Michigan Part of AG Collective Seeking Fed Ruling on Open Meetings Act

As we spoke of our Attorney General yesterday, we noted that his notion of transparency is one that sometimes comes with a price tag.
We now see that Mike Cox has joined with a number of other state AGs in asking the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to revisit a decision last month by a three-judge panel of the appeals court that opens the door to private decision making by public officials.
The panel ruled in favor of two members of the City Council of Alpine, Texas, who had four years ago taken part in an e-mail discussion of city business. The two were investigated by the local district attorney but their indictments were dismissed by the prosecutor.
Still, the council members sued in September 2005, asking a federal judge to declare that the criminal penalties of the Texas open meetings law violated their First Amendment free-speech rights.
U.S. District Judge Robert Junell ruled that the First Amendment "affords absolutely no protection to speech by elected officials made pursuant to their official duties."
His ruling was appealed, and the three-judge appeals court panel reversed him last month, asking Junell to justify his ruling that the council members violated the law by discussing a city project in an exchange of e-mails.
The brief filed by the groups of AGs reads in part, "The heart and soul of an open meetings law is to channel government officials' communications primarily by subject matter. Consequently, the unprecedented level of constitutional scrutiny the panel decision prescribes would impact the central function of any open meetings law."
Michigan’s Open Meetings Act does not appear to address email, so we can assume that many council members, as well as other officials, conduct clandestine but public business via such missives. It would be nice to see that glaring lack remedied. Any takers?
Cox has been fair in most of his rulings on open government, showing that he firmly understands the laws and will, in most cases, render a decision based on that grasp. This notwithstanding of the $143,000 charge for records requested by a political foe, Mark Brewer, as we discussed yesterday.
Cox is right on in joining this collective of AGs in hopes of examining the 5th panel’s ruling.

Michigan Asset Management Council - Subject to Open Meetings Act? Let's Find Out

We have reported before on the dismal state of Michigan’s roads, and a short trip this morning reminded us that the problem is still present and active.
We see that there is a conference set up for May at the Kellogg Center at Michigan State University
operated by the 10-member Michigan Asset Management Council, a public board which has to post its minutes and meeting times in accordance with the state’s open meetings act.
Perhaps this meeting would provide some answers to the questions about the state’s troubled roads. Why not go and check it out? While we’re hardly riding low wallet side, the price is $30 for public agencies and $100 for private companies. But if this is an open meeting, they should not be able to charge.
Not sure how that works for anyone – if we are funding the board and paying for the meeting, should not private vendors be given preference?
So I sent an email to Brian Sanada, the board’s listed contact. It reads:
Hi -
I'd like to attend the May 19 Transportation Management Conference but am confused by the admission price. I believe this is a conference of public officials, and the flyer states that all ten members of the Michigan Asset Management Council will be present. I am not a vendor nor am I connected with a municipality, but I would like to know what your take on this conference is in relation to the Open Meetings Act.
I thank you for your time.
Steve
I may be incorrect, but I would maintain that this is a public meeting for the “purpose of deliberating toward or rendering a decision on a public policy,” which is how the state’s Open Meetings Act defines a meeting.

Macomb Commissioners Look to Law Over Alleged Open Meetings Violation

A group of commissioners in Macomb County took a vote over the phone to buy some police cars, according to a report in the Detroit Free Press.
That’s bad enough – but the item was voted on to purportedly support the U.S. auto industry. As if buying four cars at fleet rates would put a dent in 49% sales drop through March.
"Board Chairman Paul Gieleghem, D-Clinton Township, acknowledged Friday that a secretary tallied votes over the phone earlier this month for permission to buy four police cruisers. But he insisted a vote wasn't required. Gieleghem said the county didn't have time to wait for a public meeting because a deadline was rapidly approaching to buy 2009 Chevy Impalas, rather than the more expensive 2010 model."
We beg to differ with three-term commissioner Gieleghem, and the good money has it that Macomb residents would also disagree. If they voted, why would it not be done in public? Michigan statute is pretty clear on phone votes, by the way; “Under the Open Records Act, phone call conference meetings generally are not allowed.”
Under the law, any person can challenge the action taken in circuit court within 30 days of the alleged misdeed.
Let’s go beyond the idea that this purchase didn’t require a posted, open meeting. Are phone votes allowed at all? Some municipalities in the U.S. do make allowances. For example, in some Chicago suburbs, when a board member is traveling but still wants to participate.
This seems reasonable. But in the Macomb case, this is stupidity to behold. Gieleghem is a former state rep who should be ashamed. Not just for intentionally trying to circumvent the law, but also for buying Impalas.