Government Code, to continue a meeting to "a fixed alternate regular term day" without reposting notice. That section provides: "The commissioners court may designate a day of the week on which the court shall convene in a regular term each month other than the day of the week designated under Subsection (a)." For the same reasons we gave in answer to your first question, it is our opinion that this provision about the court's "term" is not relevant to the matter of whether it must repost for a continued meeting. On the basis of Rivera, we conclude that, if a meeting is continued to the following day, notice need not be reposted. If, however, it is continued to any subsequent day, the commissioners court must repost notice in accordance with section 551.041 of the Open Meetings Act.

SUMMARY

A commissioners court may continue a meeting from day to day without reposting notice under section 551.041 of the Open Meetings Act, chapter 551 of the Government Code. If a meeting is continued to any day other than the one immediately following, the commissioners court must repost notice.

DAN MORALES
Attorney General of Texas

JORGE VEGA
First Assistant Attorney General

SARAH J. SHIRLEY
Chair, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General