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. 5444

February 21, 1979

OPEN MEETINGS ACT:

Discussion of a dispute between the city council and the police department

OPEN MEETINGS ACT:

Discussion of political matters involving individual members of a city council

MUNICIPALITIES:

Open Meetings

A city council must hold an open meeting pursuant to the Open Meetings Act when it wishes to discuss the course of action to be taken in resolving a dispute between the police department and the city council.

Members of a city council may discuss their individual election and political concerns with each other at a meeting with a quorum present without complying with the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.

Mr. Philip H. Seymour

Assistant City Attorney

City of South Lyon

140 North Main Street

Royal Oak, Michigan

You have asked my opinion on a matter which may be stated as follows:

Does the Open Meetings Act, 1976 PA 267; MCLA 15.261 et seq; MSA 4.1800(11) et seq, require a city council to hold an open meeting when it wishes to discuss with the mayor and city manager: (1) a course of action to take in dealing with a dispute between the police department and the city council; and (2) their political futures with respect to a recall election?

Except for certain subjects listed in 1976 PA 267, supra, Sec. 8, the Open Meetings Act requires that all meetings of a public body at which a quorum is present for the purpose of deliberating toward or rendering a decision on a public policy be open to the public, 1976 PA 267, supra, Sec. 2(b), and Sec. 3(1). See Wexford County Prosecutor v Pranger, 83 Mich App 197; 268 NW 2d 344 (1978).

As indicated in your leter, there was a quorum of the city council present at a closed meeting in which the council discussed the course of action to be taken in a dispute between the council and the police department. It was suggested that a memorandum be drafted by the city manager and sent to the director of public safety, listing his or her duties and those of the police department. You further mentioned in your letter that this dispute was precipitated by the council's decision not to renew a federally funded crime prevention program for a second year.

Certainly, the parameters under which the director of public safety and the police department will perform its duties is a matter of public policy as contemplated by the Open Meetings Act, supra.

Therefore, it is my opinion that a city council must hold an open meeting pursuant to the requirements of the Open Meetings Act, supra, when it wishes to discuss the course of action to take in resolving a dispute between the police department and the city council.

With respect to your question regarding deliberations of the political futures of council members who are the subject of a recall petition, a distinction may be drawn between matters of public policy and those of a purely political nature. Public policy matters may only be considered by a quorum of a public body in accordance with the provisions of the Open Meetings Act, supra. This is indicated in Sec. 2(b) of the Act, supra, wherein the term 'meeting' of a public body is defined to mean:

'. . . 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.' (emphasis added)

On the other hand, discussions of political strategy involving an individual's election or retention of a public office do not involve matters of public policy and therefore may take place at a gathering of public officials constituting a quorum without complying with the requirements of the Open Meetings Act, supra. Examples of permissible topics for this non-public meeting would include political fund raising, choice of media for political advertising and the selection of a campaign chairman.

However, although political matters which personally concern a member of the council may be distinguished from public matters, it must be noted that where political matters are intertwined with public policy matters, the requirements of the Open Meetings Act, supra, must be met.

It is therefore my opinion that when members of a public body meet to discuss their individual election and political concerns, they are not considering a matter of public policy within the meaning of the Open Meetings Act, supra; and need not follow the requirements of the Act.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General