STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 5453

February 28, 1979

SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS:

Per diem allowance for attendance at meetings of intermediate boards of education

OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES:

Per diem allowance for attendance at meetings of intermediate boards of education

Members of intermediate boards of education may only receive a per diem allowance for attendance at official board meetings held for the purpose of transacting business of the board; a board member is not entitled to receive compensation for attending committee meetings.

Honorable Alvin J. DeGrow

State Senator

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan

You have requested my opinion as to the kinds of meetings for which a per diem allowance may be paid to members of intermediate boards of education who attend pursuant to the School Code of 1976, 1976 PA 451, MCLA 380.1 et seq; MSA 15.4001 et seq.

A letter opinion to Senator Robert VanderLaan, dated June 26, 1978, a copy of which is attached as an appendix, ruled that, under 1976 PA 451, supra, Sec. 243, a member of the board of education of a third-class district may receive compensation only for attendance at official board meetings held for the purpose of transacting business and that such a board member could not be compensated for attending committee meetings. You inquire as to whether this ruling also applies to members of boards of intermediate districts.

1976 PA 451, supra, Sec. 621, provides, in pertinent part, that:

The language of the second sentence of 1976 PA 451, Sec. 621, supra, is, in all material respcts, identical to the language of 1976 PA 451, supra, Sec. 243 previously construed in the opinion to Senator VanderLaan. Consequently, the same result will obtain unless the first sentence of Sec. 621 requires a different construction.

The term 'meeting' is nowhere explicitly defined in 1976 PA 451, supra. However, as noted in the previous opinion, the term is used in numerous sections and its meaning may be ascertained from the context. Particularly pertinent for present purposes is 1976 PA 451, supra, Sec. 623(2), which provides that the business which an intermediate board of education is authorized to perform shall be conducted at a 'public meeting' and that an act of the board is not valid unless voted at a 'meeting' by a majority vote. Section 623(2) further provides that certain actions of the intermediate board must be by recorded roll-call vote.

1976 PA 451, supra, Sec. 632(2), imposes the same requirements on intermediate boards of education that 1976 PA 451, supra, Sec. 1201, imposes on local boards. As was noted in the previous opinion to Senator VanderLaan, the term 'meeting,' as used in Sec. 1201 means a meeting at which the board is legally empowered to transact business. Nothing in the context of Secs. 621 and 623(2) indicates that the legislature intended the term 'meeting' to have any different meaning as applied to intermediate boards.

While 1976 PA 451, supra, Sec. 621, refers to meetings 'convened in accordance with the by-laws,' this language does not empower the intermediate board to define what a meeting is for purposes of receiving compensation. Unlike most local boards of education, ^(a1) intermediate boards are not statutorily required to hold regular monthly meetings. 1976 PA 451, supra, Sec. 621, merely authorizes the board to establish its own procedure for calling business meetings. The section cannot be read as authorizing compensation for board members for attending sessions of the board which are not business meetings.

It is my opinion that from the context of 1976 PA 451, supra, it is clear that the term 'meeting' as used in Sec. 621 refers to an official meeting of the intermediate board of education held for the purpose of transacting business and does not include a committee meeting.

Frank J. Kelley