The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 5437 February 2, 1979 OPEN MEETINGS ACT: Chance gathering When members of a public body constituting a quorum are unaware that they are being brought together by another, this is a 'chance gathering' that is exempt from the provisions of the Open Meetings Act and there is no violation of the Act as long as matters of public policy are not discussed by the members with each other at that meeting. Mr. Robert L. Kaczmarek Prosecuting Attorney County of Saginaw Court House Saginaw, Michigan 48602 You have requested my opinion as to whether there was a violation of the Open Meetings Act, 1976 PA 267; MCLA 15.261 et seq; MSA 4.1800(11) et seq, when a city manager invited individual members of the city council into his office to present the conditions under which he would be willing to resign. Members of the city council were not advised as to the purpose of the gathering or that other members would be present and the number of council members present constituted a quorum. A 'meeting' of a public body, such as a city council, is defined by the Open Meetings Act, supra, Sec. 2(b); MCLA 15.262(b); MSA 4.1800(12)(b), as: '. . . the convening of a public body at which a quorum is present for the purpose of deliberating toward or rendering a decision on a public policy.' Thus, in order to have a 'meeting' of a public body, the following elements must be present: (a) a quorum, (b) deliberation and/or rendering of a decision, (c) on a matter of public policy. However, Sec. 3(10) of the Act, supra; MCLA 15.263(10); MSA 4.1800(13)(10) states: 'This act shall not apply to a meeting which is a social or chance gathering or conference not designed to avoid this act.' At issue in the facts presented, therefore, is whether the gathering of the members of the council in the manner described is a 'chance gathering' which is exempt from the provisions of the Open Meetings Act, supra. Although the members were called together by design of the city manager, it was a 'chance' meeting from the standpoint of the council members since none of them knew that the others would be present. The meaning of the term 'chance' in the context of Sec. 3(10) must be applied as intended by the Legislature. The important factor is not who called the meeting but whether the members of the council knew that others would be present at the time they went to meet with the city manager. It should be noted, however, that such occurrence may not be arranged by the public body to avoid the provisions of the Act. For example, if the members knew in advance of the meeting that the other members constituting a quorum would be present to discuss public policy, this would not be a chance meeting even though called by a person without authority to call a meeting. Furthermore, though there is a chance gathering, a quorum being present, matters of public policy may not be discussed by members with each other at that meeting without compliance with the provisions of the Open Meetings Act, supra. It is my opinion, therefore, that when members of a public body constituting a quorum are unaware that they are being brought together by another, this is a 'chance gathering' that is exempt from the provisions of the Open Meetings Act, supra, by Sec. 3(10); however, matters of public policy may not be discussed by the members with each other at that meeting. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General