Shackelford v. City of Abilene
| Decision Date | 18 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. B-8103,B-8103 |
| Citation | 585 S.W.2d 665 |
| Parties | Jerry SHACKELFORD et al., Petitioners, v. The CITY OF ABILENE et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
McMahon, Smart, Wilson, Surovik & Suttle, Michael S. Baskerville, Abilene, for petitioners.
Harvey Cargill, Jr., City Atty., David M. Wolpin, Asst. City Atty., Abilene, for respondents.
Jerry Shackelford, et al., 1 (hereinafter referred to as "Shackelford") brought this suit seeking injunctive relief prohibiting violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act, article 6252-17, 2 the Texas Open Records Act, article 6252-17a, and the Abilene City Charter, by the members of the Abilene Equal Employment Opportunity Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"). 3
The trial court granted the requested relief and entered a permanent injunction requiring all meetings of the Abilene Equal Employment Opportunity Board to be public and requiring that minutes of those meetings be kept and made available as public records. The Court of Civil Appeals sitting in Eastland reversed the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment for the Board holding, on the principal question, that Shackelford did not have the proper standing to maintain such a suit. 572 S.W.2d 742 (1978). We reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The parties have stipulated the facts. On November 29, 1977, the Abilene Equal Employment Opportunity Board held a meeting at city hall. This Board was created in 1977 as part of the affirmative action plan of the City of Abilene.
The meeting was held to consider an allegation of employment discrimination against a Mexican-American employee of the City. The Board heard evidence, cross- examination, received exhibits and heard arguments, all in public. The audience at this hearing included many citizens of Abilene, members of the League of United Latin American Citizens, and members of the Abilene news media.
At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence and arguments, the Board, acting upon advice of the City Attorney, retired to deliberate the matter in private. The Board returned in about fifteen minutes and announced that they could not reach a decision at that time.
The Board then recessed for the night and reconvened publicly the following evening. After discussing possible conflicts between the Texas Open Meetings Act and the Abilene City Charter, the Board returned to a private session to consider the charges of racial discrimination. When the Board met in private, it had the consent of the individual complainant.
The Board again deliberated in private for over three hours and then announced that it had reached a decision, and that it would reveal that decision to the complainant on December 5, 1977, and to the general public five days later. One of the Board members took notes during the private meeting, but no minutes were taken.
On December 5, 1977, by a written request pursuant to the Texas Open Records Act, article 6252-17a, Shackelford requested the Board to produce the names and final voting record of the Board along with the minutes of the closed session. The information was not furnished.
Later that day Shackelford filed suit seeking a temporary restraining order and an injunction prohibiting the Board from meeting privately and from ignoring the City Charter provision which requires minutes to be kept. The trial court after issuing a temporary restraining order, enjoined the Board from conducting any further closed meetings with respect to this employment discrimination complaint; from taking any vote or reaching any decision not made in public; and from implementing any decision or order reached in the closed meeting. The trial court further ordered the Board to comply with the City Charter by keeping minutes of its meetings and by making those minutes available as it would any other public record.
The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and rendered judgment for the Board. It held that under the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act, article 6252-17, and under the Abilene City Charter, Shackelford had no standing to enjoin the Board from meeting privately. It further held that although Shackelford did have standing under the Texas Open Records Act, article 6252-17a, to seek the minutes of the meeting, since none were kept, Shackelford could be afforded no relief.
Shackelford claims a right to require the Board to meet openly under the City Charter of Abilene. We hold that under the City Charter of Abilene, Shackelford has a right to require public meetings. In so holding, we do not rule upon any claim under the Texas Open Meetings Act; nor do we address Shackelford's claim that as a member of the working press he acquires any special rights not available to the general public. 4
The current Abilene City Charter was adopted in 1962. It provides in pertinent part:
PUBLIC MEETINGS
Section 122: All meetings of the Council and All Boards or Commissions appointed by the Council Shall be open to the public. Minutes of all such meetings shall be kept and such minutes shall constitute public records. (Emphasis added).
It is not disputed that Jerry Shackelford is a member of the public and a citizen of Abilene. Nor is it disputed that the Equal Employment Opportunity Board is a "Board or Commission appointed by the Council . . ." as is contemplated by Section 122. The plain meaning of Section 122 is obviously that All meetings of any such board are open to the public. Therefore, Jerry Shackelford and any other member of the public should be able to attend All meetings.
The Board contends that in personnel matters or other issues of a sensitive nature it should have the discretion to hold closed meetings. Indeed, the Texas Open Meetings Act, article 6252-17(2)g has just such a provision. It states:
(g) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require governmental bodies to hold meetings open to the public in cases involving the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer or employee or to hear complaints or charges against such officer or employee, unless such officer or employee requests a public hearing.
However, as previously stated, the Texas Open Meetings Act does not control this case. Although bound by the Open Meetings Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Board is also bound by the restraints of the city charter; and in this case, the Abilene City Charter controls. The Open Meetings Act specifically states:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News
...1993, writ denied); City of Abilene v. Shackelford, 572 S.W.2d 742, 743 (Tex. Civ. App.--Eastland 1978), rev'd on other grounds, 585 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. 1979); Houston Chronicle Publ'g Co. v. City of Houston, 531 S.W.2d 177, 181 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1975), writ ref'd n.r.e., 5......
-
A & T Consultants, Inc. v. Sharp
...The working assumption in a host of TORA cases has been that jurisdiction lies in the district court. See, e.g., Shackelford v. City of Abilene, 585 S.W.2d 665 (Tex.1979); Industrial Found. of the South v. Texas Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668, 672 (Tex.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931......
-
Tex. Water Dev. Bd. v. Ward Timber, Ltd.
...16 that tasks each region to identify interregional conflicts or potential conflicts. SeeWater§ 16.053(h)(5). In Shackelford v. City of Abilene, 585 S.W.2d 665 (Tex.1979), the supreme court refused to construe the “particularized harm” requirement narrowly. Shackelford, a reporter for a loc......
-
Rivera v. City of Laredo
...person" as requiring plaintiff to show particular injury or damage different than public at large), rev'd on other grounds, 585 S.W.2d 665 (Tex.1979) with City of Fort Worth v. Groves, 746 S.W.2d 907, 913 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1988, no writ) (viewing "interested person" as affected taxpayer......