[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]
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. 5716 June 4, 1980 OPEN MEETINGS: Opportunity for public to address public body The practice of the Criminal Justice Commission providing that the members of the public may address the Commission at the end of its official business is consistent with the Open Meetings Act. Mr. Charles R. Davoli Administrator Office of Criminal Justice Department of Management and Budget P.O. Box 30026 Lansing, MI 48909 Dear Mr. Davoli: You inform me that the Michigan Criminal Justice Commission, a public body created by 1978 PA 541, (1) provides an opportunity for the public to address the Commission and its executive committee in a public comment portion after the completion of business at each meeting. You inquire whether this practice (2) is consonant with the Open Meetings Act, 1976 PA 267, supra fn 2, which provides that certain meetings of public bodies be 'open' to the public. The Open Meetings Act, 1976 PA 267, supra, states in its title that its primary purpose is 'to require certain meetings of certain public bodies to be open to the public; . . ..' 1976 PA 267, supra, is to be accorded a broad interpretation in order to foster and promote openness in governmental decision making. Wexford County Prosecuting Attorney v Pranger, 83 Mich App 197, 201, 204; 268 NW2d 344 (1978); Karol v Board of Education Trustees, 122 Ariz 95; 593 P2d 649, 651 (1979); 4 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, Sec. 13.07a, p 522 (3d Rev. Ed). 1976 PA 267, Sec. 3(5), in pertinent part, provides: 'A person shall be permitted to address the meeting of the public body under rules established and recorded by the public body . . ..' Thus, 1976 PA 267, Sec. 3(5), supra, provides persons a statutory right to address a meeting of a public body. The public body is required to establish rules which set forth the conditions under which members of the public may address a meeting of the public body. Under 1978 PA 541, Sec. 2(5), and Sec. 3(2)(g), supra, business of the Commission must be conducted pursuant to rules implementing and conforming to the Open Meetings Act, supra. With respect to open meeting rules of public bodies, OAG, 1977-1978, No 5183, Part I, Sec. G.2, p ___ (March 8, 1977) states: '. . . These rules must be reasonable, flexible and designed to encourage public expression and not discourage or prohibit it. 'The rules regulating the right of public address may include such controls as the length of time any one person may be permitted to address the body, the portion of the agenda set aside for public address, and a requirement that persons wishing to address the public body identify themselves and make it known ahead of time that they wish to address the body in order to facilitate the planning of time allotments to various portions of the agenda.' [Emphasis supplied.] OAG, 1977-1978, No 5218, p ___ (September 13, 1977). Therefore, a public body may adopt rules which regulate the right of the public to address it so long as the rules are reasonable, flexible and designed to foster public expression and not discourage or prohibit it. OAG, 1977-1978, No 5332, p ___ (July 13, 1978), addressed the question whether a rule of a public body limiting the period of public participation to one-half (1/2) hour was consistent with 1976 PA 267, Sec. 3(5), supra, and concluded: '. . . Since a provision which limits the period of time at a public meeting during which citizens may address the public body to 1/2 hour may result in certain members of the public being denied the opportunity to address the body, it is my opinion that, if the rule limiting the period of citizen participation to 1/2 hour is applied in a manner which completely denies a person the right to address the public body, it will constitute a violation of the act. '. . . Since the public body has a duty to carry out its public responsibilities, it may be necessary to adopt rules which authorize the chairperson to place limits on how long a person may speak and such methods by which an individual representing a particular viewpoint may be designated by others to speak for them. Other devices to handle such unusual situations may also be explored such as a requirement that persons who wish to speak indicate this desire in writing prior to the meeting so that proper time arrangements can be made.' [Emphasis supplied.] In OAG, 1977-1978, No 5310, p ___ (June 7, 1978), it is stated that the Public Service Commission provided adequate opportunity for public address in contested cases where the Commission allowed public address during the time that testimony is offered and received as well as after decision in a particular matter has been rendered. It further stated that there was no right on the part of members of the public to address the Public Service Commission during its deliberations of the same matter, although the Commission in its discretion could so provide, and, indeed, had so done. Thus, the action of the Public Service Commission in controlling the portion of the agenda set aside for public address was held to be fully consistent with OAG, No 5183, Part I, Sec. G.2, supra. Therefore, it is clear that under the Open Meetings Act, Sec. 3(5), supra, in the absence of a statutory directive to the contrary, a public body in its discretion may determine through reasonable rules whether the public shall address the public body at the beginning, middle, or end of its meeting. The present practice of the Criminal Justice Commission, providing that members of the public may address the Commission at the end of its official business, is consistent with the Open Meetings Act, Sec. 3(5), supra, and the respective opinions previously discussed. It is my opinion, therefore, that the Criminal Justice Commission, in providing an opportunity for the public to address the Commission at the end of its meeting following completion of its business, complies with the Open Meetings Act, Sec. 3(5), supra. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General (1)
(2)
1978 PA 541, supra, Sec. 2(5) provides in pertinent part that 'the business of the Commission shall be conducted at a public meeting held in compliance with' the Open Meetings Act, 1976 PA 267, MCLA 15.261 et seq; MSA 4.1800(1) et seq. Further, 1978 PA 541, Sec. 3(2)(g) provides that the Office of Criminal Justice shall '[p]romulgate emergency rules within 180 days and any other rules necessary for the administration of this act within 1 year after the effective date of this act' (December 31, 1978), pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act ('APA') of 1969, 1969 PA 306; MCLA 24.201 et seq; MSA 3.560(101) et seq. I am advised that at this time the Office of Criminal Justice has not promulgated emergency, proposed or final rules concerning the right of the public to address the Commission pursuant to the APA, supra.On this subject, OAG, 1977-1978, No 5183, Part II, #12, p ___ (March 8, 1977) opined: 'The right of the public to address the meeting shall not be impaired by the absence of rules recorded by the body. The requirement that rules concerning the right of members of the public to address a public body be established and recorded does not require state agencies to utilize the full rule-promulgation procedure of the Administrative Procedures Act. The Administrative Procedures Act, 1969 PA 306, ch 3, Sec. 33; MCLA 24.233; MSA 3.560(133), allows agencies to promulgate rules describing its organization and stating the general course and method of its operations without the notice and public hearing requirements of other types of rule promulgation. It is my opinion that the rules covered by section 3(5) of the Act fall within this exception to the notice and hearing requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.' (Section 3(5) of the Act refers to 1976 PA 267, Sec. 3(5), infra.)
[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]