Public commenter objects that closed-session notice fails Texas Open Meetings Act requirements

A participant at the special call objected to the sufficiency of the posted notice for agenda item C under the Texas Open Meetings Act, saying the notice listed the exemption but did not identify the underlying litigation or controversy the court planned to discuss. "I object to the sufficiency of the posted notice for item c under section 551.041 of the Texas Open Meetings Act," the participant said, arguing that merely citing "pending or contemplated litigation" did not give the public adequate notice of the governmental subject at issue.

The speaker cited precedent and guidance to explain the objection, referencing Cox Enterprises v. Board of Trustees and City of San Antonio v. Fourth Court of Appeals and an Attorney General opinion (KB0475). The participant said the law does not require disclosure of litigation strategy or privileged communications but does require the notice to identify the specific subject so that an interested reader can determine what governmental matter is to be considered. "I'm not asking that the court reveal any litigation strategy, attorney advice, settlement positions, or privileged communication. I'm only asking that the public be given proper notice of the subject," the participant said.

The participant asked that the court record their objection to deliberating on an inadequately disclosed subject and explicitly asked that their objection be reflected in the record. The court proceeded to entertain a motion to close for an executive session and, after a motion and second were noted, moved into closed session.