concluded its regular meeting. While this may be an exacting and literal application of the Open Meetings Act and its definitions to the evidence at bar, same is required of us by the Texas Supreme Court even though we may not favor it. Acker v. Texas Water Com’n, 790 S.W.2d at 300. 2. July 7, 1998 Meeting — Failure to Provide Adequate Notice Next, Gardner contended that a fact question existed concerning whether proper notice of a topic to be discussed at the July 7, 1998 meeting was given as required by the Open Meetings Act. See Tex. Gov.Code Ann. § 551.041 (stating that a governmental body shall give written notice of the date, hour, place, and subject of each meeting held by the governmental body); Cox Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Trustees, 706 S.W.2d 956, 959-60 (Tex. 1986) (<HOLDING>). The topic complained of involved an amendment
holding that because a valid arbitration clause existed the parties had to arbitrate all disputes when the subject matter of the dispute has a reasonable relationship to the subject matter of the contract holding that the disclosure is a public disclosure within the meaning of the fca if the the prior public disclosure  contained enough information to enable the government to pursue an investigation against the defendant holding that the open meetings act requires full disclosure of the subject matter of the meetings holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act holding that the offense requires that the return be false as to a material matter