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. 5364

September 7, 1978

OPEN MEETINGS ACT:

Purchase or lease of real property

Attendance of members of a public body at a conference

A public body may meet in a closed session to vote upon the rejection of an owner's offer to sell at a designated price.

A public body may meet in a closed session to direct its agents as to their limits in negotiating for the purchase of real property.

The gathering of a quorum of the members of a public body to meet with a neighborhood group or with the board of directors of a private corporation need not comply with the open meeting requirments if the members of the council do not make any decisions nor hold deliberations towards arriving at a decision. In such a situation, the members may listen to presentations by their constituents or observe demonstrations made for their benefit at the gathering without complying with the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.

Honorable James E. O'Neill, Jr.

State Representative

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan 48909

You have requested my opinion on the following questions:

1. May a city council meet in closed session under section 8(d) of the Open Meetings Act, 1976 PA 267, MCLA 15.268(d); MSA 4.1800(18)(d), vote to (a) reject an owner's offer to sell at a designated price, or (b) decide that an option be obtained to purchase the property at a designated price?

2. May members of a city council constituting a quorum meet with a neighborhood organization at its request without complying with the provisions of the Open Meetings Act?

3. May a quorum of a city council accept the invitation of a local bank to meet with its board of directors and discuss the future of the council and the future of the bank without complying with the requirements of the Open Meetings Act?

In response to your first question, as to part (a), 1976 PA 267, Sec. 8(d), supra, states:

'A public body may meet in closed session only for the following purposes:

'(d) To consider the purchase or lease of real property up to the time an option to purchase or lease that real property is obtained.'

The legislative intent of section 8(d) is to enable a public body to negotiate for the purchase of real property in the best public interest at the lowest possible price. If the reason for the rejection of an offer were known to prospective sellers, this knowledge could prejudice the interests of the public. It is therefore proper for a public body to meet in a closed session to vote upon rejection of an owner's offer to sell at a designated price.

As to part (b) of your first question, it is a normal part of considering the purchase of real property for a public body to direct its agents as to their limits in negotiating for the purchase of such property. Such directions could include instructions to obtain an option at a designated price and it is therefore permissible to give such directions during a closed session.

The response to your second and third questions require an analysis of the Open Meetings Act, Sec. 3(10) which states:

'This act shall not apply to a meeting which is a social or chance gathering of conference not designed to avoid this act.'

The provision contains three separate exemptions from the requirement that an open meeting be held, these being: (a) a social gathering; (b) a chance gathering; and (c) a conference not designed to avoid the act.

The gathering of a quorum of the members of a city council to meet with a neighborhood group or with a board of directors of a private corporation need not comply with open meeting requirements if the members of the council do not make any decisions nor hold any deliberations toward arriving at a decision. Stated in the affirmative, the members may listen to presentations by their constituents or observe demonstrations at the gathering without the need to comply with the act for such activity may be characterized as a 'conference' within the exception of section 3(10) of the Act.

However, if a gathering designed to provide information develops into deliberations on matters of public policy or leads to decisions on matters within the jurisdiction of the council, the members will have crossed the boundary of the exemption in section 3(10) of the Open Meetings Act, supra, and will have violated the Act. Since, however, the Act presumes that public officials will act in accordance with the requirements of the law, [Open Meetings Act, Sec. 10(1)] such finding of violation must necessarily await an actual fact of prohibited behavior by the officials.

It is therefore my opinion that where a public body meets with a neighborhood organization or other groups for the sole purpose of observing and gathering information, the gathering is exempt from open meeting requirements of the Open Meetings Act pursuant to section 3(10).

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General