STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 5433

January 31, 1979

OPEN MEETINGS ACT:

Attendance at a conference as an exemption

The exemption from the Open Meetings Act which permits members of a public body constituting a quorum to attend a conference permits members of the public body to listen to the concerns of members of the public or of persons with special knowledge in the presence of other interested persons. It does not permit public bodies to conduct closed sessions to listen to presentations by department heads and administrators of the public body.

Honorable John M. Engler

State Senator

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan

You have requested my opinion on the following question:

The Open Meetings Act, supra, was enacted by the legislature in order to promote openness in government. Wexford Prosecutor v Pranger, 83 Mich App 197, 268 NW2d 344 (1978). Thus, when a quorum of a public body convenes for the purpose of deliberating towards or rendering a decision on a public policy, such a meeting must be open to the public, unless it falls within one of the eight closed session exceptions. Section 2(b); MCLA 15.262(b); MSA 4.1800(12)(b). However, the legislature has provided in Sec. 3(10) of the Act, supra, MCLA 15.263(10); MSA 4.1800(13)(10) for the following:

In keeping with this call for openness in government, the Court of Appeals held in Wexford Prosecutor v Pranger, supra, that the closed session exceptions must be strictly construed to limit the situations not open to the public. The same interpretive approach must be applied when analyzing Sec. 3(10) of the Act, supra. For while the closed sessions permitted by Sec. 8 of the Act must be noticed to the public, Sec. 5; MCLA 15.265; MSA 4.1800(15), and are therefore not secret sessions, gatherings under the provisions of Sec. 3(10) of the Act, supra, are not considered meetings of a public body and need not follow any of the requirements of the Act. Correspondingly, while closed session minutes must be taken and retained for a year and a day after approval, Sec. 7(2); MCLA 15.267(2); MSA 4.1800(17)(2), the public has no similar mechanism for discovering what transpired at a social gathering or conference under Sec. 3(10) of the Act.

The primary object of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the legislature. Cronin v Minister Press, 56 Mich App 471; NW2d (1974). Thus, it must be determined what the legislature intended when it stated in Sec. 3(10) that the Act shall not apply to a meeting which is a social or chance gathering or conference not designed to avoid the Act. Certainly, a public body may not deliberate or render a decision on a matter of public policy at these types of gatherings, since that would be in direct conflict with Secs. 2 and 3 of the Act. Section 3(10) must be read in connection with these provisions of the Act and interpreted in a manner consistent with the general purpose to be accomplished. Roberts Tobacco Company v Department of Revenue, 322 Mich 519; 34 NW2d 54 (1948).

Instead, Sec. 3(10) must be intended to clarify the purpose of the Act to provide for openness in government by exempting those types of gatherings where government business is not being considered. Thus, members of a public body who may meet at a social affair or by chance or at a conference, though they may constitute a quorum, need not comply with the requirements of the Act as long as they refrain from deliberating or deciding matters of public policy. To meet in these instances as a subterfuge to conduct public business in private is expressly forbidden by the qualifying terms found in Sec. 3(10) of the Act.

Of course, public officials are, and should be, receptive to input from the public, whether at a social gathering or at a conference designed to bring to their attention important public concerns.

The reference to 'other groups' in OAG 5364, supra, initiated your inquiry as to whether department heads and administrators of a college may meet with the college board of trustees outside the scope of the Open Meetings Act, supra. Unlike the factual setting addressed in OAG 5364, supra, administrators of a college are not meeting with the board of trustees in order to bring particular public concerns to the attention of the Board. These presentations of administrators are part of the deliberative process through which decisions on public policy are reached. To label such a gathering of public officials to discuss public business as a 'conference', would defeat the intent of the legislature to encourage openness in government.

Therefore, it is my opinion that the legislature inserted the exception of Sec. 3(10) in the Open Meetings Act, supra, so that members of a public body, though constituting a quorum, may listen to concerns of members of the public or persons with special knowledge in the presence of other interested persons. An example of a conference which may be attended by a quorum of a public body without violation of the Act would be a conference of the American Association of State Transportation Officials; another example would be a conference of educators designed to provide information about areas of common professional interest to the participants. However, when gatherings are designed to receive input from officers or employees of the public body, the Open Meetings Act, supra, requires that the gathering be held at a public meeting.

Frank J. Kelley