Civic Insights with David Billings
One hot, humid Texas evening, a family reviews the agenda for an upcoming city council meeting. Like many families, they are trying to decide whether any of the items will affect their neighborhood, taxes, roads, public safety, or quality of life.
As they scan the agenda, one item catches their attention.
The wording is vague and difficult to understand. It is not entirely clear what action the City Council might take or why the item is being discussed. The family pauses for a moment, puzzled by the description.
“Should we attend this meeting?” they wonder.
Curiosity wins.
A few days later, they take a seat in the council chambers and wait for the item to come up.
The discussion begins. Council members debate the issue. A motion is made. A vote is taken.
As the audience files out of the room later that evening, another question lingers:
“Was the decision actually made tonight, or was it made before the meeting ever started?”
That question goes to the heart of the Texas Open Meetings Act, commonly known as TOMA.
Most Texans have heard of open government laws, but few understand why they exist or how they protect the public’s right to know.
The Texas Open Meetings Act was adopted to ensure that governmental decisions are made in public view rather than behind closed doors. Whether the issue involves taxes, roads, zoning, public safety, or city budgets, citizens have a right to observe the decision-making process of the officials they elected.
But openness involves more than simply opening the meeting room doors.
The law also requires governmental bodies to provide notice of the subjects they intend to discuss. The purpose of the agenda is to give citizens enough information to determine whether an issue affects them and whether they should participate in the meeting.
After all, an open meeting is of little value if citizens do not know they should be there.
Texas courts have repeatedly emphasized that agenda notices must be sufficiently specific to alert an interested member of the public to the subjects under consideration. Citizens should not have to guess what their government intends to discuss or decide.
So, what happens if an agenda item is too vague?
The answer reveals one of the biggest challenges facing government transparency laws.
Most agenda items are prepared and posted by city staff under the direction of the city manager, mayor, or governing body. In many cities, agenda items are not subject to formal legal review before they are posted. Unless required by a city charter or internal policy, there may be no independent legal review before an agenda item appears on the public notice.
Even when legal advice is sought, elected officials are not required to follow that advice. In some Rockwall County cities, governing bodies have proceeded with agenda items or actions despite concerns raised by legal counsel regarding notice requirements or potential legal risks.
That reality highlights an important point: the ultimate responsibility for complying with the Texas Open Meetings Act rests with the governmental body itself, not solely with its attorneys. Legal counsel can provide advice, but elected officials ultimately decide whether to proceed.
How does a citizen hold the governmental body accountable?
If a citizen believes an agenda item failed to provide adequate notice as required by TOMA, legal remedies may be available. However, pursuing those remedies can be difficult, costly, and time-consuming for an individual citizen.
In most cases, citizens must hire and pay their own legal counsel.
Meanwhile, the city would likely be represented by legal counsel whose fees are paid with public funds.
To many citizens, that can feel like an uneven contest.
The family also learns that courts often require procedural hurdles to be addressed before reaching the substance of a dispute. Questions regarding standing, jurisdiction, and available remedies may arise long before a judge considers whether the agenda notice was adequate.
Depending on the circumstances, a court may issue an injunction to stop a violation, require compliance with the Act, or even declare certain actions void if they were taken in violation of TOMA.
The Act also contains criminal provisions for certain knowing violations involving unauthorized closed meetings or efforts to circumvent the law’s transparency requirements.
The purpose of these enforcement mechanisms is not to punish honest mistakes. Rather, they reflect the Legislature’s determination that public business should be conducted openly and transparently whenever possible.
The Texas Open Meetings Act is based on a simple principle: citizens should not have to guess what their government plans to discuss. Meaningful transparency begins with meaningful notice.
Final Thought
The law reflects a simple principle: government works best when the public can see it working. Transparency builds trust, accountability, and confidence in local government. When citizens are given meaningful notice and an opportunity to observe the decision-making process, everyone benefits.
It is becoming increasingly clear that citizens have limited practical ability to challenge a vague agenda item under the Texas Open Meetings Act. While legal remedies may exist, the costs, complexity, and procedural hurdles often make those remedies difficult for the average citizen to pursue. Whether this reality is consistent with the original legislative intent of TOMA is a question worthy of discussion.
As Texas begins preparing for the 90th Legislative Session, lawmakers should strongly consider whether additional enforcement mechanisms are needed. One option would be to expand the mission of the Texas Ethics Commission to investigate alleged TOMA violations. Another would be to require the Texas Rangers or another independent state entity to establish a citizen-friendly process for receiving, reviewing, and fairly investigating complaints involving potential violations of the Act.
Such proposals would represent a significant undertaking for the Legislature. However, if transparency and public accountability remain core Texas values, the conversation is worth having.
As Kelley Shannon, Executive Director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, stated:
“The whole point of the Open Meetings Act is so that the public can have notice about what a government’s going to be considering, and they can be informed.”
She continued:
“They can decide whether they want to attend the meeting, if they want to speak out…”
Those comments capture the central purpose of the Texas Open Meetings Act. Transparency does not begin when the meeting starts. Transparency begins when the agenda is posted.
Should ordinary citizens need legal counsel just to decipher what their local government plans to discuss, consider, or decide?
🎙️ 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.
