Can a Texas county salary grievance committee meet without the county judge, and can it vote behind closed doors?

Texas AG Opinion JM-1007: Can a County Salary Committee Meet Without the Judge and Vote in Private?

Plain-English summary

Every Texas county has a salary grievance committee, the body that hears disputes over how much elected county officials are paid. By statute the county judge chairs it, but does not vote. In Tom Green County, the committee met to consider equalizing a constable's pay, and the county judge was not there. He had directed a commissioner to run the hearing in his place. After the hearing the committee went into a closed session to talk it over and vote. The county attorney wanted to know two things: was it a problem that the judge was absent and a commissioner ran the meeting, and was it a problem that the deliberation and vote happened behind closed doors.

On the first question, the Attorney General saw no problem. The statute makes the county judge the non-voting chairman and does not spell out what happens when he is absent, but nothing about a commissioner stepping in as a non-voting chairman, at the judge's own direction, would poison an action that was otherwise done correctly. The chair here was not voting; he was just presiding.

The closed session was a different story. A salary grievance committee is a "governmental body," and governmental bodies in Texas are bound by the Open Meetings Act. Their meetings have to be open to the public unless the law specifically allows an executive (closed) session, and even when a closed session is allowed, the body still cannot take a vote in private. Deliberating and voting behind closed doors, as this committee did, broke the rule. Under the act, any action taken in violation is voidable, meaning a court can undo it. The Attorney General was careful to add that whether a particular action should actually be thrown out is a decision for a district court on the specific facts, not something he could declare in an opinion.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989. 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, cited here as article 6252-17, V.T.C.S., was later recodified as chapter 551 of the Government Code, and its provisions (including the definitions of "meeting" and "governmental body," the rules on closed sessions, and the voidability of actions taken in violation) have been amended and renumbered since. The salary grievance committee provisions of the Local Government Code (section 152.014) have also been amended. Anyone dealing with an open-meetings question today should consult the current chapter 551 of the Government Code and the current Local Government Code rather than the 1989 article and section numbers used here.

Who this opinion affected (as of 1989)

County salary grievance committees: The opinion confirmed that they are governmental bodies bound by the Open Meetings Act and cannot deliberate or vote in closed session, while allowing a commissioner to preside as a non-voting chairman when the county judge is absent.

County judges and commissioners: The opinion told them a judge could designate a commissioner to chair a grievance committee meeting in the judge's absence without invalidating the committee's work.

County officials seeking pay adjustments and the public: The opinion meant that a committee's closed-session vote on compensation was open to challenge in court as voidable.

Common questions

Can a Texas county salary grievance committee meet if the county judge does not show up?
Yes. In this opinion the Attorney General concluded that the committee's action is not invalid merely because a county commissioner, designated by the absent judge, presided as a non-voting chairman.

Can the committee talk it over and vote in a closed session?
No. The committee is a governmental body under the Open Meetings Act. Its meetings must be open unless an executive session is expressly authorized, and it can never take a vote in a closed session. Doing so violated the act.

What happens to a decision made in an improper closed session?
It is voidable, meaning a court can set it aside. Whether a particular action should actually be invalidated has to be decided by a district court on the facts, not by an Attorney General opinion.

Who sits on a county salary grievance committee?
Under section 152.014 of the Local Government Code, the committee consists of the county judge plus a mix of named county officers and public members totaling nine voting members, or nine public members if the commissioners court so votes. The county judge chairs the committee but does not vote.

Background and statutory framework

Section 152.014 of the Local Government Code provides for the composition of the county salary grievance committee: in each county the committee is composed of the county judge and either (1) the sheriff, county tax assessor-collector, county treasurer, county clerk, district clerk, county attorney or criminal district attorney, plus the number of public members needed to reach nine voting members, or (2) nine public members if the commissioners court so votes on the second Monday in January. The county judge is chairman of the committee but is not entitled to vote, and public members must be residents of the county. Although the statute makes no provision for a substitute chairman in the county judge's absence, the Attorney General perceived no reason why a commissioner serving solely as a non-voting chairman by the county judge's appointment would invalidate an action otherwise regular.

On the closed-session question, Attorney General Opinion H-1281 (1978) concluded that a salary grievance committee is a "governmental body" under article 6252-17, V.T.C.S., required to comply with the Open Meetings Act. All meetings held by governmental bodies must be open to the public unless an executive session is expressly permitted (article 6252-17, section 2(a)), and even where an executive session is authorized, no votes may be taken in executive session; the deliberations and vote of a governmental body come within the definition of a "meeting," and final actions, decisions, or votes must be made in open meetings (Cox Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Austin Indep. School Dist., 706 S.W.2d 956, 958 (Tex. 1986)). The county attorney did not suggest the meeting fell within any exception to the act (but see article 6252-17, section 2(g); cf. Attorney General Opinion H-496 (1975)). Section 3(a) provides that any action taken by a governmental body in violation of the act is voidable. Whether a particular action should be invalidated must be decided in district court and cannot be decided as a matter of law in an opinion of the Attorney General (see Attorney General Opinion JM-985 (1988)).

Citations

Statutory authority:

• Local Government Code § 152.014 (composition of the county salary grievance committee)
• Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 6252-17 (Open Meetings Act), § 2(a) (meetings must be open unless executive session authorized); § 2(g) (executive-session provisions); § 3(a) (actions in violation are voidable)

Cases:

• Cox Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Austin Indep. School Dist., 706 S.W.2d 956 (Tex. 1986)

Related opinions:

• Attorney General Opinions H-1281 (1978), H-496 (1975), JM-985 (1988)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-1007
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1989/jm1007.pdf

Original opinion text

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

January 13, 1989

Honorable William R. Moore
Tom Green County Attorney
112 W. Beauregard
San Angelo, Texas 76903

Opinion No. JM-1007

Re: Applicability of certain statutes to the actions of a local salary grievance committee (RQ-1574)

Dear Mr. Moore:

You ask whether a county salary grievance committee may meet without the county judge, and if so, may the committee deliberate and vote in closed session.

It appears that your questions are prompted by a grievance committee hearing concerning the equalization of a constable's compensation in the county. Information furnished by you reflects that the county judge directed a commissioner to chair the hearing in his absence. You further state that after the hearing the committee held a closed session to deliberate and vote. The presiding county commissioner participated in the closed session, but left before the vote was taken by the committee.

Section 152.014 of the Local Government Code provides for the composition of the salary grievance committee. Section 152.014 states:

(a) In each county there is a salary grievance committee composed of the county judge and:

(1) the sheriff, county tax assessor-collector, county treasurer, county clerk, district clerk, county attorney or criminal district attorney, and the number of public members necessary to provide nine voting members; or

(2) nine public members, if the commissioners court votes on the second Monday in January each year to have nine public members.

(b) The county judge is chairman of the committee, but is not entitled to vote.

(c) Public members must be residents of the county.

While no statutory provision is made for appointment of a chairman of the committee in his absence, no reason is perceived why a commissioner serving solely in the capacity of a non-voting chairman of the committee by appointment of the county judge would invalidate any action taken by the committee that was regular in all other respects.

You also ask whether the deliberations and vote by the committee in closed session renders its action invalid.

In Attorney General Opinion H-1281 (1978) it was concluded that a salary grievance committee is a "governmental body" under article 6252-17, V.T.C.S., and is required to comply with the requirements of the Open Meetings Act. All "meetings" held by "governmental bodies" must be open to the public unless an executive session is expressly permitted. V.T.C.S. art. 6252-17, § 2(a). Cox Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Austin Indep. School Dist., 706 S.W.2d 956, 958 (Tex. 1986). Also, even if an executive session is authorized, no votes may be taken in executive session. The deliberations and vote of a governmental body come within the definition of a "meeting" as that term is defined in section 1(a) of article 6252-17. Section 2 of the Open Meetings Act requires that all final actions, decisions, or votes be made in open meetings. Cox Enterprises, 706 S.W.2d at 958.

You do not suggest that the "meeting" you have described comes within any exception to the act. But see art. 6252-17, § 2(g); cf. Attorney General Opinion H-496 (1975). Section 3(a) provides that any action taken by a "governmental body" in violation of this act is voidable. Whether a particular action should be invalidated must be decided in district court, and cannot be decided as a matter of law in an opinion of the attorney general. See Attorney General Opinion JM-985 (1988).

SUMMARY

The action taken by a salary grievance committee with a non-voting commissioner presiding by designation of an absent county judge is not invalid because of his absence. The deliberations and vote of the salary grievance committee in closed session is in violation of article 6252-17, V.T.C.S., and any action taken at the meeting is voidable.

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

MARY KELLER
First Assistant Attorney General

LOU MCCREARY
Executive Assistant Attorney General

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Tom G. Davis
Assistant Attorney General