Civic Insights with David Billings
As another Texas thunderstorm rolls through Rockwall County, emergency alerts begin sounding on cell phones across the community. Another accident on I-30. Just another day in Rockwall County.
Inside one home, a family sits around the kitchen table discussing the most recent City Council meeting. As newly engaged citizens, they are trying to understand some of the comments made by elected officials.
The Mayor stated:
“We discussed the policy among the City Council members, and this is how we are going forward.”
Later in the meeting, a council member remarked:
“The Mayor will cover that point.”
In another situation, someone appears to have been promised a City Council or board appointment before any public discussion occurred.
The family looks at each other and asks a simple question:
“I thought city business was supposed to be discussed in public so citizens could understand how decisions are made.”
The answer is yes.
In Texas, city council deliberations and decisions are expected to occur in properly posted public meetings, except in limited circumstances authorized by law. The purpose of the Texas Open Meetings Act is simple: citizens should be able to observe their government at work and understand how public decisions are made.
But what happens when it appears that a decision has already been made before the public discussion begins?
That is where concerns about a “walking quorum” can arise.
Imagine four council members discussing the same agenda item through a series of phone calls, text messages, or intermediaries. No single conversation involves a quorum. Yet by the end of the process, each member knows how the others intend to vote, and a consensus has formed before the public meeting ever begins.
This type of situation is commonly described as a walking quorum and is precisely the kind of concern the Texas Open Meetings Act seeks to prevent.
Through a series of one-on-one communications, a majority of the council may exchange views regarding an issue and develop a general understanding of where members stand before the public meeting begins.
The concern is not simply that elected officials talk to one another. Elected officials are human beings and naturally communicate. The concern is whether those communications become a substitute for public deliberation.
When citizens hear statements such as “we already discussed this” or observe unanimous support for a proposal with little public debate, they often begin asking reasonable questions:
- When was the issue discussed?
- Who participated?
- Was a quorum involved?
- Did deliberations occur outside a posted meeting?
Those questions strike at the heart of government transparency.
The Texas Open Meetings Act is built on a simple principle: public business should be conducted in public whenever possible. Citizens should not be left wondering whether decisions were made in the council chambers or somewhere else.
After all, transparency is not merely about the final vote. It is about allowing the public to see the discussion, hear the debate, understand the reasoning, and observe how elected officials arrive at their decisions.
That is how public trust is earned.
A clever mayor or council member may attempt to avoid the appearance of a walking quorum by asking fellow council members for their thoughts on an agenda item without directly asking how they intend to vote. Based on those conversations, however, an elected official may still gain a fairly accurate understanding of how other members are likely to vote.
This highlights an important distinction between the intent of the Texas Open Meetings Act and the strict letter of the law. The Texas Legislature clearly intended for public business to be discussed in public meetings where citizens can observe the deliberative process. While carefully crafted one-on-one conversations may not always violate the black-and-white language of the statute, they can undermine the transparency principles the law was designed to protect.
Some will argue that a walking quorum only exists when council members make an actual decision or take final action outside of a public meeting. That interpretation is far too narrow.
The Texas Open Meetings Act is not limited to preventing secret votes; it is designed to ensure that the public can observe the deliberative process itself. If a majority of a governing body exchanges views, develops a consensus, or effectively determines the outcome of an issue before the public meeting begins, the public has been deprived of the opportunity to witness the discussion that led to the decision.
The concern is not merely the final vote. The concern is whether meaningful deliberation occurred outside public view.
A unanimous vote that follows a robust public debate generally strengthens public confidence. A unanimous vote that appears to have been prearranged before the meeting often raises questions about whether the real discussion occurred somewhere else.
Another area of concern is social media. If a majority of council members participate in the same online discussion regarding city business, the exchange may raise walking quorum concerns. Each situation depends on its specific facts, but elected officials should exercise extreme caution when commenting on matters that may come before the governing body.
A series of online comments revealing positions, responses, or agreement among a quorum of members can create questions under the Texas Open Meetings Act.
Final Thought
The Texas Open Meetings Act was enacted to ensure that governmental decisions are made in the open, where citizens can observe the discussion, hear differing viewpoints, and understand how elected officials reach their decisions.
The challenge is that walking quorums can be difficult to prove. Unless elected officials leave a documented trail through emails, text messages, social media posts, or other communications, establishing that a prohibited deliberation occurred is extremely difficult.
That reality does not diminish the importance of transparency. The public should never be left wondering whether the real discussion occurred in the council chambers or somewhere else.
The safest course is simple: deliberate public business in public.
If elected officials believe a proposal is worth supporting, they should be willing to explain their reasoning where the citizens who elected them can hear it.
Public trust is not built behind closed doors, through private phone calls, or through a chain of one-on-one conversations. It is built when government conducts the public’s business in public view.
Because in a representative democracy, citizens deserve more than a vote. They deserve to see how the vote was reached.
🎙️ Continue the Conversation
Listen to my podcast, “As Fate Would Have It.” My co-host Dave Martin, host of The Good Government Show, joins me as we talk with government and local leaders about what’s happening in Fate and across Rockwall County.
New episodes drop monthly. Give it a listen and let me know what topics you’d like us to cover.
About the Author
David Billings, former Mayor of Fate, has served the community for over a decade. A longtime business leader in the telecommunication industry, Navy veteran, and resident of Rockwall County, he brings both professional and civic experience to his writing on government, budgeting, and local economics. He is a graduate of Leadership Rockwall, North Texas Commission Leadership Program, active in several Rockwall County non-profits boards, and the American Legion.
He is passionate about civic involvement in local government, maintaining transparent governance and thoughtful strategic planning to preserve a bright future for the regions.
