Publisher’s Perspective | When “Shall” Meets “So What?”

On Saturday, Sept. 12, we published our working notes on the Fisher County budget and told readers to bring a checklist to Monday’s meeting.

That night, a reader caught something we should have put much higher on the page.

Fisher County had published notice of a public hearing on the proposed FY 2026-27 budget for Sept. 14.

The Sept. 14 agenda did not have a budget hearing on it. 

Read the updated Fisher County FY 2026-27 Working Notes after the meeting here: View the Working Notes

THE HEARING THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. 

Monday came.

The notice showed up.

The commissioners showed up.

The budget showed up.

The tax rate showed up.

The public hearing did not.

The meeting lasted about 38 minutes. About two minutes in, Judge Ken Holt called for public comments, said no one was registered and moved on. Later, commissioners set salaries, adopted the budget and adopted the tax rate.

The agenda contained no budget-hearing item, and the meeting record contains no public hearing on the proposed budget before those votes. 

There really is not much room for creative interpretation there.

Last year, nobody had to interpret anything other than a public notice regarding elected officials salaries. 

The Sept. 8, 2025 agenda had a separate section labeled “PUBLIC HEARING” after public comments and before the action items. It specifically listed the County Clerk Archive Fund, proposed tax rate and proposed budget.

This year, the agenda kept usual public comments agenda item.

The PUBLIC HEARING disappeared.

A public hearing should not require a scavenger hunt.

And this is more than an exercise in agenda formatting.

Local Government Code §111.007 says commissioners court shall hold a public hearing on the proposed budget and that any person may attend and participate. It also requires the hearing to occur no later than the 25th day after the proposed budget is filed and before the county adopts its ad valorem tax rate. 

Fisher County’s proposed budget was file-stamped Aug. 6. Aug. 31 was the 25th day. The county advertised its hearing for Sept. 14.

The agenda has no Public Hearing listed. 

Which rules are citizens supposed to follow?

During the discussion of employee pay, a woman in the audience asked what the previous year’s raise had been and whether it was 5 percent.

Judge Holt responded, “You can’t ask questions unless you’re on...” before the recording becomes unclear.

She said, “Oh, okay,” and stopped. 

The county’s online Public Participation Form says it must be presented before the agenda item a person wants to address is discussed.

And the Commissioners Court’s adopted Rules of Procedure say:

“A person who gives testimony to the Commissioners Court in Regular Session must first identify themselves by name and whom, if anyone, or entity, they represent.”

That is the entire adopted rule governing someone giving testimony in regular session.

It says nothing about registering by filling out a form before the meeting.

The Sept. 14 agenda, meanwhile, required speakers to register their names before the meeting began. 

So we have an adopted rule, an online form and an agenda describing different procedures.

Apparently, citizens are expected to know which version of the rules is actually being enforced that day.

And there were more questions

The taxpayer-impact statement now required for a meeting at which a governmental body will discuss or adopt its budget was absent from the county’s July 13, Aug. 10 and Sept. 14 notices, according to our review.

It does appear on Page 4 of the adopted budget. 

That was posted online after the vote.

Better late than... well, that is sort of the problem.

That taxpayer-impact requirement is not something we invented. House Bill 1522 took effect Sept. 1, 2025 and amended Government Code §551.043 to require a taxpayer-impact statement with meeting notices involving discussion or adoption of a budget, along with new budget-access requirements. 

The Sept. 14 meeting record also does not show a separate vote ratifying the property-tax increase reflected in the county’s own budget disclosure. When commissioners adopted the tax rate, the total rate and its components were placed into one motion followed by one show-of-hands vote. Our updated working notes document those issues while separating what the public record establishes from legal questions that may require someone else to resolve. 

And that brings me to the part of government accountability we do not talk about enough.

One week later, the point stopped being theoretical

At a special-called Commissioners Court meeting on Sept. 21, DMC Editor Jeff Hurt used his three minutes of public comment to formally object to the sufficiency of another county meeting notice.

Item C identified Government Code §551.071 and listed consultation with an attorney regarding “pending or contemplated litigation,” but it did not identify the particular lawsuit, claim, controversy or other underlying governmental subject the court intended to discuss. 

Jeff did not ask commissioners to reveal litigation strategy, attorney advice, settlement positions or privileged communications.

He asked that the public be told what governmental matter (subject) the court intended to discuss.

Government Code §551.041 requires written notice of the date, hour, place and subject of each meeting. Attorney General Opinion KP-0475 says that, without more, boilerplate language identifying closed-meeting provisions is insufficient to notify the public of the subject being considered. The opinion also explains that the notice requirement applies to closed sessions, not just the open portion of a meeting. 

Jeff also cited the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Cox Enterprises v. Board of Trustees, where generalized descriptions including “litigation” and “consultation” were held inadequate in the circumstances before that court. 

He ended his comments with a specific request:

“I ask the court not to deliberate under Item C on a subject that was not adequately disclosed in the posted notice, and I ask that my objection be reflected in the record.”

Then something happened that I think matters.

Commissioner Gordon Pippin asked whether it was legal for the court to go into closed session.

Judge Holt said yes.

The court proceeded toward closed session.

Think about that sequence.

A newspaper editor stood at the podium before the court acted.

He identified the statute.

He identified the problem with the notice.

He cited Texas Supreme Court precedent.

He cited a recent Attorney General opinion.

He specifically said he was not asking for privileged legal information.

He asked the court not to proceed.

He asked that his objection be placed in the record.

Then one of the commissioners himself questioned whether proceeding into closed session was legal.

The answer was yes.

The meeting continued.

And there, in a matter of minutes, is the problem I have been trying to explain.

A citizen can point to the law

We have asked government officials, privately and publicly over the years, to explain decisions or procedures when something does not appear to follow the law.

Sometimes you get an explanation.

Sometimes you get a smile.

Sometimes you get a scowl.

Most of the time, you are simply ignored.

That is the part of “government accountability” nobody puts on the inspirational poster.

A citizen can read the law.

A citizen can quote the law.

A citizen can pull the public records.

A citizen can sit through the meetings.

A citizen can put the statute beside the government’s own actions and show where the two do not match.

A newspaper editor can stand at the podium before the government acts and place an objection on the record.

Even an elected member of the governing body can stop and ask whether what they are about to do is legal.

But a citizen cannot personally enforce the law.

Government officials know that, too.

And they took an oath

We are often told that elected officials can be held accountable at the ballot box.

Of course elections matter.

But an election every few years is not an enforcement mechanism for what happens at a government meeting today.

Nor should the only practical alternative be telling an ordinary citizen, “Well, you can sue them.”

Especially when elected officials do not simply make a campaign promise to obey the law.

They take an oath before entering office.

Article XVI, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution requires elected and appointed officers to swear that they will faithfully execute the duties of their offices and, to the best of their ability, “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws” of the United States and Texas. 

That does not mean every mistake, disagreement over a statute or questionable procedure automatically amounts to misconduct or an oath violation.

It does mean following the law is not merely a favor government officials extend to citizens when convenient.

It is part of the office they agreed to hold.

A citizen should not have to hire a lawyer every time they need a government official to comply with a law that official swore an oath to uphold.

And “vote them out next time” is a remarkably limited remedy when the question is whether the law is being followed right now.

Accountability cannot stop at the prosecutor’s door

Eventually, depending on the issue, accountability requires somebody with actual enforcement authority to do something.

That may mean another government agency.

It may mean law enforcement.

It may mean a prosecutor.

It may ultimately mean going to court.

And court is where the phrase “just hold them accountable” starts getting expensive.

But there is another part of the chain that matters just as much.

If a citizen believes a law has been violated and properly reports it to the appropriate authorities, the citizen then has to trust that the next person in the accountability chain will do his or her job, too.

That does not mean every complaint is valid.

It does not mean every investigation should result in charges.

It does not mean a prosecutor should prosecute a case the evidence does not support.

It means there should be confidence in what happens next.

Texas lawmakers apparently recognized at least part of that problem when they passed House Bill 3711, effective Sept. 1, 2025.

The law applies specifically to alleged criminal offenses under the Texas Open Meetings Act.

It does not mean every citizen complaint automatically goes to the Attorney General.

Here is what it does.

If a law-enforcement agency submits a report to a district attorney, criminal district attorney or county attorney stating that there is probable cause to believe an identified person committed an offense under Chapter 551, the Open Meetings Act, the law-enforcement agency must simultaneously send a copy of that report to the Attorney General’s Open Records Division. 

And if the prosecutor who receives such a report decides not to prosecute or decides to terminate the investigation, the prosecutor must publish online for at least one year:

the decision, and the reason for it. 

That second part matters.

Not simply:

No charges.

But:

Why?

Maybe the evidence did not establish an offense.

Maybe prosecutors could not prove a required element.

Maybe further investigation showed the allegation was unfounded.

Those can all be legitimate outcomes.

Then say so.

Transparency protects the prosecutor, too.

Because when a complaint concerning public officials simply seems to disappear, citizens are left with questions.

Was it investigated?

Who reviewed it?

Why was it declined?

Was there insufficient evidence?

Was there no violation?

Was the investigation terminated for some other reason?

And in a small community, where elected officials, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, attorneys and other government officials may know one another personally or professionally, those unanswered questions can become even louder.

That is not proof that a personal or political relationship affected any decision.

It is exactly why a documented process matters.

HB 3711 does not guarantee prosecution.

It does not remove prosecutorial discretion.

What it does, in qualifying Open Meetings cases, is create a paper trail outside a single office and require a public explanation if the case stops there.

Around here, we have another phrase for that.

Keep the receipts.

Because accountability is a chain

The person holding public office has responsibilities.

The citizen reporting a concern has responsibilities.

Law enforcement receiving and investigating an allegation has responsibilities.

The prosecutor receiving a case has responsibilities.

The courts have responsibilities.

Accountability only works if every link in that chain does the job the law assigns to it.

Otherwise the burden keeps sliding back downhill to the citizen.

Read the law.

Find the problem.

Pull the records.

Attend the meeting.

Speak up.

File the complaint.

Follow up.

Hire the lawyer.

Pay the lawyer.

Go to court.

Or wait until the next election.

Meanwhile, the government keeps operating.

Our working notes do not declare Fisher County’s budget void.

They do not accuse anyone of committing a crime.

They do not claim that every procedural disagreement constitutes misconduct or an Open Meetings Act offense.

And we are not making a legal determination here that the Sept. 21 closed-session notice violated the Open Meetings Act. Jeff placed that objection on the public record, cited the authorities supporting it, and the court proceeded.

Those legal conclusions belong to people with the authority to make them.

But some facts are considerably less complicated.

Fisher County published notice that it would hold a public hearing on its proposed budget.

Texas law says commissioners court shall hold that hearing. 

The hearing did not happen.

A week later, our editor stood before the same court, raised another Open Meetings concern before commissioners acted and asked them not to proceed under the disputed notice.

A commissioner then questioned whether going into closed session was legal.

The court proceeded.

So perhaps the larger question is no longer simply what the law says.

We can read what the law says.

The harder question is:

What happens when citizens point to the rules and the elected officials who swore an oath to follow them simply don’t?

There has to be something between “vote them out next time” and “hire a lawyer and take them to court.”

Because citizens can only hold their government accountable so far.

At some point, the people and institutions given the authority to enforce the law have to do their part, too.

Otherwise, “shall” eventually meets:

“So what?”