The Michigan Court of Appeals sided with the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners in a lawsuit involving the state Open Meetings Act.
At issue is whether the law applied to alleged private meetings held in 2022.
The meetings involved eight people who were, at that time, newly elected members of the board. A ninth incumbent had also joined in.
Both the trial and appellate courts held that the Open Meetings Act only applied to public bodies. At the time of the meetings, the majority of the commissioners were still private citizens despite having won office.
“Had the entire Ottawa 9 been sworn members of defendant in November and December 2022, they would have constituted a quorum of defendant and would have been subject to the OMA. However, eight of the Ottawa 9 only held the status of commissioner-elect. Absent a delegation of power, they were neither a governing body,” appellate Judge Michael Riordan wrote for the three judge panel’s opinion.
The nine commissioners at the heart of the case had all been elected with the support of the group Ottawa Impact, which generally opposed the county’s COVID-19-related mask mandates and public health order restrictions.
At the board’s first meeting after the new members had been seated, commissioners swiftly moved to replace the county administrator, health officer, and get rid of the county’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Office.
The quick moves and appearance of coordination led a handful of county residents to sue on the grounds that their rights under the Open Meetings Act and state constitution had been violated.
The board successfully had the case dismissed at the trial court level. The plaintiffs argued it was dismissed before discovery could take place.
Attorney Mark Brewer, representing the plaintiffs, said the appellate court’s decision to uphold the dismissal allows for a way to get around the Open Meetings Act.
“We acknowledge that we have a novel theory. But, what happened here, if it’s allowed to happen, could be a blueprint for other groups around the state to evade the Open Meetings Act on a massive scale by making all of these important decisions before they take office and then simply rubber stamping them once they get into office,” Brewer said Friday.
But lawyer David Kallman, whose Lansing area-based law firm now represents Ottawa County, laughed off those concerns as a straw man argument.
Kallman said the lawsuit was frivolous.
“They’re acting like there’s some kind of formal meeting going on here. There wasn’t. Okay? People can meet and talk about things all the time. And the Open Meetings Act only applies to public officials,” Kallman said.
Kallman argued each of the commission’s early moves was simply fulfillment of campaign promises.
Brewer said it’s too soon to say whether an appeal to the state Supreme Court is possible.
