By Frances Matteck/editor-in-chief
In the open meeting case against Tarrant County College District, both parties agreed Friday on the facts regarding the case but disagreed on the interpretation of the Texas open meetings law.
Both the defendant’s and plaintiff’s lawyers presented motions for summary judgment to Judge Melody Wilkinson of the 17th District Court.
A motion of summary judgment is a request that the court make a determination as to which party should prevail based on laws already written without going to trial.
Judge Wilkinson asked to review the motions and documents mentioned by both parties and will make a decision at a future date.
Plaintiffs Larry Meeker and Brian Rutledge allege sufficient notice was not given to the public regarding renewal of Chancellor Leonardo de la Garza’s contract and increase in pay in June 2008.
Harold Hammet, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, argued that since notice was insufficient, the resulting contract is void and asked that the college not recognize de la Garza as chancellor until he applies for the position and the board of trustees gives a 21-day notice to the public.
The plaintiffs also requested the meeting last two hours, citizens would only have to sign in to speak and no one could speak for more than five minutes.
Angela Robinson, lawyer for Tarrant County College District, said she believes sufficient notice was given.
“The notices were adequate to put the public at large on notice of the action that would be taken at those meetings as relates to the chancellor’s contract,” she said.
