CC chair answers questions about committee

An audit committee of the Clarendon College Board of Regents did not follow the Texas Open Meetings Act when it met last month, according to college officials.

Board Chairman Tommy Waldrop said the committee, which was appointed at the September 19 board meeting and consisted of Jerry Woodard and Edwin Campbell, did not follow the law’s requirement to post an agenda of its meeting 72 hours ahead of time or keep minutes of its meeting because it was formed just to present items they wanted investigated to the college auditor and report back to the board.

As reported by Mr. Woodard at the October 17 meeting of the board, the committee did meet with the auditor on October 10, 2019, and presented a list of things to be addressed for the board.

However, on October 25, 2018, the same regents were appointed as an audit committee for similar purpose and were directed at the time of their appointment that they would have to follow the Open Meetings Act, including posting an agenda and meeting in public. Waldrop said during that 2018 meeting the college’s attorney had made that determination and also said that college policy required the committees of the board to follow the Open Meetings Act as well, and CC President Robert Riza reiterated that as well.

“That was what we were told by Dr. Riza on behalf of the attorney,” Waldrop said this week.

Mr. Woodard questioned that determination at the time of the 2018 appointment, and Regent Darlene Spier looked up the matter in the college policy manual and read aloud in the meeting the requirement that committees of the board must follow the open meetings act.

Waldrop said following that, the 2018 audit committee never met.

This year, Waldrop said no one brought up the open meetings requirement at the time of the appointment, and plans were then later made for the committee to meet.

“The [committee] meeting was set up,” Waldrop said. “It was going to meet in about 24 hours when I was informed by Dr. Riza that it would be in violation.”

Waldrop said he let the committee know of the problem and then he called the attorney.

“I don’t know for sure that we got advice from an attorney last year,” Waldrop said. “This year I called the attorney. I was told they could meet and report to the board and that afterward the committee existed no more.”

Waldrop said the advice he received came from the same law firm that represented the college in 2018, but he did not know whether it was the same attorney who had advised the president in 2018. Asked if the attorney he talked to was Chase Hales, who had conducted Open Meetings training for the board in 2018, he said no. He talked to attorney Christine Vizcaino, he said.

Ms. Vizcaino specializes in labor and employment law, according to the Sprouse Shrader Smith law firm’s website.

Asked about the college policy requiring board committees to follow the open meetings law, Waldrop admitted that the policy could set a higher standard for committees than the law does, but he said he felt like the committee’s action was within the law.

The college board has previously had issues with a committee in terms of policy and following the open meetings act. In 2017, a motion creating a committee to oversee the remodeling of the college president’s house was rescinded at a subsequent board of regents meeting after it was determined the committee had not followed the open meetings act.

Asked why, if the following the requirements of the law was a known issue, the committee did not simply post an agenda and wait 72 hours to meet, Mr. Waldrop responded, “I don’t know.”