Open Meetings Act question/Michigan

[newsguyone]

Hello folks, long-time lurker.
I work at a small weekly in Michigan. I do the news/sports/pictures/layout etc.
The other night, after a village council meeting, I came back to the office to write up the news story and got a call saying "Did you go to the council meeting?"
"Yep," I said.
"Did you go to the other council meeting?"
"Ugh, what?"
"The village council is meeting right now at the local pub."

So, I went over there. The shutters were down. The sign said closed.
I tried the door. It was open. So I walked in.
All five members present at the council meeting were there. The village manager and attorney were there. Nobody else was there except the owner.

The open meetings act is a little vague, in that it allows for social functions.
This is what they claim, obviously.
In subsequent interviews, I've learned that this is a tradition dating 30-years.
Everyone SWEARS they don't talk business. Which is pretty hard to believe and IMPOSSIBLE to verify.

Any thoughts?

 

[lone star scribe]

This is a BLATANT violation of open meetings laws. You need to let your publisher/editor know what's going on.

Back in the day, my little 7,000K daily found out from a disgruntled voter that the town council would gather for a "traditional" pre-meet dinner. That's where the horse-trading and vote-swapping would get talked out, then they'd show up at the meeting and vote on some complicated issue with almost no discussion and amazingly enough arrive at a unanimous decision.

After my newspaper filed suit, they stopped holding those "working" dinners. And they substituted them with conference calls to get on everyone on the same page. When my ballsy editor threatened to have their phone records subpoenaed, the town attorney (who had lobbied against the practice, to no avail) got them to cut it out.

The school board also liked to hold unannounced "workshop" meetings on the off weeks between regularly scheduled meetings. Although I was the sports guy, I got sent to one of those when we got word they were meeting. Boy, the superintendent was pretty frosted when I strolled in. ;D

 

[newsguyone]

This is a BLATANT violation of open meetings laws. You need to let your publisher/editor know what's going on.

Back in the day, my little 7,000K daily found out from a disgruntled voter that the town council would gather for a "traditional" pre-meet dinner. That's where the horse-trading and vote-swapping would get talked out, then they'd show up at the meeting and vote on some complicated issue with almost no discussion and amazingly enough arrive at a unanimous decision.

After my newspaper filed suit, they stopped holding those "working" dinners. And they substituted them with conference calls to get on everyone on the same page. When my ballsy editor threatened to have their phone records subpoenaed, the town attorney (who had lobbied against the practice, to no avail) got them to cut it out.

The school board also liked to hold unannounced "workshop" meetings on the off weeks between regularly scheduled meetings. Although I was the sports guy, I got sent to one of those when we got word they were meeting. Boy, the superintendent was pretty frosted when I strolled in.  ;D

Thanks for the reply.
Yes, unanimous votes are all the rage in the village. I am the editor. And my published knows.
We're moving along with the story. We're consulting with an attorney about the legal issue ...

The legal issue could be dicey unless one of those people come unglued and admit that yes, they discuss village business at these meetings. The village attorney was at the "social gathering" and says the OMA allows for social gatherings ... which it does. Sort of.
We've been advised to send it to the county prosecutor. However, the village attorney is the assistant prosecutor in a county with the "good old boys" network.

The story, however, should bring enough public pressure to stop these meetings.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

If the local DA is part of the problem, don't be afrad to contact the Michigan Attorney General's office. And yes, that is a blatant violation. It would be one thing if they had beers in a crowded bar. It is quite another to be the only people in bar that has a closed sign up. Definitely take this issue to the publisher and the proper legal authorities.

 

[newsguyone]

If the local DA is part of the problem, don't be afrad to contact the Michigan Attorney General's office. And yes, that is a blatant violation. It would be one thing if they had beers in a crowded bar. It is quite another to be the only people in bar that has a closed sign up. Definitely take this issue to the publisher and the proper legal authorities.

As I said, the publisher is aware (We're a small office) Counting myself, we have 1.5 editorial employees.

I've contacted five of the seven members of the council in the last few hours and I am meeting the village's attorney tomorrow.
In the course of the interviews, I've been told the meetings are a tradition. They've been going after every meeting, for the most part, for 30 YEARS! Anywhere from two to seven members of the seven-member council at every gathering.
I've talked to some oldtimers who were on those councils and they've confirmed it.
My head is spinning. I've been on the job since Jan. 1. I'm an outsider in this town and a lot of local big wigs will be upset however this turns out.
Oh well.

 

[slappy4428]

No question... they can't sit together at a funeral without it being a potential Open Meetings act... contact the MPA attorney immediately -- well, in the morning....

 

[lone star scribe]

Slappy's right. They can't get together if they have a quorum present. That's why so many of these so-called brainstorming sessions involve only a minority of the voting members. It's to get around the open meeting laws.

 

[wickedwritah]

In Massachusetts, they can't even all go to a game at Fenway if they have a chance to cross paths -- unless it's advertised and posted.

I'm not sure about the Michigan law, but that meeting, even if it's social in nature, would need to be posted in Pennsylvania, notorious for crappy Sunshine Act regs.

 

[newsguyone]

Well, it looks like the Open Meetings Act in Michgian is weak
According to the lawyer for the state's press association attorney, as long as business is not discussed, social gatherings are legal.
They could meet every night of the year for 30 years, and as long as they do not discuss business (and unless one cracks and admits otherwise) they are perfectly legal.

Unbelievable.
I've got a group that got caught, and now boasts that the 'gatherings' are beneficial, and the law permits it.

Oh well, they'll still look like schmucks when the story comes out.

 

[Armchair_QB]

Go after the bar for serving alcohol after hours. I'm serious. If your council is going to pull **** like that you need to **** with them as much as possible.

 

[slappy4428]

Sit right at the table with them. When the owner tries to throw you out, tell the council they are in violation of the Michigan Open Meetings act and it is a violation of state law.
If their attorney isn't there, they are going to be uneasy.
If the attorney is there, stare him straight in the eye and tell him "You realize that if this council discusses business here tonight and you hear it, you are violating state law and as an officer of the court are bound to uphold the law."
Then break **** on your way out.

Beneficial? Ask them publicly and on the record how those meetings are beneficial. If they say anything that sniffs of town business, they have admitted to violating the law.
"SO what you're saying sir is that that it's beneficial because you can discuss this in an informal matter, but by acknowledging this, you have admitted to breaking the law?"

 

[Gold]

Here's another angle you might consider.

I don't know what the law is in Michigan, but I know in New Jersey (from my old political hanging out days) that if the bar was closed, you couldn't close the shutters and the ward leader/bar owner would have to keep them open if people were in the bar - I'm pretty sure that was by law and the reason would be so you could see that nothing illegal was going on - that alcohol wasn't being served after hours.

Just a thought

 

[MU_was_not_so_hard]

Here's another angle you might consider.

I don't know what the law is in Michigan, but I know in New Jersey (from my old political hanging out days) that if the bar was closed, you couldn't close the shutters and the ward leader/bar owner would have to keep them open if people were in the bar - I'm pretty sure that was by law and the reason would be so you could see that nothing illegal was going on - that alcohol wasn't being served after hours.

Just a thought

Interesting. Most of the bars I hang out in close the blinds after hours. :D
Seriously though, NGO, if the meetings are "set", wouldn't that by definition make them meetings? And I'm with Slappy. No. 1, start w/ the bar serving after hours. Secondly, request statements from any village/city/town/county/etc. credit cards that they may have access to. Find out if those non-business beers are being paid for by the tax-payers. Even if they aren't, watch 'em squirm.
They have their loopholes; we have ours.

 

[leo1]

Well, it looks like the Open Meetings Act in Michgian is weak
According to the lawyer for the state's press association attorney, as long as business is not discussed, social gatherings are legal.
They could meet every night of the year for 30 years, and as long as they do not discuss business (and unless one cracks and admits otherwise) they are perfectly legal.

Unbelievable.
I've got a group that got caught, and now boasts that the 'gatherings' are beneficial, and the law permits it.

Oh well, they'll still look like schmucks when the story comes out.

if your newspaper had any money, this would be something fun to challenge in court. or if you have spare time as a long-term feature story it would be interesting to contact other state press associations to see if they also have this exemption for social outings. imho, it's impossible for most reasonable people to believe that official business never comes up at these gatherings.

in any case, i think some people on this thread are missing the point. the goal of the open meeting law is to ensure that meetings are open (duh!). i couldn't find the text of the law online so i don't know what the penalty for violation is, but going forward i would think that the newspaper's goal in writing the story should be to force these meetings to be publicized as meetings -- not to stop them from meeting.

 

[slappy4428]

Well, it looks like the Open Meetings Act in Michgian is weak
According to the lawyer for the state's press association attorney, as long as business is not discussed, social gatherings are legal.
They could meet every night of the year for 30 years, and as long as they do not discuss business (and unless one cracks and admits otherwise) they are perfectly legal.

Unbelievable.
I've got a group that got caught, and now boasts that the 'gatherings' are beneficial, and the law permits it.

Oh well, they'll still look like schmucks when the story comes out.

if your newspaper had any money, this would be something fun to challenge in court. or if you have spare time as a long-term feature story it would be interesting to contact other state press associations to see if they also have this exemption for social outings. imho, it's impossible for most reasonable people to believe that official business never comes up at these gatherings.

in any case, i think some people on this thread are missing the point. the goal of the open meeting law is to ensure that meetings are open (duh!). i couldn't find the text of the law online so i don't know what the penalty for violation is, but going forward i would think that the newspaper's goal in writing the story should be to force these meetings to be publicized as meetings -- not to stop them from meeting.

Here's the do's and don't under Michigan's Open Meetings Act.

http://www.michiganpress.org/pdfs/righttoknow.pdf

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

Well, it looks like the Open Meetings Act in Michgian is weak
According to the lawyer for the state's press association attorney, as long as business is not discussed, social gatherings are legal.
They could meet every night of the year for 30 years, and as long as they do not discuss business (and unless one cracks and admits otherwise) they are perfectly legal.

Unbelievable.
I've got a group that got caught, and now boasts that the 'gatherings' are beneficial, and the law permits it.

Oh well, they'll still look like schmucks when the story comes out.

if your newspaper had any money, this would be something fun to challenge in court. or if you have spare time as a long-term feature story it would be interesting to contact other state press associations to see if they also have this exemption for social outings. imho, it's impossible for most reasonable people to believe that official business never comes up at these gatherings.

in any case, i think some people on this thread are missing the point. the goal of the open meeting law is to ensure that meetings are open (duh!). i couldn't find the text of the law online so i don't know what the penalty for violation is, but going forward i would think that the newspaper's goal in writing the story should be to force these meetings to be publicized as meetings -- not to stop them from meeting.

Penalties Under the Act:
The first time a public official intentionally breaks the law, he or she can be punished by a maximum fine of $1,000. For a
second offense within the same term of office, he or she can be fined up to $2,000, jailed for a maximum of one year or both.
A public official who intentionally violates the act is also personally liable for actual and exemplary damages up to $500, plus
court costs and attorney fees.

 

[leo1]

Well, it looks like the Open Meetings Act in Michgian is weak
According to the lawyer for the state's press association attorney, as long as business is not discussed, social gatherings are legal.
They could meet every night of the year for 30 years, and as long as they do not discuss business (and unless one cracks and admits otherwise) they are perfectly legal.

Unbelievable.
I've got a group that got caught, and now boasts that the 'gatherings' are beneficial, and the law permits it.

Oh well, they'll still look like schmucks when the story comes out.

if your newspaper had any money, this would be something fun to challenge in court. or if you have spare time as a long-term feature story it would be interesting to contact other state press associations to see if they also have this exemption for social outings. imho, it's impossible for most reasonable people to believe that official business never comes up at these gatherings.

in any case, i think some people on this thread are missing the point. the goal of the open meeting law is to ensure that meetings are open (duh!). i couldn't find the text of the law online so i don't know what the penalty for violation is, but going forward i would think that the newspaper's goal in writing the story should be to force these meetings to be publicized as meetings -- not to stop them from meeting.

Penalties Under the Act:
The first time a public official intentionally breaks the law, he or she can be punished by a maximum fine of $1,000. For a
second offense within the same term of office, he or she can be fined up to $2,000, jailed for a maximum of one year or both.
A public official who intentionally violates the act is also personally liable for actual and exemplary damages up to $500, plus
court costs and attorney fees.

fine. but dirk, you know the reason these acts exist are for the meetings to be open not because it's in society's interests to punish people who hold closed meetings. (it's a standard early-first-semester 1L public policy argument here.) it serves no one if the violators are punished and forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars in fines, although i'm not saying they necessarily shouldn't be fined for one or two violations. it benefits everyone if the newspaper writes the story and all future gatherings, including social outings, are publicized.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

Leo, you're right that it is in the best interest of everyone for open meetings to be held. But based on newsguyone's posts, it sounds as if he is in a town that is run by the Good Ol Boys Club and that he is likely going to meet with resistance. The best way to end the closed meetings might not be public pressure, but the state Attorney General's office telling them to knock it off.

 

[leo1]

Leo, you're right that it is in the best interest of everyone for open meetings to be held. But based on newsguyone's posts, it sounds as if he is in a town that is run by the Good Ol Boys Club and that he is likely going to meet with resistance. The best way to end the closed meetings might not be public pressure, but the state Attorney General's office telling them to knock it off.

i agree

 

[newsguyone]

Thanks all,
My plan at this point is to beat this horse dead until election time in November, and to make this an election issue (four of the seven seats are up).
Anyone who wants to get elected will have to answer some form of the following question: Will you attend unposted meetings or "social gatherings" away from the village council table?

The Yes or No answer will be in black and white. After three months of this issue shoved down their throat, my guess is that everyone will answer No.
And if they show up to one of these meetings, well, we can call them liars in black and white.

Like I said, it's a small town. A small, family owned newspaper. The publisher wants to do right by the OMA and protect the public's right to fair and open government.
But we want to do it without jerking the chains of a lot of well connected people — including advertisers.

Meanwhile, I've got a 20-page fall sports preview due in two days!