CITIZENS FOR PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY V CHARTER TWP OF NORTHVILLE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CITIZENS FOR PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY &
RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT, STEPHEN R.
EMSLEY, JAMES WESLEY WILSON, II,
TERESA MARGRET ALLEN, FRANK ALAN
CARLSEN, DIANE ELEANOR CARLSEN, and
KEITH JAMES GRAHAM,
UNPUBLISHED
May 26, 2011
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
and
STEVEN H. LAWRENCE, JOHN HORTON
MILLER, MICHELLE SUZANNE MILLER, and
ANN MARIE KOTYLO,
Plaintiffs,
v
NORTHVILLE CHARTER TOWNSHIP BOARD
OF TRUSTEES,
No. 292311
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 08-124674-CZ
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GLEICHER, P.J., and WILDER and K.F. KELLY, JJ.
GLEICHER, P.J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the majority’s conclusion that defendant violated MCL 15.269(1), and agree
with the majority’s decision to remand this matter for consideration of a proper remedy.
However, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s holding that the posted notice satisfied MCL
15.265(4). In my view, the majority’s analysis contradicts the legislative mandate that a public
body supply “at least 18 hours” of “public notice” before conducting a special meeting.
The majority acknowledges that the July 24 2008 and July 29, 2008 special meetings
concerned a controversial settlement with a developer that had purchased 416 acres of Northville
Township land. Ante at 2. Defendant posted notices of the meetings on bulletin boards located
within the township hall. Although the notices remained posted for at least 18 hours before each
meeting, the public had access to the notices for a more limited period. Notice of the July 24,
2008 meeting was available to the public for about 12 hours, while the public had access to the
-1-
notice of the July 29, 2008 meeting for between five and six hours. No members of the public
attended either of the two special meetings.
“[T]he purpose of the [Open Meetings Act] OMA is to promote governmental
accountability by facilitating public access to official decision making and to provide a means
through which the general public may better understand issues and decisions of public concern.”
Kitchen v Ferndale City Council, 253 Mich App 115, 125; 654 NW2d 918 (2002). The OMA
seeks to achieve this fundamental purpose by repeatedly emphasizing that public bodies must
meet publically. Subsection 3(1) of the OMA mandates that “[a]ll meetings of a public body
shall be open to the public and shall be held in a place available to the general public. All
persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided in this act.” MCL
15.263(1). Subsection 3(2) of the OMA further requires that “[a]ll decisions of a public body
shall be made at a meeting open to the public,” MCL 15.263(2), and subsection 3(3) declares that
“[a]ll deliberations of a public body constituting a quorum of its members shall take place at a
meeting open to the public except as provided in this section and sections 7 and 8.” MCL
15.263(3).1
Consistent with the Legislature’s clearly expressed preference for transparency in
government, the OMA also repetitively insists that a public body apprise the public of its
meetings. According to subsection 4(b), “A public notice for a public body shall always be
posted at its principal office and any other locations considered appropriate by the public body.”
MCL 15.264(b). Subsection 5(1) dictates that “[a] meeting of a public body shall not be held
unless public notice is given as provided in this section by a person designated by the public
body.” MCL 15.265(1). For regular meetings, public notice of upcoming meetings must be
posted “within 10 days after the first meeting of the public body in each calendar or fiscal year.”
MCL 15.265(2). A “special meeting,” like the two meetings at issue here, demands the posting
of “a public notice stating the date, time, and place of the meeting . . . at least 18 hours before the
meeting.” MCL 15.265(4).
When construing a statute, this Court must ascertain and effectuate the Legislature’s
intent, as expressed in the words of the statute. Bloomfield Charter Twp v Oakland Co Clerk,
253 Mich App 1, 10; 654 NW2d 610 (2002). In discerning legislative intent, we endeavor to
give effect to every word, phrase, and clause in the statute. People v Hill, 269 Mich App 505,
515; 715 NW2d 301 (2006). We construe an act in a manner that harmonizes its terms, thereby
carrying out the legislative purpose. Id. “To further the purpose of the OMA, its requirements
are interpreted broadly and its exemptions are interpreted narrowly.” Herald Co, Inc v Tax
Tribunal, 258 Mich App 78, 85; 669 NW2d 862 (2003). By enacting the OMA, the Legislature
signaled its intent that public bodies would endeavor to foster public participation in government.
Just as “[t]he basic purpose of FOIA [the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552] is to
ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check
against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed,” NLRB v Robbins Tire
& Rubber Co, 437 US 214, 242; 98 S Ct 2311; 57 L Ed 2d 159 (1978), the basic purpose of the
1
The exceptions in MCL 15.263(7)-(11) and MCL 15.267 do not apply in this case.
-2-
OMA is to permit citizens to witness and actively participate in the mechanics of their
government. But citizens unaware of scheduled meetings are effectively shut out of the decision
making process. To maximize the public’s ability to learn of pending governmental actions, the
Legislature selected specific public notice periods for all public meetings, including an 18-hour
period applicable to special meetings. The definite notice periods identified in the OMA embody
legislative judgments concerning the window of opportunity that must be made available to the
public to learn of an upcoming meeting.2
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s ruling that “the term ‘public notice,’ as used in
§ 5(4), MCL 15.265(4), does not inhere a specific time requirement of accessibility for which
such a notice must be posted.” Ante at 6. Construing the OMA as a whole and harmonizing its
terms, I conclude that the Legislature intended that the public have access to a “public notice” for
the entire designated 18-hour period. In my estimation, “public notice” means exactly that—
notice made available to the public, not dark, deserted building corridors. The majority
construes the OMA’s notice provision in a manner that would permit a public body to notify the
public of a special meeting commencing at 9:00 a.m. on a Monday by posting a notice at closing
time on a Friday afternoon. Indisputably, this “notice” would frustrate the legislative purpose
expressed in the statute. But with its analysis, the majority sanctions precisely such “public
notice.” Rather than interpreting MCL 15.265(4) expansively, the majority reads the term
“public notice” out of the sentence requiring 18 hours’ notice. I would hold that a public body
fails to satisfy the 18-hour “public notice” requirement by posting a notice available to the public
for less than 18 hours, and thus would reverse the circuit court’s grant of summary disposition to
defendant.
/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
2
The Florida equivalent of the OMA, known as the Government in the Sunshine Law, Florida
Statutes § 286.011, provides for “reasonable notice” of public meetings. See Sarasota Citizens
for Responsible Gov’t v Sarasota, 48 So 3d 755, 762 (Fla, 2010). Our Legislature elected to
incorporate a time certain into the OMA, rather than relying on a public body’s notion of the
amount of time that qualifies as “reasonable” under varying circumstances.
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.