In this case, Rafael Hinojosa, Jr. appellee, who was rejected for the position of high school principal at Point Isabel Independent School district, brought a declaratory judgement against the appellant seeking, inter alia, the voiding of all hiring decisions made at a meeting of the Point Isabel School Board, held on July 12, 1988. On or before July 1988, the principal of the high school resigned and on July 1, Martin Pena, the Superintendent, advertised the availability of the said position in several Valley newspapers. There was also a notice of the meeting was posted more than seventy hours before the July 12 meeting as required by section 3A(a) of the Open Meetings Act.
On July 11, 1988, Rafael Hinojosa, the appellee asked Pena, the Superintendent, whether the topic of the July 12, 1988 meeting would be the position of the high school position. However, Pena denied to make any recommendation, and if he did, he would recommend a person from within the School District. Appellee did not attend the meeting.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The board initially held a meeting in executive session. After that, a public meeting was held immediately, and the board filled the position of the principle of high school by promoting Genaro Rodriguez, the principal of Derry Elementary School. The appellee, therefore, brought suit under the Open Meetings Act arguing that there was a failure to notify the public of the subject matter of the meeting by the board.
The question to be answered is “Was the advertisement of a school board gathering to deliberate on the replacing of certain positions in the school district specified enough under the Open Meetings Act, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann.art.6252-17 section 3A (a) (Vernon 1987)?
The court held that the appellant had violated section 3A (a) of the Open Meetings Act because the notice was not sufficiently specific and voided all actions taken by the Board at the meeting. The court also awarded the appellee his attorney's fees. The case was held to be null and void. The rationale for this rule is to provide additional deterrence from holding meetings with defective notice, or conceivably, to give a prophylactic rule voiding all actions taken. The court based its decisions on section 3 A (a), and it would not be served by voiding all actions taken by a government body at a meeting with a partially defective notice.
The above decision is very rational as it encourages legal processes for the appointment of public offices. It means for an appointment to be made, the law will be followed accordingly. However, it may alter with the importance of the principals. It will impact the lives of the students positively as someday, they will be the members of the public and will want an adequate notice for such positions.
