ESA Committees
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:06 am
I believe the decision reported in the latest Northern Islander by ESA to eliminate open meetings of their committees may result in meetings that violate the Open Meetings Act. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, so check your attorney and ask him/her to explain this excerpt from the book, â??Michigan Municipal Law.â? Section 5.8 (on-line version)
â??Subquorum committees of a public body having been delegated authority to make recommendations regarding public policy are also required to comply with the OMAâ??s public meeting requirement. Schmiedicke v Clare Sch Bd, 228 Mich App 259, 577 NW2d 706 (1998). In Schmiedicke, the seven-member school board established a personnel and policy committee consisting of three of its members. The school board delegated to the committee the tasks of reviewing current methods of evaluating school administrators as well as the length of the administratorâ??s employment contracts. Although the committee ultimately recommended no changes from the existing practices, its meetings were not open to the public. The court recognized that the primary purpose of the OMA is to ensure that public bodies conduct their decision-making activities in open meetings and not simply hold open meetings at which they rubber-stamp decisions previously made behind closed doors. Id. at 264. The court concluded that the school boardâ??s referral to the committee for a recommendation on the current practices was a delegation of authority and that the committee failed to openly deliberate the issues. Id.â?
The act intends to have all discussion and deliberation in public, not just final votes. This is the only way to avoid or least make it harder to have â??backroom dealsâ?.
Bob Yager
â??Subquorum committees of a public body having been delegated authority to make recommendations regarding public policy are also required to comply with the OMAâ??s public meeting requirement. Schmiedicke v Clare Sch Bd, 228 Mich App 259, 577 NW2d 706 (1998). In Schmiedicke, the seven-member school board established a personnel and policy committee consisting of three of its members. The school board delegated to the committee the tasks of reviewing current methods of evaluating school administrators as well as the length of the administratorâ??s employment contracts. Although the committee ultimately recommended no changes from the existing practices, its meetings were not open to the public. The court recognized that the primary purpose of the OMA is to ensure that public bodies conduct their decision-making activities in open meetings and not simply hold open meetings at which they rubber-stamp decisions previously made behind closed doors. Id. at 264. The court concluded that the school boardâ??s referral to the committee for a recommendation on the current practices was a delegation of authority and that the committee failed to openly deliberate the issues. Id.â?
The act intends to have all discussion and deliberation in public, not just final votes. This is the only way to avoid or least make it harder to have â??backroom dealsâ?.
Bob Yager