ABSTRACT OPEN-MEETINGS LEGISLATION: "SUNSHINE" IN MICHIGAN By Carl Larner Parks Open-meetings laws, which permit the press and members of the general public to attend the proceedings of their elected officials, are a relatively new phenomenon. Such "sunshine" laws, named after Florida's government-in-the-sunshine law, have appeared only since the period following World War II. While secrecy in government is nothing new, the problem became particularly acute because of the aggrandizement of government at all levels and cold war secrecy measures. Opendmeetings laws have been promulgated by those who view statutory provisions as the only method through which remedies to secrecy can be effected. They cite an absence of common law and constitutional guarantees which ensure the right of the public to witness first hand the deliberations of its elected officials. This thesis is interested in looking at the rationale for opening deliberative processes, examining problems of secrecy in one city govern- ment, and finally, exploring the patchwork of Michigan open-meetings laws including a new bill which was signed into law during the 1976 session of the Michigan legislature. Methodology consists of documentary research, Carl Larner Parks both historical and legal. Chapter I takes an in—depth look at the theoretical and practi- cal bases for having open-meetings laws. It presents arguments both for and against opening the various deliberative processes of those who set policy and make laws. Chapter II explores problems of secrecy on the part of elected and appointed officials in the city government of Lansing, Michigan, where Open meetings became a campaign issue during the 1975 city council elections. The chapter discusses the efforts by individuals and organi- zations to open municipal proceedings along with resistance they have encountered. 0n the basis of these observations, the chapter concludes with reasons why nothing more comprehensive than a piecemeal approach to the problems of secrecy is likely from the local level. Finally, Chapter III surveys various sources of Michigan open- meetings law and traces the passage of an open-meetings bill through both houses of the Michigan legislature and the governor's office. The new law is then viewed in a side-by—side comparative analysis of existing open-meetings law in Appendix A. Accepted by the faculty of the School of Journalism, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfill- ment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree. Director of Thesis OPEN-MEETINGS LEGISLATION: "SUNSHINE" IN MICHIGAN By Carl Larner Parks A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS School of Journalism 1976 Copyright by CARL LARNER PARKS 1976 Dedicated to MY PARENTS ...without whom, neither I nor this thesis would have been possible ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank several people who helped make this thesis possible. First, I would like to thank my thesis adviser, Professor John Murray, for his editing, insights, and encouragement throughout this project. Special thanks should also go to Dr. Maurice R. Cullen, Jr. my academic adviser, for his continuous help and encouragement throughout my master of arts program. I would also like to express deep gratitude to Dr. George A. Hough, III, for his continuous help, friend- ship and encouragement which made it possible for me to pursue this academic program. Secondly, many thanks are in order to Rep. David. C. Hollister, D-Lansing; Neil Krentzin, House Towns and Counties committee aide; and Marie vandeBunte, a researcher for the House Speaker's staff and fellow graduate student in the journalism.school, for their insights and back- up materials. I would also like to thank Beth Leeson of Sen. David Plawecki's staff for her input and materials regarding the new law, and Councilman Dick Baker for the time he has taken on numerous occasions to discuss the open-meetings issue. Thanks are also in order to reporters Doug Underwood and Mike Hughes and to Jerry Lawler of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization. I would also like to thank all my other friends and the members of my family who helped me keep my sanity during my master's program. iii PREFACE No public official likes to be acused of holding "secret meetings" to discuss the public's business. Somehow, the euphemism "executive session" or "work session" seems more "American." Mention "secret meeting" and somebody is likely to conjure up imagery from somewhere out of the shadowy past when public business translated into patronage. That was the private domain of the political machine. At one time, perhaps, public officials would meet with ward healers and precinct captains in a hotel room. Or perhaps they would sit around on packing crates in the back room of some condemned ware- house, guarded by a handful of mean-looking goons, far from the public eye. There, while a hanging, bare light bulb cast dim rays through dense cigar smoke . . But wait a minute! Times have changed. Hardly anybody smokes cigars anymore. And a Lansing city board, that once caught flak because its members used to stand around drinking coffee while they chatted in the back room, has members today that don't even drink coffee much anymore. Still, many feel as one Lansing city council member who said that somethmes you have to Uglggg the door and clear the air." Problems of governmental secrecy were summed up by a circuit court judge when he ruled in favor of a newspaper which had brought suit iv against its city council for meeting in closed session: Secrecy feeds on secrecy. Supression encourages more suppres- sion. The secrecy that comes about and is advanced by well- meaning men inevitably leads to a scope beyond their original thought. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said: "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." By the City Council limiting what can be heard by the public, what can be reported by the news gathering agencies, (there) is a form of government censorship.1 Since the dawn of civilization, men have asked (a) "What is the law?" and (b) "Why is it that way?" The "what" was probably first answered some 3,800 years ago when Hammurabi codified Babylonian law. Only in recent years, however, have the citizens of our repre- sentative democracy been awarded benefits of "sunshine" which enable them.to transcend vicarious official explanations and discover first- hand why their elected representatives voted as they did. Each of Michigan's two penninsulas is surrounded on three sides by the Great Lakes. For this reason, Michigan weather offers little sunshine. Similarly, the political climate of Michigan has not been noted for its "sunshine" either, hence the title of this thesis. Lawmakers cannot do much about the weather, but in Lansing, on both sides of Capitol Avenue, they have tried to legislate a little more "sunshine" in government. 1Boissonneault v. Mason, State of Michigan in the Circuit Court for the County of Cenesee, Opinion No. 21123, (1974). PREFACE Chapter I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS THE OPEN MEETINGS PRINCIPLE: THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL BASES . . . . . . The public' 3 business . . . . . . . . . Power and knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . The free press and the right to know . . . . . Open meetings and community expertise . . . . Open meetings and civic consciousness . . . . Protection against wrongdoing . . . . . . . . Protection against fraud and misrepresentation The right to know v. the right to privacy . . Secrecy and the public welfare . . . . . . . . Group Concensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The rise of governmental secrecy . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PUBLIC MEETII‘ES IN IANSING, MICHIGAN: GOVERNMENT IN THE "OVERCAST" . . . . . . . . A growing propensity toward openness . . . . . Backroom board meetings. . . . . . . . . . . . Open meetings but secret agendas . . . . . . . The Lansing City Council: an overview . . . . City council, then and now . . . . . . . . . . The "old council" v. the "new council" . . . The Ferguson era: 1968-1975 . . . . . . . . . Rule 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secrecy charges by Mayor Graves . . . . . .' Open meetings: a campaign issue . . . . . . The Baker-Hull open meetings proposal . . . The city attorney opinion . . . . . . . Ending'warmrup meets . . . . . . . . . . . . . The charter commission .'. . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE MICHIGAN OPEN-MEETINGS LAW . . . . . . . . . Sources of Michigan opendmeetings law . . . . vi Page iv 19 19 19 26 29 30 32 35 36 40 42 45 52 59 63 65 68 70 Page English common law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Defining open-meeting rights under the U. 8. Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Defining openwmeeting rights under the Michigan Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Statutory bases for open-meetings legislation . . . 76 Case law effecting the implementation of open meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Open public meetings and Michigan attorneys general . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Strengthening the Muchigan open-meetings law . . . . 86 Early efforts to Open meetings . . . . . . . . . . . 86 House Bill 5405 by Perry Bullard . . . . . . . . . . 87 House Bill 5684 by David C. Hollister . . . . . . . 88 Passage of Senate Bill No. 920 . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Reactions from the news media . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Appendices A. ANALYSIS OF MICHIGAN OPEN-MEETINGS LAWS . . . . . . . 104 B. ENROLLED SENATE BILL N0. 920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 C. TRANSCRIPT 0F LANSING CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 1975 RELATING TO PASSAGE 0F RULE 49 . 120 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 vii CHAPTER I THE OPEN-MEETINGS PRINCIPLE: Theoretical and Practical Bases . . . government by private understanding deprives you of representation, deprives the people of representative institu- tions. It has got to be put into the heads of legislators that public business is public business. --Woodrow Wilson1 The public's business.--0pen-meetings legislation, the subject of this thesis, derives from the tenet that public business, not private business, is what concerns a legislative body in its delibera- tions. In any government that purports to be democratic, citizens deserve access to more than pro forma sessions of formal "ayes" and "nays." They have an inherent right to the clash of opinion that results in restraints, taxes, and other public matters. They have "a right to know."* The right to know is best facilitated in an "open government" thus necessitating the distinction between "open government" and "open meetings." lWoodrow‘Wilson,‘1he New Freedom (New York: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1913), p. 131. *The phrase "right to know" was first coined in 1945 by former Associated Press Executive Director Kent Cooper and was attributed to him by the New York Times, Jan. 23, 1945. Vide: Kent Cooper, The Right to Know (New York: Fararr, Strauss & Cudahy, 1958). In its theoretical, ideal state, the subjects of an open govern- ment could not be barred from any official function of their government. At legislative, judicial, and executive levels, they would have full access to both official records and official proceedings. For obvious reasons, however, a completely "open" government is neither practicable nor would it be desirable. "Open meetings," on the other hand, we will define as public access to legislative proceedings. Thus, open-meetings law does not apply to jury deliberations or staff meetings at the executive level of government. It would, however, apply to legislative assemblies and other public boards which consider and deliberate on behalf of the public as an adjunct of their government. "Open-meetings" legislation or "sunshine" legislation, so-called because of Florida's government-in-the-sunshine law, presumes that every free citizen in a democracy has the right to know how he will be affected by the decisions of his elected officials. More importantly, it sup- poses the citizen has the right to know exactly what these decisions are, how they were reached, and how his representatives are voting. Power and knowledge.--The democratic governments of the United States and the State of Michigan are rooted in the tenet that govern- mental power not only derives from the people, but that the government .33 the people. For a government to remain the people, as opposed to an elite, the people must be an informed electorate. As James Madison observed: Knowledge will forever govern ignorance. And a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.2 Similarly, Harold Cross, a former New York Herald Tribune attorney,* stated that: Public business is the public's business. The peeple have the right to know. Freedom of information is their just heritage. Without that the citizens of a democracy have but changed their kings.5 In American society, frequent elections guarantee dynamic change through peaceful evolution rather than destructive change and anarchy which could otherwise occur without them. Given a public right to know, leaders must remain responsive to valid criticism or face defeat at election time. Obviously, valid criticism can only occur when the public is informed. Thomas Jefferson considered the elections process the "formidible censor of public functionaries," which "by arraigning them at the tri- bunal of public opinion produces reform peaceably which must otherwise be done by revolution."4 In societies without provisions for the frequent change of 2James Madison, "Letter to W. T. Barry, Aug. 4, 1822," The Come lete Madison, ed. Saul Padover (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953), p. 337. *Cross is a familiar name to anybody concerned with access to government. His pioneering book of the early 19508, cited infra., .Ihg People's Right to Know, serves as a starting point for most freedom of information research even today. 3Harold L. Cross, The People's Right to Know: Legal Access to Public Records and Proceediggs (Morningside Heights, New York: Columbia University Press, 1953), p. xiii. 4Thomas Jefferson, "Letter to Coray, 1823," Democrac , ed. Saul K. Padover (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1939), p. 164. leaders, the right to know may produce change through violent revolu- tion. Thus, sedition and other laws which curtail the flow of informa- tion are necessary instruments to save the state. In the words of Alberto Gainza Paz, The first act of any dictatorship is to supress freedom of information. If they can't make a frontal attack against the press, they try by insidious ways to capture and restrict that freedom of information. . . . The only way to oppose these evil forces is to defend freedom of information. . . . The defense should not be confined to newspapermen only . . . the public, the people must realize that it is a matter of vital importance for them.5 Of course democratic ideals take a back seat to the preservation of the state whenever it is threatened, hence wartime secrecy measures. In a democracy, legislators and other policy makers are merely individual citizens who act for the whole people. Their power resides ‘with the people who yield it in part only for specified intervals of time. In this spirit, several open-meetings laws contain language in their statements of intent which reaffirm this basic tenet. Perhaps the best statement of intent is found in the Brown Act, California's open-meetings law: In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and other public agencies in this state exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conduc- ted openly. The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed 5Cross, loc. cit., p. 14, citing Alberto Gainza Paz. so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. Similarly, an Indiana statute declares: Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy . . . that government is the servant of the people, and not the master of them, it is hereby declared . . . that all of the citizens of this state are . . . at all times entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those whom the people select to represent them as public officials and employes.7 Since legislative power remains with the people as a whole, and they reserve the right to terminate or renew the granting of power, they must be able to go beyond and behind the decisions reached in the legis- 1ative process. They must be appraised of the pros and cons involved if they are to make sound judgments on questions of policy and to select their representatives intelligently. Without access to meetings in which decisions are formulated, voters have no means of knowing how 'wisely or foolishly public business has been conducted. The fgee press and the right to know.--The right to know is really a composite of five fundamental rights which embody the freedoms of the press. These are (l) the right to get information; (2) the right to print without prior restraint; (3) the right to print without fear of reprisal not under due process; (4) the right of access to facilities and material essential to communication; and (S) the right to distribute information without interference by government acting under law or by citizens acting in defiance of the law.8 Journalists PCalifornia, Government Code,(1953), sec. 54950. 7Indiana, Sgaggtes (1953), sec. 49-3907. 8James Russell Wiggins, Freedom or Secrecy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956), p. 3. ' man the front lines in the battle for freedom of information since they, perhaps more than anybody else, seek information first hand. It must be stressed that the press enjoys no special privilege not shared by the public at large. Even if one chooses not to publish his own newspaper or newsletter he uses these freedoms as a receiver in the communication process. Of all the five components above, the first, the right to gather information, is the most important element of the right to know. What good, for example, does it do to be able to print, have access to facili- ties and materials or be able to distribute if one does not have access to information? The freedom of.g!g£y citizen to get information is merely facilitated by the remaining four components. Despite its impor- tance, however, the right to gather information is probably the most nebulous and least well-defined. At best, it is only implied in the U.S. Constitution and has never been dealt with directly by the U.S. Supreme Court.9 The right to receive information means that every citizen should have access to governmental records and proceedings. Theoretically, every individual or special interest representative has the same right to examine documents and attend official proceedings as has the reporter. It could be said that the reporter covers proceedings for the citizen in absentia, because the latter is either unwilling or unable to do so in person. 9See generally Wallace Parks, "The Open Government Principle: Applying the Right to Know Under the Constitution," The George Washing- ton Law Review, XXVI (October, 1957), p. 8. Thomas Jefferson summed up the role of a free press in a letter to Judge Tyler in 1804: Man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be to leave open to him all the avenues to truth The most effectual hitherto found is the freedom of the press.10 While the press may be the most effective means through which in- formation is disseminated, it still has shortcomings which open meetings help to overcome. First, the press simply cannot be everywhere. There just is not enough manpower available to cover every meeting of every committee. Opening meetings to the general public ensures that information is passed on to others even though only a few interested persons may attend.11 Second, the information obtained by attendance from the general public and the media through first-hand observation ensures far more complete information that minutes or other official reports. This point cannot be overemphasized in these times when the press depends for so much of its information on press releases from public relations people. Third, open meetings ensure more accurate reporting by the press which must otherwise depend on incomplete reports that are slanted accor- ding to the views of the informant. Skillful politicians know how to use or manage the press. Open meetings and community expertise.--Nobody wants a government that is completely run by amateurs. Complex problems of a growing, urban society often seem to call for professional solutions. In seeking 10Thomas Jefferson, "Letter to Judge Tyler, 1804," Democracy, loc. cit. 11See Robert A. Dahl, Who Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961), pp. 276-86. solutions, most boards opt for one or more of the following methods. They may (1) ask the city's administrative staff to look into the problem and recommend solutions; (2) hire an outside consultant to study and report; (3) appoint an ad hoc "blue ribbon panel" of "experts;" or (4) encourage citizen participation at the grass-roots level. Too frequently, however, citizen participation and the democratic town meetings seem old fashioned. These may be treasured heirlooms since everybody likes to pay lip service to democratic ideals. However, some see general participation as outmoded and ill-equipped to deal with complex problems of today's society. In the words of one observer: With growing populations, such meetings became unwieldly and 'with the growing complexity of government functions, many ‘matters seemed to call for expert solution rather than general participation. With the emphasis on "expert solution" more and more meetings began to be held in closed or executive session.12 Two fallacies are associated with this mpgpp operandi. First, the assumptions ignore the fact that today's society is better educated than ever. By opening early planning sessions, public officials enlist the expertise of the whole community. If anyone makes an error in fact or premise, this can be corrected before plans reach an advanced state. Public officials are provided with more accurate infor- mation when they elicit participation from individuals, especially on the local level where citizens have the greatest knowledge. Second, ill-conceived plans are difficult to correct once they have reached an advanced stage. Once minds have been made up, they are more difficult to change than would have been the case if shortcomings 12Judith Murrill Baldwin, "Access Laws: Development,” Freedom of Information Center Publication No. 86 (Columbia, Missouri: School of Journalism, University of Missouri, 1962), p. 2. 80 had been pointed out early in the deliberation process. Once a plan has been unveiled at its final public hearing, the hearing becomes something of a public announcement. It is extremely unlikely that planners will be sent back to the drawing board after officials have pontificated on all the virtues of their ill-conceived plans. Open meegipgs and civic consciousness.--In today's experience, one often encounters alienation from people in all segments of society. But after years of living with the old adage "you can't fight city hall," people have begun to organize collectively to improve their quality of life. They are demanding greater participation in their governments. Neighborhoods are probably the most grass-roots level of any such organizational effort. In the neighborhood organizations, one often hears it said that government should do things.§p£ its neighborhoods, not [52 them. Residents of the various neighborhoods are perhaps the real experts on neighborhood problems. In Lansing, Michigan, for example, neighborhood organizations have become concerned with a wide range 0f problems including historic preservation, street lighting, parking, adequate sewerage, major flooding, police protection, zoning, prostitu- tion, clearing snow from the alleys etc. In large measure, neighborhood organizations have sprung up because people were dissatisfied with input to the existing governmental structures. In the following chapter, attempts by one such organization to gain input will be examined. When government opens its deliberations to citizens, it can be- come more responsive to the governed because public reaction is ascer- tained. Lobbyists have enjoyed access to the legislative process for years. Perhaps the citizens should be given that same access. Furthermore, when citizens are invited to share in the mental exercise of their legislators and begin to understand the demands of government and particular issues, they are better prepared to accept the "public good." Thus, open meetings help to increase compliance with a board's final actions and give them legitimacy.13 Protection against wrongdoing.--When meetings are opened to the public, the community is further protected against conflicts of interest and other malfeasance of office. It is more difficult for an individual lawmaker to mislead the majority. It is more difficult for the entire body to engage in misconduct. Some may argue that it does little good to elect "honest" men to office because "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." There is a growing revulsion on the part of the public against irrespon- sible government. The mass media have directed public attention to inadequacies and abuses of government. "Watergate" and other scandals have shaken papular faith in the governmental process. In the words of former Florida attorney general Bays Harrison III, "in these times, either we're to have a situation of government under glass or government under suspicion."14 Some have compared openwmeetings laws to the locks on doors which keep honest people honest. Furthermore, honest lawmakers are protected by strong Openwmeet- ings laws. It is extremely difficult to accuse a legislator of being "bought" through backroom politics if there are no backroom dealings. 13See generally Wiggins, loc. cit. 14Baya Harrison III, Testimony before the Lansing City Council, Jan. 10, 1976. 10 Protection against fraud and misrepresentation.--Opening our legislative proceedings is somewhat akin to Opening judicial proceedings. It is more difficult for a witness to perjure himself if the public is there to contradict falsehoods. This knowledge alone is often enough to check the lies of a witness who might otherwise misstate facts or spin false yarns. Thus, the quality of evidence available to lawmakers is improved. The right to know v. the right tojprivacy.--There may be a fine line of demarcation between the public's business and an individual's right to privacy. Public servants live a dual role. On the one hand, the public has a legitimate concern over matters involving public servants since they affect the orderly conduct of government. On the other hand, even the public Official does not give up all his rights as an individual entitled to privacy when he becomes involved with the public's business. One therefore must ask what-i; the public's business and at what point does an individual's right to privacy over- ride the public's right to know. Some favor the closing Of sessions involving personnel matters; Others do not. On the one hand, some will say that potential applicants are discouraged from applying for a job if they believe word is likely to get back to the employers of their already comfortable position. Others argue that applicants consider the employment change of their own volition, that the public should know in the event of any possible con- flict Of interest, and that there are always going to be news leaks anyway. 11 In matters of firing or other disciplinary action, some favor the closing of these deliberations while others favor their being Open. Those favoring executive sessions may say that truly frank discussion can only occur in closed session and that they are necessary tO the protec- tion of an individual's reputation. Others say that, by the time a grievance reaches a policymaking body, administrative channels have already been exhausted. They cite Open sessions as a means to more complete and factual information, much as judicial proceedings depend on open doors. They say that an indivi- dual's reputation is actually protected against innuendo, rumor and false charges. Perhaps the conflict between rights of the individual to privacy and rights of the public to information rests on some kind Of balance. Which is the greatest good? Few would question that matters involving the moral turpitude of a high, public Official merit public scrutiny, but where does one draw the line? Should policemen, firemen, or garbagemen be subject to the same kind Of scrutiny as a mayor or city manager? Should a citizen who serves on a board without compensation be subject to the same kind of public scrutiny as an elected councilman.who serves with pay? Under both the present 1968 Michigan law and the new Openwmeet- ings law scheduled to take effect in April, 1977, sessions involving personnel matters may be closed. The new law, however, requires a re- quest from the named person.15 15Michigan, Enrolled Senate Bill No. 920 (1976), sec. 8a. 12 Secrecy,apd the public welfggg.--Into this category fall such exceptions to Open meetings as the purchase Of or lease Of real property, strategy and negotiation sessions associated with collective bargaining, and a board's consultation with its attorney. Some argue these exceptions to Open meetings are necessary instruments to protect society from threats both from without and from within. In real estate matters, for example, some argue that premature publicity drives up prices Of properties under consideration. To some degree, their arguments are rooted in factual experience. Those who favor Opening real estate deliberations say that speculators and realtors already know of prOperty under consideration and that gag orders merely keep the general public from knowing. Further, they argue that condem- nation proceedings can bring price in line with fair market value. It is interesting to note that closed collective bargaining sessions are the only exception to Florida's attempt at total "sunshine." Here, constitutional considerations were considered to have outweighed the statutory open-meetings considerations.16 Obviously, collective bargaining is a game and can not work to public advantage if negotiators operate under unequal rules requiring only one side to lay all of its cards on the table. Many Of the same considerations apply with respect 16Basset v. Braddock, 262 SO.2d (Fla.) 425 (1972): The main question was whether or not collective bargaining sessions with a teacher's union would have to be conducted in public. Recognizing the impossibility of public bargaining, the court concluded that the Florida constitution applied and that an exception to the government-in—the- sunshine law was authorized since Fla. Constitution, art. I, see. 6 states that "[t]he right of employees, by and through a labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively shall not be denied or abridged." 13 to attorney-client relationships. In both cases, the public could be taken advantage of financially. Official investigations may sometimes be conducted in closed sessions to protect the informants. It is extremely unlikely that closing such sessions effects this end, however. On September 26, 1974, for example, employes Of the Detroit House of Correction testified before the Michigan House Social Services Committee about conditions which eventually led to a state take-over of the facility. Despite closed doors, this writer discovered all had been fired.17 Similarly, for reasons discussed on p. lO‘ppppg, some argue that openness in such hearings encourages more honest, factual testimony. Group concensus.--Often a body of public Officials becomes factionalized to the extent that nearly every time a controversial issue occurs, half the members can be expected to vote with one bloc and the other half can be expected to vote with the other bloc. Some view this situation as detrimental to the conduct Of the public's business.18 At other times, a public body may become so enamored of its own sense Of unity that it becomes something Of a fraternal organization, acting in its own interest at the expense of the greater society which it should be representing. The result may be decisions reached in private with public sessions being only formal voting sessions, i.e. a re-run of the earlier meeting minus the clash Of Opinion. This will be discussed to a greater extent in the following chapter. 17The State News (East Lansing, Mich.), December 5, 1975, p.1. 18See The State Journal (Lansing, Mich.), August 22, 1976, p. A-l. (Hereinafter, all "State Journal" citations refer to the Lansing, Mich. paper.) 14 The rise Ofpgovernmental secrecy.--Some authorities attribute the need for access legislation as a symptom associated with the rise of big government. One, who sees this as beginning with New Deal legislation, writes that Only with the development of "big government" in the 19303 and the expanding reach Of internal and external security consider- ations during the post-war period have these tendencies become serious and acute. Similarly, another views the expansion of government as the sine qua non of secrecy and the resultant access legislation needed to counter it. The growth Of government, both in power and in service, has been a major reason for this concern with "the people's right to know" what their government is doing. It would seem significant that this high proportion of access legislation has been passed since the advent of "big government."20 In contrast to the Washington,D.C. Of the 19703, one former editor Of the Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard writes: I can remember Washington, D.C. in 1909, when covering Washing- ton was little mOre of a task than covering a city hall. On nice summer evenings, the Marine Band played in the Plaza in front of the Capitol and President and Mrs. Taft rode by in a carriage and shook hands.21 Commenting on the change in his own state, the former editor adds: I can remember when all the functions of the State of Oregon were carried on in two relatively small buildings and with a budget of a few million a year. Now they spread through a dozen huge budldings in Salem and Portland with branch Offices in every major city, and we budget in hundreds Of millions. 19Wa11ace Parks, loc. cit., p. 11. 20Baldwin, loc= cit. 21W. M. Tugman, "The People's Right to Know," State Government, 221b1d. 15 Similarly, in Lansing, Michigan near the turn of the century, state functions were carried out in two buildings with enough space left over in the capitol for all classes of a women's school. Today, capitol Offices have had their ceilings lowered by the addition of second floors that occasionally come crashing down and the former state Office building is only one small part Of the two huge governmental complexes. Some say that in smaller communities there is generally less concern with the need for access legislation. One small town editor in California wrote: I was born here, grew up with most of the people involved and we enjoy a free and easy exchange of information. I doubt whether our city Officials even know of the Brown.Act. NO problem has come up.23 Similarly, in Massachusetts, legislators from cities supported open— 24 ‘meetings legislation while those from small towns Opposed it. Scope of Operations is no prerequisite for secrecy, however. School boards, for example, have a notorious reputation for clandestine Operations. In the words of Elmer White, recently retired executive secretary of the Michigan Press Association: The biggest violators are school boards. They're upger the impression they're being efficient with their time. And Rep. David C. Hollister, DbLansing, who sponsored an openrmeetings 23A1bert c. Pickerell and Edward L. Feder, Open Public Meetings Of Legislativg_Bodies: Californigfs Brown Act (Berkely, California: Bureau Of Public Administration, University of California at Berkely, 1957), p. 37. 2"Christian Science Monitor (Boston), Feb. 7, 1957, n.p. 2SState Journal, April 25, 1976, p. E-2. l6 bill said: "I defy you to go to a planning commission or zoning board meeting or a school board. They are some of the worst.”26 Hollister Offered this explanation for the secrecy: It's traditional. It's convenient. These guys don't get paid. It's a hassle. They don‘t get paid and going public is a hassle they don't want to go through. When they haven't done their homework, they don't want to be embarassed asking a dumb question in public.27 Similarly, college and university boards of trustees Object to efforts by the legislature to Open their proceedings. In the words Of Fred L. Mathews, Chairman of the Southwestern Michigan College Board of Trustees: . . . (C)ommunity college boards of trustees were created by the Constitution of the State Of Michigan and not by the legislature. The legislature has no more right to dictate when we meet, how we meet, and what we discuss than do we to pass rules governing how the legislature performs. The above is Egue unless we accept the premise that "might makes right." Mathews discounts closed meetings as a source of public distrust: Lack Of confidence in government today is not because of local government holding “work sessions." The citizens' lack of con- fidence is in state and national government because it has gone too far in trodding on the individual rights Of the people, including those of locally elected Officials. Interference with our right of Freedom Of Assembly,28hen official action is not being taken, is unconstitutional. At one time, the Michigan State University Board Of Trustees was known as one Of the most closed governing bodies in the area. Following an 261b1d. 271b1d. 28Letter to Rep. Thomas H. Brown, Chairman Michigan House Towns and Counties Committee from Fred L. Mathews, Chairman Board of Trustees, Southwestern Michigan College, Cherry GrOVe Road, Dowagiac, Michigan, May 7, 1976. 291b1d. 17 interview with Blanche Martin, an East Lansing trustee, State Journal reporter Otis White wrote: The trustees attended closed meetings called "informational" sessions the night before the public meeting. There, out Of view Of the public, all the business of the next day's meeting was reviewed and all the meaningful discussion was held.30 While meetings of that board have become more Open, educators on the *whole tend to remain secretive. In Jackson, Michigan, for example, local school board Officials met in a member's private home to discuss the closing Of an elementary school.31 In Des MOines, Iowa, female reporters were prevented from covering a school board meeting when male board members adjourned to the men's room to finish their discussion.32 Conclusions.--Despite a lack of constitutional guarantees, Open- meetings principles are often considered as sacred to the American way of life as provisions in the bill of rights. Sometimes, however, the right Of the public to attend the deliber- ations of its elected representatives may be tempered because of other, conflicting rights. Arguments to limit the degree Of Openness taken by a legislative body center around matters of individual reputation and privacy, matters in which premature disclosure could jeopardize the greater whole Of society, and one educator has even gone so far as to say Openrmeetings legislation interferes with his right of freedom of assembly. 30State Journal, loc. cit., p. E-l. 31Jsckson Citizen Patriot, March 10, 1976, p. 3. 32Kurt Rogers and Patricia Murphy, "Access to School Boards," Freedom of Information Center Publication NO. 312 (Columbia, Missouri: School of Journalism, University of Missouri, 1973), p. S: citing-22g Register (Des MOines), May 4, 1973, n.p. 18 The right to attend legislative proceedings is important because knowledge is power and an informed electorate is vital to our democratic, representative form of government. The press serves as a vital link in the dissemination Of knowledge. Opening deliberative proceedings increases citizen participation and makes participants more inclined to accept the "public good." Thus, Open meetings help legitimize a board's actions. Furthermore, by Opening the deliberative process to the public, legislative bodies are provided with more complete and factual infor- mation. There is less chance they will be deceived; it is more difficult for a member of the body to engage in criminal behavior; the body as a whole is discouraged from illegal activity. Charges by the public regarding such behavior are also unlikely if the body has conducted its business Openly and above the board. Open-meetings legislation arose in response to governmental secrecy. Some have attributed the rise in secrecy to the advent Of big government during new deal legislation of the 19308. Some see the degree of secrecy as being directly proportional to governmental size, i.e. the bigger the government, the more secretive it is. Others say the exact opposite is true pointing to the amount of secrecy by school boards. Specific considerations for the need to legislate open meetings follows in the third chapter dealing with Michigan Openrmeetings law. CHAPTER II PUBLIC MEETINGS IN LANSING, MICHIGAN: Government in the "Overcast" Apgrowing propensity toward Openness.--Doors, traditionally closed by local custom, have slowly been Opening in the city government of Lansing, Michigan. Sometimes it takes an irate citizen pounding on the door to have it Open. Sometimes Officials meeting behind the door have to be embaras- sed by the local news media. At times, the city attorney has to inform Officials that they are acting in defiance of the law. At other times, Openness happens because persons seeking Office make open meetings a campaign issue. Conditions have markedly improved during recent months but there is room for more improvement. This chapter examines past and current secrecy problems in one city government and explores some of the remedies, both in effect and proposed. Backroom board meetipg§.--A group of apprehensive homeowners asked the Lansing, Michigan planning board to reconsider plans that would put a four-lane, divided highway down the middle of their eastside neighborhood!: It was 1972 and a new, expressway-like bridge was already *The proposed boulevard would have linked Aurelius Road on the south with Wood Street on the north. The issue was hotly debated and later drOpped but some claim it is still alive. 19 20 funneling high-speed traffic into what had once been a quiet, residential street.* Board members listened while homeowners argued that such a road would further the spread of blight and would isolate an elementary school on all sides with heavy traffic. The board chairman then politely thanked the citizens and members of the board retreated to the back room leaving a startled audience. One schoolteacher, Ms. Jean MacDonald would not put up with it. "Come out Of there," she said pounding on the door.33 Board members came out and have since become a paragon Of openness. It was 'Jerome R. "Jerry” Lawler's first venture into city government but he was by no means inexperienced in government in general. Currently, Lawler serves as president Of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization, a group that has fought for open government and increased citizen participation. Lawler said he was shocked by the board's arrogance toward citizens. "There is more petty politicking in city hall than there is in the capitol," he said. Lawler should know, since as Administrative Assistant to the Director of the Michigan Legislative Services Bureau, he holds that agency's number two position. His background includes a political science degree from the University Of Iowa with his last two years completed in paid, on-the-jOb-training in.Washington, D.C. His worst hassles were with the traffic board, where he encountered a locked door. *Clemens Street. 33Interview'with Jerome R. Lawler, Oct. 4, 1976. 21 On May 8, 1974, Lawler walked around the North Grand Avenue parking ramp looking for the traffic board meeting. A new man, Raymond O. Severy, was to be interviewed for a job as traffic engineer. All the doors were locked and no meeting notices were posted anywhere. Lawler ran into a group Of women from Eureka Street who were also looking for the meeting. The traffic board had, on April 15, instituted parking changes on Eureka Street without consulting any of the residents. That had resulted in 10 to 12 spaces being wiped out and the women were there to ask the board to rescind the change. Everybody started looking for a telephone so they could find out where the board was meeting. Lawler pushed on a door marked "employees only" in the northeast corner of the ramp's lower level. It Opened into a utility closet. He described the scene: There were mops hanging up. Also there was a sink where you rinse the mops and empty the slop pails. We went through there and down a couple of halls looking for a phone. 'We found the meeting by accident looking for a phone. They were surprised because they weren't expecting any one. The board chairman advised the women their item of business was not on the agenda and they left. He then asked Lawler if he had been with the women. Since Lawler had come for the interview with the new traffic engineer, he said "no." For about 15 minutes, the Eureka Street parking 35, 36 matter was discussed. Lawler wrote Mayor Gerald Graves. 34Ibid. 35Ibid. 36Hearing relative to House Bills 5684 and 5405 in the Towns and Counties Committee of the Michigan House of Representatives, Dec. 10, 1975. (Tape Recorded.) 22 In a lZ-page letter, he complained the board had been acting illegally by violating the state's open~meetings law. He also complained the board had been breaking the city charter in three ways: (1) it was putting things into effect before minutes had been published, (2) it had appointed the new traffic engineer after meetings had Officially adjourned, and (3) it made 38 decisions without a legal majority present from February to April, 1974.37 Lansing City Attorney Peter Houk* agreed with most Of Lawler's charges and told the board tO meet in public. Houk wrote: After some extended discussion, the chairman Of the board recommended that the location Of the board meetings be changed to the front Office Of the traffic department to facilitate access to the public.38 Lawler remembered that "extended discussion:" They went into a closed meeting to discuss whether they should have open meetings. Can you imagine that? Then they had a vote to gecide if they would abide by the city attorney's opinion. 9 Others have encountered suspicious activity by other boards. On November 18, 1975, Councilman Jim Blair and newly-elected councilmen Dick Baker and Bob Hull went to a meeting of the civic center board only to find a lot of empty seats. Somebody had cancelled the meeting without giving any public notice. They then went to a police board meeting. 37Letter from Jerome R. Lawler, 122 Horton, Lansing, Mich., to Gerald W. Graves, Mayor of Lansing, June 17, 1974. (In the files of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization, 122 Horton, Lansing, Mich.) *Houk was elected Ingham.County Prosecutor in November, 1976. 38Letter from City Attorney Peter Houk to Mayor Gerald W. Graves, ‘mayor Of Lansing, July 18, 1974. 39State Journal, Apr. 25, 1976, p. E-l. 23 When they arrived at police headquarters, it was 7:45 p.m. and the meeting was to have begun 15 minutes earlier. State Journal reporter Mike Hughes waited with them while board members chatted in the Office Of the chief Of police. When asked what they talked about, Councilman Blair said: How the hell do you know what they were talking about? They could be telling dirty jokes with a lady present. They could be talking about the weather. They could be talking about what they were going to do that night. They could be trying to get their shit together, but we didn't accuse them of that. Blair said that after a big article by Hughes, board members felt as though they had been "set up." According to the Hughes article,41 Baker asked police board chairman Russell Lawler what had been discussed in the closed meeting. "Procedures," he said and added that “we were waiting for one board member to arrive." "That's right? said board member Richard Rousch. "I'm sorry I was late." He had arrived at 7:34, 11 minutes before the closed session adjourned. The board thanked the men for showing up and one member made a quick pitch for a new police building. Baker said he was well aware of the need for one. As a former city planner, he had written a report that said current facilities were inadequate. The report advocated no action until police had a clearer idea of what they needed. There have always been tensions between city council and the various boards. When Blair joined city council in 1973, he found city council had no control over street lighting. That was up to the board Of aoTelephone conversation with James Blair, Oct. 8, 1976. 41State Journal, November 19, 1975, p. 3-2. 24 water and light. Later, the North Lansing Community Association had asked city council to provide two beat policemen in the heart Of the north side's commercial district. Traditionally, the area has had a disprOportionate number Of shootings, stabbings, and muggings. Council could only turn the matter over to the police board. According to hotel owner Mary Haney, policemen were merely assigned for a short time and later removed.42 The police board has continued abuses of executive sessions. On October 12, 1976, it met in "secret session" not only to consider the suspension of a police officer but to vote and make its decision. State Journal reporter Dan Poorman wrote: The Lansing Police Board meeting in secret session Tuesday night apparently handed down a 30-day suspension to Officer Gordon Wilson on charges of conduct unbecoming an Officer. Board Chairman Russel Lawler said today the board's actions are private. He refused to reveal what action was taken, saying only that the board had been in session. However, sources indicate that Wilson was given a 30-day suspension even though one source said he was found not guilty of the charge. There was no explanation as 50 how he could be found not guilty and yet still be suspended. 3 Chairman Russel Lawler justified the board's actions saying it was an "internal matter" for the police department. The previous week, however, an Officer had been suspended for 60 days and placed on two years' probation. There had been no secrecy 42Conversation with Mary Haney, Feb. 10, 1976. 43State Journal, October 13, 1976, p. B-3. 25 order involving that decision.44 The board may have been within its legal limits to have called an executive session to discuss specific personnel matters. However, it probably acted in defiance of the current state Open-meetings law by not taking its Official action in public. For the most part, closed board meetings are because of traditional practice. Edward Remick, who had been chairman Of the planning board when Ms. MacDonald pounded on the door for them to come out, said that the board met in the back room as "a carryover from the Old boards." He insists that his board mostly drank coffee and chatted in the back room, but grants that "we caught some flak for it."45 Like the planning board, the board of zoning appeals also used to meet in the back room after hearing from the audience. The practice was dropped after a State Journal article, but Vern Fountain, a city planner, said the meetings were not held to duck the public. "People would drink coffee and maybe talk about the weather more than anything else," he said. They don't even drink coffee any more."6 One zoning appeals board member, however, believes frank discussion can only happen if members are insulated from public scrutiny. I believe the credibility of board members should be protected to the extent that they should have freedom to question staff people either before the meeting or during the meeting 44Ibid. 453tate Journal, April 25, 1976, p. E-l. 46ibid. 26 regarding the matters in question without parading their ignorance before the public.47 Bob Black of the mayor's Office said boards have always been Open and "all this talk of citizen participation doesn't make any difference one way or the other." He said the public is already represented through the various boards.48 Still, the present city charter defines board members as "public Officials" and gives them broad powers and Often final authority. When the charter was drafted, people were afraid of creating a political machine like that of Mayor Daley in Chicago or Tamany Hall in New York. Mayoral power was somewhat randomly distributed among the various boards to the extent that they are autonomous. They hire and fire department heads, regulate lighting, traffic flow, parking and determine services. A proposed charter would have stripped them of much Of their power and ‘would have reduced them primarily to advisory status.49 Open meetings but secret agendas.--Jerry Lawler recalls picking up a traffic board agenda at one of their meetings and being told by president Mrs. Pat Guilford to "put that back."50 On March 14, 1975 Ms. Jean MacDonald, as Eastside Neighborhood Organization president, wrote city boards asking them for copies of their 47Hearing relative to the Baker-Hull Open Meetings Ordinance, City Council, Lansing, Mich., Feb. 10, 1976. (Tape recorded.) 48Interview with Bob Black, Sept. 23, 1976. 49City of Lansing, Charter Commission, A Report to the People on the Proposed Charter, Art. 5, sec. 102: The proposed city charter lost in the November, 1976 election. 50Lawler interview, loc. cit. 27 advance agendas. Her letter Specified the organization was not requesting background information. Nine months later, the fire board had not responded. The planning board, in fact, stood alone in saying "yes, no problem.”51 The parks board responded saying they would be made available only to city officials: It was the Board's decision at that time, and reaffirmed in March, the agenda will be made available to all City Councilman (sic) and the City Clerk on the Friday prior to our third Wednesday of each month Board meeting. In addition to the City Councilman receiving the agenda one is of course also provided to the Park Board member representing your voting ward Of the city. From these various sources 52 information may be available on the content of our Board Agenda. Lyle L. Stephens, chairman of the public service board wrote a re- fusal saying: As I am sure you are aware, the Board of Public Service is not "Government" in the normal sense. All Of the Board members are either business people, or employees of business or government, and also residents of the City of Lansing. As such, we Board members share the same concerns and desires about open, effective and responsive government as do you and members of your organi- zation. . . . it would be most advantageous to hgge a member of your organization attend our meetings in person. The traffic board declined to send agendas at first with the board chairman saying it would set a "dangerous precedent." City Attorney Houk told the board that sending an agenda was not required but he suggested 51Hearing relative to House Bills 5684 and 5405, loc. cit. 52Letter of Douglas Finley to Jean MacDonald, April 9, 1975. (In the files of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization.) 53Letter of Lyle L. Stephens to Jean MacDonald, June 5, 1975. (In the files of the Eastside Neighborhood Organization.) 28 they do. The chairperson voted to send copies "under duress" and another member abstained from voting.54 Board minutes contain no mention Of the meeting with the city attorney. Problems associated with failure to Obtain agendas are obvious. It would be impossible for any citizen group or newspaper to send a representative to every meeting of every city agency or board. Needless time would be wasted monitoring routine business matters which are not relevant or important. Furthermore, if something important were to come up, it would probably be too late to provide meaningful input from proper research. Lawler said his organization has not yet pressured the parks board for their agendas because helpful employes from the parks and recreation department usually alert them to important matters. He also mentioned difficulty Obtaining reports and studies which had been authorized in public meetings.* Documents, however, are beyond the scope of this thesis. Another Obstacle to attending meetings is the too-helpful employe. Firemen are a good example. Currently, the fire board meets downtown in the city's number one fire station. Blair said: First they want to talk with you and that makes it hard to get to the meeting. Then, they want to escort you upstairs so you don't get lost or something.55 54Hearing relative to House Bills 5684 and 5405, loc. cit. * The two studies involved related to flood control and the construction of a fire station. Lawler Obtained a copy of the fire site study from a "sweet, gray-haired lady" who did not know it was not to be released. Blair tossed him a copy of the flood study in a hearing. 55Blair conversation, loc. cit. 29 The Lansing City Council: gn overview.--Eight nonpartisan council members form the present city council. Four are elected from each of the wards and four are elected at-large. This may change. Despite a November 2 defeat at the polls, there is a good possibility the proposed charter will be reintroduced at some future time. There is no reason to believe it will be extensively revised. Under the proposed charter, a ninth councilman would be added. This is seen as a means Of breaking stalemates. It would be easier to Obtain the two-thirds majorities needed for passage Of certain motions. Under terms of the proposed charter, the councilman would be elected at-large. Some, including the Lansing State Journal, oppose this move and say it could cause an imbalance by concentrating several members in a single ward.56 If Lansing is redistricted following the 1980 census, a fifth ward could be added and the ninth councilman elected from it. This would require a charter amendment, however. The addition of a ninth councilman would also remove the mayor from legislative activity. Currently, the mayor breaks tie votes. Under the present strong council-weak mayor system of government, city council carries out administrative as well as legislative functions. Under the proposed charter, this would change. Councilmen could no longer talk with employes about their jobs or tell department heads that a constituent had complained of trash, garbage, weeds or other nuisances. This would all have to be channeled down through the mayor's Office. 56State Journal, Oct. 20, 1976, p. A-14. 3O Legislation is drafted under what is called ”the committee system." Instead of individual members submitting resolutions which serve as vehicles of discussion, ideas are kicked around in the three- member standing committees and the city attorney drafts a resolution. The mayor appoints councilmen to the various committees and this is Often a source of friction. While city council passes recommendations from the boards into law, the individual boards, appointed by the mayor under the patronage system, set policy. Many are the final authority for the hiring and firing of department heads. Under the defeated charter proposal, the mayor would have had most of the authority for hiring and firing. Most of the boards would have been reduced primarily to advisory status. City council, then and now.--City council used to race through its meetings with lightning speed. I can remember back in 1970 when a four or five page agenda frequently took little more than a half hour. It was hard to tell exactly what council was voting on. The agenda might contain some rather Obscure language followed by an account number which identified items of business, but copies of resolutions were not readily available to the public. Before the clerk could even finish her first "whereas," a sponsor would usually move "that the resolution be considered 'read.'" There was Often little discussion or debate on Monday nights be- cause concensus had generally been reached during a warm-up meet earlier in the day. The public could not address council until after it had already passed that evening's resolutions. Finally, a man named John Eliasohn threatened a lawsuit because he could not speak against a property 31 purchase deal until after the council had agreed to make it.* The public has finally been given three chances tO speak. Any- body may address any item on the agenda at the beginning Of every meeting, any resolution before resolutions are considered, and can talk about any- thing for five minutes at the end Of each meeting. Back-up material has even been provided for the public. A book Of resolutions has now been placed outside the door for public inspection for the first time this year. Last April, for the first time, council held announced, public budget hearings. They lasted for 17 meetings and took more than 61 hours of deliberation. In the end, council only shifted about $300,000 of the $26.9 million budget.57 In October, 1976, council discontinued Monday afternoon committee- of-the-whole sessions on a temporary, trial basis. Ironically, this move has met mixed reactions from those council members who have generally promulgated Openness. Councilman Blair summed up this year's prOpensity toward Openness saying that It's an entirely different ballgame now than was being played last year. Now, decisions are made on the floor or at least being discussed there. City government is being rug on the council floor, and that never happened in the past. 8 State Journal reporter, Dan Poorman, who used to cover the city * This involved the purchase Of the historic Turner-Dodge mansion on the city's north side. While the prOperty was bought with ideas of destroying the mansion and turning the land into a park, civic groups helped with the old home's restoration and are using it for meeting space. 57State Journal, Aug. 22, 1976, p. A-3. 581bid. 32 hall beat differed saying "they're just not so blatent anymore." The "old council" v. the "new council."--Most councilmen admit that city council is divided. Much of the split has been over the Open- meetings issue. Otis White of the Lansing State Journal wrote: . . . the frequent frontal assults on the "secret meetings" Of the "old council" quickly embittered an already suspicious older bloc on the council. Until this year, city council was something of one, big, happy family. Differences were usually ironed out in closed session, beyond the spotlight of public scrutiny. At-large Councilwoman Lucile Belen defended the practice saying: I feel that once in a while with a small group of eight people (like the city council), people will be harboring resentments and we need to close the door and clear the air. Do you settle family arguments in front Of your mother-in-law? Of course you don't. In this spirit, she throws a Christmas party for all the council members every year. Members invariably talk shop. Commenting on an Open- meetings proposal, Miss Belen said "if you pass this, I couldn't have you guys over for Christmas in my new apartment."61 Many consider Miss Belen the "Old bloc" 1eader.* Councilman James Blair, whom many consider to have once been city council's strongest Open-meetings advocate, does not go along with the 59Ibid. 6OState Journal, April 25, 1976, p. E-2. 61Ordinances and Contracts Committee of the Lansing City Council, Lansing, Mich., Sept. 23, 1976. * One can ask just how much air is cleared by closing a door. It is also reasonable to ask if a body of elected Officials should be compared to a "family" in its arguments, and the public as an in-law. 33 idea of private parties for councilmen. If seven councilmen get together at the Hotel Olds, make policy decisions, and then come back and pass something, it's just as wrong as a meeting where they throw everybody out. Blair, who joined council in 1974, was probably the first councilman to accuse his colleagues of "secret meetings." "We did things on the Old council that were close to being against the law," he said, adding some big decisions had been made at private dinner parties. Then, with all the votes already counted and all differences settled, votes would be re-run in public at the Monday night public session.63 Together with Dick Baker and Bob Hull, Blair is generally seen as a nearly certain vote for the new bloc. However, he has parted company this year on the implementation of an Open-meetings ordinance which would allow virtually no exceptions whatever. Most of the Older councilmen deny there is any secrecy problem in city council. Miss Belen, for example, told State Journal reporter Otis White: I don't know where they get this idea of secret meetings. As long as I've been on the council my door has always been Open.64 Fourth Ward Councilman Jack Gunther said he is "not adverse" to open meetings and added the only time he could remember a closed meeting 65 was in a case involving a personnel matter. Louis Adado, a one-time, third ward councilman.who was reelected 628tate_Journal, Oct. 28. 1975. P- 3'3- 63State Jougnal, Apr. 25, 1976, p. E-l. 64State Journal, Aug. 22, 1976, p. A-3. 65Interviewwith Councilman Jack Gunther, Sept. 1, 1976. 34 last year to an at-large seat said during his campaign: We don't have any secret meetings. I remember one (secret meeting) that dealt with a personnel problem . . . We have never asked the press to leaveé I don't know what the other candidates are talking about. . . 6 When reporter Doug Underwood was covering city hell, he told me that council members would not ask you to leave, but can sometimes appear to be rather uncomfortable. Blair has said members "clam up" with the public there. Councilman William Brenke has accused Baker and Hull Of grand- standing on many issues including Open government. "When the press leaves and the media leave (a meeting), one councilman leaves too," Brenke said in a not-so-veiled reference to Baker. "You watch next time and see."67 He is also disturbed by the time consumption generated by new council members.68 City Attorney Peter Houk cited evidence Of a real split on council. Last year, his Office wrote its 75th Official Opinion on September 15. This year, the 75th Opinion came on July 1. Houk said: That situation is generally one that's caused when you have substantial disagreement in the way things are going. 9 Some favor a return to days when former councilman Joel Ferguson filled a power vacuum, lobbied with other members in private and struck 66Thc Lansing Star, Oct. 30, 1975, p. 14. 67State Journal, loc. cit. 68lbid. 691bid., p. A-l. 35 concensuses without a lot of public debate. Miss Belen, for example, said decisions were made more rationally and calmly than they are being made now. The Ferguson era: l968-l975.--A master mover and political tactician, Joel Ferguson once told reporter Doug Underwood "nothing happens here unless it goes past me."70 When Ferguson served on the city council, city hall was divided. The division, however, was between the mayor and council rather than among council members themselves. Monday night council meetings were sometimes called "the Joel and Gerry fights," because Of differences between the two men. Ferguson, a black man who was elected to city council in the wake of the racial unrest Of the 1960s, became a symbol of nearly every action _ that passed city council during his incumbency. He was effective in maneuvering the four to six vote coalitions needed to pass resolutions. He did this by going to other council members individually, working compromises and making trades. Reflecting on the Ferguson years, Miss Belen said: Joel Ferguson thought like we did. He was a liberal but not all the way through. He wouldn't like me saying that, but it's true. He was a businessman, like us. When Joel was there, he and I could sit down and come up with something acceptable. We're clear thinkers. And they (Baker, Blair, and Hull) aren't quick or clear thinkers.71 Ferguson was criticized for his handling of the purchase of an Old discount store to be used for recreational purposes. Some critics 70State Journal, Oct. 26, 1975, p. B-l. 71State Journal, Aug. 22, 1976, p. A-3. 36 said the public should be consulted before, not after, a decision is made and that he had pushed through the measure with blinding speed. After some public hearings, Opposition develOped and the matter was dropped with council changing its original decision.72 Mike Hughes said of Ferguson that he was so effective in persuading his fellow councilmen that about the only Opposition he ever encountered was from Blair whom many considered something of a maverick. He said thatBlair 'would raise valid Objections and the others would just sit there and smile because their minds were already made up.73 Ferguson explained his method of Operating saying: You know the situation around here. If I don't do it while I have people's attention, it never happens. Rule 49.--Despite claims by the "Old council" that they have not held "secret" sessions, facts point to a number Of closed and unannounced sessions. WILX-TV reporter Ray James said, for example, that once he had refused to leave a city council executive session dealing with cable television. According to James, two policemen, one on each arm, dragged him bodily from the room.75 In June, 1973 Dan Poorman started covering the city hall beat for the State Journal and found the committee Of the whole resolving into "executive sessions on a frequent basis. Poorman said: 728tate Journal, Nov. 2, 1975, p. B-3. 73Interview with Mike Hughes, Apr. 12, 1976. 74State Journal, Oct. 28, 1975, p. B-l. 75Conversation‘with Ray James, reporter for WILX-TV, Nov. 2, 1976. 37 I just moved up here from Illinois and they don't allow that sort of thing. 6 He began describing these sessions as I'secret meetings" and also took city council to task for closed meetings after each Monday night session. "They're executive sessions," Miss Belen said, explaining the meetings had to be closed because they involved "personnel.” "1 took them to mean people were involved," Poorman said. "DO we have that many personnel problems in the city?"77 After a State Journal editorial denounced closed post-meeting council sessions as "secret meetings," the practice was discontinued. About the same time, Poorman said, the mayor had appointed a salary compensation commission to review pay scales for the city clerk, the mayor and city council. When the committee released its report, many including the press were taken by surprise. Poorman said that although ' nobody knew when the committee was meetings were defended as "Open,' meeting or even that they were meeting. He added that Ferguson decried the manner in which the committee had met without public input and killed a pay raise for the mayor. City council also voted down its own $2,500 raise and only the city clerk got one.78 By October, 1975, candidates Dick Baker and Bob Hull were making "secret meetings" a political, campaign issue. In response, Miss Belen, as chair of the ordinance and contracts committee, had City Attorney Houk draft a resolution for executive sessions. Language in the document's rationale makes it clear this is no Open-meetings rule. Rather, it 76Conversation'with Dan Poorman, Oct. 21, 1976. 77Ibid. 781bid. 38 defends the Lansing City Council's use of "executive" sessions. Whereas, from time to time the City Council, out Of necessity has been required to resolve itself into executive session and to limit attendance . . . and Whereas, the Council has never had a clearly set policy of use Of such sessions, but has generally limited them to matters Of real estate, personnel and pending litigation; and Whereas, the Council has from time to time been severely criticized for the use of such sessions because their use has been misunderstood . . Rule 49 permitted the maximum use Of executive sessions as determined by the courts in Boissonneault v. Flint City Council.80 It added procedural guidelines and tailored the first exemption to include appeals under the city's employe grievance system. It states: The Council shall meet in Executive Session only for the followh ing purposes: (1) to consider the employment and appointment, dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of any one of the appoin- ted Officials who serve at the pleasure of the Council, and to consider employeejgrievances unless phe egployee requests a public hearipg; (2) to consider the appointment or removal Of citizens tO City Boards and Comissions, provided however, if a decision is reached to remove such an official said official shall have a right upon request to have a public hearing; (3) to discuss strategy sessions and interim.reports with respect tO collective bargaining or potential or pending litigation; (4) to consider preliminary negotiations involving the purchase or sale of property, both real and personal, but not involving services or the acquisition thereof, except as provided hereinabove; (5) to consider records which are specifically exempt by law from public inspection; (6) to consider severe threats or (sic) riot or insurrection, public knowledge Of which, in the Opinion of the City Council, would be detrimental to efforts to meet or lessen the threat. (Emphasis added.)81 79City of Lansing, Michigan, Council Proceedings, Oct. 27, 1975, pp. 921-922. 8OGlgpyA. Boissonneault and Booth Newspapers,glnc.,,A Michigpp Corporation doipg bugigess as THE FLINT JOURNAL, v. Carl Mason, Woody Etherly, Gerald Yurk, Fred ngker,,John Northrup, Doubles Philpott, Francis Limmer and_§§warg;Littlg, 392 Mich. 685; 225 N.W.2d 519 (1974): hereinafter cited as Boissonneault v. Mason. 81Council Proceedings, loc. cit. 39 The rule allows the mayor, mayor pro-tempore or any two councilmen to request an executive session. City council may resolve into or adjourn from an executive session by a simple, majority vote. All votes must be taken in a public meeting Open to all citizens.82 At its passage on October 27, 1975, the resolution was considered without a public reading. Blair complained he had not been given a copy until that afternoon and had not had a chance to study it thoroughly. He said that a perfunctory reading during supper had raised many questions, adding "I really feel this is a half attempt at open meetings."83 He puzzled over definitions Of "council,” and asked if that meant "Official meetings" or "unofficial meetings when more than a quorum" is present. He asked if "council" was to mean council committees including the committee of the whole. He asked for time to compare the rule with the Open-meetings laws of other communities and took issue with its lack of penalty provisions. Miss Belen accused Blair of not doing his homework and said it contained the same language as a city attorney opinion which he had received a week earlier.84 Councilman John Anas responded by saying there had been no secret meetings. Mr. Blair has been with us now almost two years. I can't remem- ber too many meetings where we have attempted to have a so-called closed session. And prior to that time we've had very few so- called "executive" sessions. Sometimes they're referred to as 82lhid. 83Lansing City Council, Oct. 27, 1975. (Tape Recorded.) 84lbid. 40 "secret meetings," incorrectly, because I defy anybody in this city to have a so-called "secret meeting" and get away with it. There's just no such animal.85 Councilman Joel Ferguson took a jab at Blair, who had become in- creasingly Open in his support of candidate Dick Baker. I almost agree with Mr. Anas. I think Mr. Blair has been here in the council for two years although he hasn't been with us. I might think that it's just totally impossible to have a secret meeting with Mr. Blair here. I don't know why he keeps beating us over the head saying that we've had secret meetings, because that has not been the thing that has happened. We've had some meetings where, in error, we could have expanded on a subject longer than we should have, but the council has never intentionally had secret meetings to do the city's business.8 Ferguson moved to the question and Blair cast a dissenting vote. Then, with the question on the motion, Blair misspoke himself, first say- ing "aye," then shouting an emphatic I'no." A large crowd from North Lansing had gathered for another measure and many chuckled. Rule 49 passed 7 to l. A full transcript Of discussion relating to the passage Of Rule 49 has been included in Appendix C. Secrecy charges by Mayor Graves.--Immediately following Rule 49's passage, Mayor Graves accused Ferguson and other council members Of holding numerous secret meetings including one in which they had allegedly conspired with the local news media to hire a private detective agency to investigate his background. He further charged the detective agency was paid from the public till. 851bid. 86Ibid. 41 I will say that Councilman Ferguson made a tremendous story Of no secret meetings when he knows it's not fact and I know it's not fact. Councilman Ferguson, you've been at meetings that we haven't even been invited to. And for you to sit here and say there have been no secret meetings is an untruth. And I'll ask you if you were at the meeting when members Of this body, when I was first elected, hired a private detective agency to look into my background with help from a TV station and a newspaper. And this council, the night I took Office, paid the bill. Were you at the meeting?87 Both Ferguson and Miss Belen responded saying "I'm not aware of such a meeting." Graves said the matter should come out in Federal Communications Commission hearings on WJIM, then in progress, and added: Well, I think Mr. Blair is on the right track because I haven't been at meetings or even been notified of some meetings. And I think that charter says the mayor is a member Of every board and every committee. I've been notified some days the same day Of the meeting; I've been notified after we've been here and nobody showed up that the council committee has been changed to some other location. And I don't look kindly on it.88 Ferguson denied the charges and accused the mayor Of Operating like Sen. Joe McCarthy.89 About a year later, Councilman Gunther said he could remember no such meeting but said there may have been some talk on a one-to-one basis.90 Bob Black of the mayor's office said in fact a check had been made out to Pinkerton's Of Grand Rapids.91 87Ibid. 88lbid. 89See State Journal, Oct. 28, 1975, p. B-l. 9OGunthcr interview, loc. cit. 91Black interview, loc. cit. 42 Councilman Baker said he heard both the cancelled check and a Xerox copy Of it had mysteriously disappeared.92 The mayor has not been available for comment.93 Open meetings: a campaign issue.--Rep. David C. Hollister, D- Lansing, is considered a "people's candidate." His legislative style is one Of involving as many citizens in the legislative process as possible. Apparently that works; in the 1974 August primary election he defeated four Opponents and went on to win in November. There is little doubt his campaign inspired those of Dick Baker and Bob Hull. All have played a vital role in open-meetings legislation. As part Of a l3-member citizen's task force, Baker helped Hollister draft House Bill 5684. This Open meetings bill was Hollister's first piece of legislation. Baker and Hull introduced virtually the same document in the Lansing city council as part Of a campaign promise. Ironically, Hull was formerly an aide to Sen. Daniel S. Cooper, D-Oak Park. Cooper was responsible for a number Of crippling amendments to Senate Bill 920 which had been introduced by Sen. David Plawecki, D-Dearborn Heights. That bill was recently signed into law without the weakening amendments. Throughout his 1975 campaign, Baker charged that there is a "closed meeting process at city hall."94 He said councilmen feel they are a "fraternity" and do not encourage public input. As a result, he said, 92Interview‘with Dick Baker, Sept. 1, 1976. 93Letter from Hon. Gerald W. Graves, Mayor of Lansing, Apr. 22, 1976 0 94State Journal, Oct. 26, 1975. 43 public hearings were more Often public announcements. He cited three examples in.which city council had reached major decisions in closed sessions. First, the decision to put the charter commission issue to a vote of the people came at the end of a closed meeting to discuss Mayor Graves's appointments to the Community Development Board. Second, the decision to go with a city-wide trash pick-up program came in a closed budget hearing. Third, the city council standing committees kept no agendas or minutes.95 Baker also hit on board appointments being decided in closed session. Board appointments are discussed in private. Anything important is discussed in private and then, after the private discussions they vote in public. They ought to do public business in public.96 He also objected to administrative secrecy in which $29 million ‘worth of community development fund priorities were determined in meetings scheduled at the Oak Park Country Club.97 Baker, 34, had been the center of a furor last year when he was laid Off--some, including Baker, say fired-~from a job with the city planning deparnment. He claimed he had been fired for speaking out publicly on a school controversy. Baker started campaigning and ran an issues-oriented campaign. 95The Lansin Star, loc. cit., p. 10. 96lbid. 97Ihid. 44 His Opponents complained he had been overemotional on the Open- meetings issue. He had heated debates with Ferguson, for example, and candidate Joe Gall said that Baker had an anti-city hall attitude that erodes people's confidence in their government.98 "If Oldsmobile had to have all its meetings open," Gall said, "it would never get anything done." He carried a briefcase with a sign warning that there was "secret stuff inside."99 At the center Of Baker's campaign was the attitude that residents are the real experts on their own neighborhoods. To facilitate their input, Open meetings were needed. ‘ Like Baker, Hull also ran a very issue-oriented campaign in the city's first ward on the east side of Lansing. Hull defeated the incum- bent Roger T. May whose literature concentrated on "meet the man" rather than issues. May also boycotted Eastside Neighborhood Organization activities and refused to fill out a questionaire for their paper.100 "May made the tactical mistake we were out to get him," said organization president Jerry Lawler. "We have never endorsed a candidate yet we have the reputation of being political." He added that the organization forces a candidate to take a stand on issues. While the organization may not have endorsed Hull, Lawler admits that Hull's campaign was run out of his home which is also listed as the organization address.101 9§§tate Journal, Oct. 26, 1975, p. B-S. 99State Journal, Apr. 25, 1976, p. E-l. 100State Journal, Nov. 2, 1975, p. B-3. 10l-Lawler interview, loc. cit. is Fe St 8X oti Act 2191 0H has Der. 45 Like May, Ferguson also ran a campaign which was not issue- Oriented. This is surprising since he had hired the public relations firm Of Jones and Such to conduct a public Opinion survey to identify the issues. It is unlikely that, after eight years on the city council, Ferguson would have required an issue-identifying poll, unless it stressed the need to play up name identification. One radio spot, for example, merely stressed the spelling of his name.102 ‘Ihefiggkgr-Hull open meetings proposal.--True to his earlier campaign promise, Baker introduced an open-meetings resolution shortly after he was sworn into office in January, 1976. As mentioned at p. 42 su ra, the document was a sister to House Bill 5684 which had been intro- duced to the Michigan House of Representatives by Rep. David C. Hollister, D-Lansing, on October 22, 1975. While Hollister introduced and sponsored the bill, he had taken a back seat to its drafting. In late 1975 a group Of 13 concerned citizens began meeting every other Saturday to draft a model piece of open-meetings legislation. Activities had been coordinated by Hollister's wife Judy and task force members represented a broad spectrum Of society. In addition to Baker* were two active Common Cause members acting on their own behalf. They were Mark Cory and Leslie Lokken. Mrs. Lokken has also been very active in the women's caucus Of the Ingham County Democratic Party. Her husband, George, is a retired national guard 102State Journal, Nov. 2, 1975, p. B-3. * Bob Hull had not yet joined the task force. US ca la La Th 46 adviser now employed by the Lansing City Council as program coordinator. Some have considered him a potential mayoral candidate. Two newsman, Ray James of WILX-TV and Doug Underwood of the Lansing State Journal, now with the Gannet Washington bureau, also parti- cipated in a very low-key manner. James Clock, president Of the Waverly School Board played a vital role on the task force. Earlier, Clock had become so concerned with the closed "work sessions" of his own school board, he introduced an Open-meetings resolution. In the end, he had to vote against his own resolution because amendments by other members would have permitted an even greater degree Of secrecy.103 Baker kicked Off the resolution in city council with considerably more fanfare than is usually afforded resolutions in that body. He abandoned part Of his l960s-style liberal image which had usually depicted him wearing the same, funny hat throughout most of his campaign literature. He had also irritated some by plunking down cross- legged on the floor of council prior to his election.104 First, he held a press conference, almost unheard of in the Lansing City Council and, in the words reporter Mike Hughes: He arrived looking his TV best--white turtleneck sweater, blue shirt, and brown sweater--and gave the ordinance a strong sell.105 The press conference was held February 6 and drew a gaggle of reporters. 103Hearing relative to House Bills 5684 and 5405, 10c, cit. lO4State Journal, Oct. 30, 1975, p. B-Z. 105State Jopgnal, Feb. 6, 1976, p. 8-3. 47 In addition to Hughes were two television camera crews and four radio newsman. Baker said there was great distrust of government now and that openness starts to restore some of that trust. He added: "I believe we're the only city in the state that is considering an open- meeting ordinance."106 Actually, Detroit has had a tough open-meetings ordinance for some time but House Towns and Counties Committee aide Neil Krentzin says it is not enforced.107 Baker also announced an upcoming hearing slated for the following week. The February 10 hearing featured Baya Harrison III, whom Mark Cory had worked to bring to Michigan from Florida. Now an attorney in private practice, Harrison had formerly been the number two man in Florida's attorney general office despite his young age of 33. That job put him in charge of enforcing that state's government-in-the-aunshine law, a landmark piece of legislation. In addition to stumping for the Baker-Hull resolution, Harrison also met with newsman in Detroit, Flint, and Kalamazoo, attending a Kalamazoo hearing later in the day for House Bill 5684. The State Journal gave editorial support to the ordinance and urged people to attend the hearing. Political campaign pledges are too often like the leaves of autumn--beautiful in their fall glory but soon blown away by the chill wind of winter and forgotten. But there are some exceptions, and we're happy that new Lansing councilmen Dick Baker and Robert Hull are pursuing the subject of open meetings. 1061bid. 107Interview with Neil Krentzin, Michigan House Towns and Counties Committee aide, Sept. 28, 1976. 48 . . . It aims at one of the most persistent complaints about government at all levels--the practice of government officials sitting down in informal sessions, reaching con— census on various issues, and then finalizing those views later at a public meeting with little or no open conversation about how the decision was reached. . . . The Baker-Hull proposal is refreshing because it puts the spotlight on the need for more openness in government—-some- thing long overdue. We hope council members and the public will give the matter serious study. 08 To Harrison, open meetings are a fact of everyday life. At a pre-hearing dinner at Jim's Tiffany Lounge, he put it simply. "How can you-all be against open meetings? How can anybody be against open meetings?109 Harrison wore a well-tailored, vested suit and maintained a low-key aura of Southern Charm. "If you-all pass a good sunshine law," Harrison told people gathered for the hearing, "your credibility is going to go up eight points. If you-all pass a good sunshine law, people are going to think you're good folks. When they see you together, they're not going to figure you're cutting a deal." Harrison said his approach to open meetings was not philosophical "because I am not as philosophical a person as Mr. Hollister." He con- tinned "I just want to assure you in a very cahm way that we shouldn't have any fear or serious concern about the adoption of_a sunshine law for this reason--it works." He described the climate of Florida government. Whether we're talking about the pomp and circwmstance of a state cabinet meeting in Tallahassee, with all the flags and little glasses of orange juice on the table, or‘whether we're talking 108State Journal, Feb. 10, 1976, p. A-6. 109Baya Harrison III, dinner conversation, Feb. 10, 1976. 49 about the good folks down in Lacoochee, Florida and their meetings down there to talk about their crops and whether or not they're going to plant in April or May, every day in Florida there are hundreds of board meetings. They meet in the sunshine. The discussions take place with the public present and life goes on. We're able to conduct this in a very efficient way.* We have, I think, excellent citizen participation. There's a real feeling in Florida that people are a part of their local and state governments. Harrison testified that thanks to his state's sunshine law, it was harder for public officials to turn their office into personal gain. He mentioned that several high officials had been convicted on bribery charges after information from open meetings proved money was not campaign contributions as had originally been claimed by them. Councilman Belen said that every time she went to Florida, she was appalled by the number of corrupt officials being indicted. She disagreed with Harrison's comments that that was a result of sunshine laws. lll "We're more honest up here," she said, leaving early. The resolution caught some flak because of provisions which would require meetings of one-half a quorum to go open. Since most of the standing council committees are made up of three members, two persons could not discuss committee business if they served on the same committee unless it were done in a public meeting. * Later at a party, Harrison described how business meetings in Florida were more efficient. He said that we "yankees" are too long- winded, that in his state, a chairman never hesitates to tell somebody to "sit down and shut up." 110Hearing relative to Baker-Hull proposal, 10c. cit. 1111b1d. 50 Blair, whom some had seen as a third vote in passage of the resolution.said that while he supported about "99 and 44/100 per cent of it," he would be afraid of "innuendo" and "guilt by association" charges that might arise from purely social visits with other council members.112 The previous week, he had voiced objections to the half-quorum provision. "If you did this," he said, "then three of us couldn't even get together to plan strategy. We couldn't even talk about what we were going to do to try to pass a resolution. . . . I couldn't even go down the hall to talk to Bob Hull, because we're on a committee together."113 Councilman Adado expressed reservations saying the penalties section was "serious business" that could have a far-reaching affect on 114 future council members. Most of the public supported the resolution. "I believe a major reason why some members of public bodies oppose open meetings is because they confuse the best interest of the pub lic body with the best interest of the public," James R. Clock said. He described his own experience as president of the Waverly School Board. "The public knows when it is being played to and when distortions are present," he said adding that the people of Lansing deserve openness and sunshine. Clock said these would increase public confidence and in- tegrity in matters concerning the board. Parents would know why programs were added, dropped or modified. Mark Cory spoke of a‘widening gulf between public officials and the citizens who are supposed to be represented. According to Cory, open 112Interview with Councilman James Blair, Feb. 10, 1976. 113State Journal, Feb. 6, 1976, p. B-3. 114Hearing, loc. cit. 51 meetings are one way to narrow the gulf and increase the credibility of public officials. Rep. David Hollister spoke for the proposed ordinance and its lack of exceptions to open meetings. "Anyone who thinks public confidence is at an all-time high simply doesn't understand the mood of the country," he said adding the only way to overcome that was with a good "dose of democracy." One Jim Booth of Lansing said that the participation process could only work if persons shared with the reasoning that goes into decisions. An Arturo Gonzalez said that more Latinos and Chicanos were becoming involved since community agencies opened meetings allowing grea- ter participation. Speaking against the resolution were Mk8. Lucile Amon of the board of zoning appeals and James Nelson. Nelson, who had opposed Baker during the Vivian Riddle school controversey accused Baker and Hull of having their own secret meeting at one point during the hearing when Baker got up to whisper something to Hull. "It seems to me that the authors were overcome by their own rhetoric and in their zeal to keep anyone from saying anything without their knowledge, they brought forth a monster that will do mmre damage to the city's development and management than any good that can come to it. He said that the caucus between Baker and Hull could have been grounds for incarceration and spoke to the penalties section. "How does one prove the charges?" he asked. "How many of your board members, serving without pay, will want to be spied on?" He suggested a "simple ordinance requiring modified public meetings be held 52 openly and added to that a real solid conflict-of-interest law. Mk3. Amon, whose comments were quoted at pp. 25 and 26 EEEEEa said that while she was a "champion of the people's right to know, that right had to be tempered with good judgement." She said the learning process of public officials is hampered if they have to "parade their ignorance in public." The city attorney opinion.--City Attorney Peter Houk is regarded by some as being a strong open-meetings advocate. However, his opinion of the Baker-Hull openrmeetings proposal exposes many flaws in the document. Some of these were mentioned by Neil Krentzin in regard to the identical House Bill 5684. Krentzin said that the bill should have been written by the Legislative Services Bureau instead of a citizen's task force and would have required extensive revision if it were to have been introduced to the floor of the House. In the event Senate Bill 920 had failed, House Bill 5684 probably would have been introduced.115 From a legal point of view, most of Houk's objections to the Baker-Hull open-meetings proposal apply to both documents. The opinion, dated March 9, 1976 was supplied at the request of Miss Belen as chairman of the ordinances and contracts committee of the Lansing City Council. In opening, Houk cited the need for such a law but took issue with the resolution in its present form. Houk commended the ordinance for ensuring that public business is conducted in the public, ensuring that all are equally informed and for discouraging unethical conduct by elected and appointed officials. This, he said, could lead to a renewed faith in our governmental process. 115Krentzin interview, loc. cit. 53 He also said an ordinance of this type would probably encourage citizen participation because of increased citizen awareness, would result in greater governmental efficacy since meetings might become a "market place of ideas, and would enable citizens to better select qua- lified leaders and vote intelligently on ballot issues.116 However, he took issue with the statement of intent which had been borrowed directly from California's Brown Act.117 That statement of intent reads as follows: Sec. 2-106. Intent. It shall be the policy of the City of Lansing that: (a) Public bodies exist solely to serve the public. (b) It is the intent of this ordinance that actions of a public body be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. (c) The peOple of this City do not yield their sovereignty to the public bodies which serve them. (d) The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for the people to know. (e) The people's right to remain informed shall be protected so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. 18 Of these provisions, HOUR said only (b) and perhaps (e) speak to intent. Other sections add nothing substantive and should be stricken.119 Second, he said "the ordinance becomes ensnared in its own defi- nitions and the outcome is only confusion." For example, the heart of the document is "(a) meeting of a public body shall be open," but in 116City of Lansing Interoffice Communication from Peter D. Houk, City Attorney, to Lucile Belen, Chairman of the Ordinances and Contracts Committee, Lansing City Council, Mar. 9, 1976. 117California, Government Code (1953), sec. 54950. 118City of Lansing, Michigan, Proposed_9pen Meeting Ordinance (introduced Jan., 1976 by Councilmen Baker and Hull), sec. 2-106. 54 order to find out just what that means, the definitions section must be consulted to find the meaning of "meeting," ”public body," and "open." Even after consulting the definitions, there is further need to consult additional definitions. For example, "prior notice" is a component of "open" and includes a "posting" requirement. To find out what that means, the definition of "posted" must be consulted.119 Houk also took issue with Sec. 2-109 which declares null and void any action taken in violation of the ordinance. He said it . . . represents an easy invitation for anyone opposed to any particular Council action to institute suit in Circuit Court, obtain a temporary restraining order alleging violation of the ordinance, and thereby effectively forestall the Council's action while the case is pending in the Court.120 Houk took issue with the penalties section which makes it a misdemeanor for any member of the public body to participate in a meeting held contrary to the ordinance. He said the element of knowing violations should be added. He also cited the need to employ outside counsel to prosecute or defend any such action to avoid any conflict of interest. While the city attorney may have found serious objections to the two enforcement provisions of the prOposed ordinance, legal research has clearly demonstrated neither method is effective. Examples from both Iowa and Massachusetts demonstrate the short- 121 comings of nullification. In Dobrovolny v. Reinhardt, plaintiffs had 119Interoffice Communication, loc. cit. 1zoxbid. 121Dobrovolny v. Reinhardt, 173 N.W.2d 837 (Iowa 1969). 55 sought an injunction forbidding implementation of a school board decision which had split the district and consolidated the fragments into two other districts. The board's decision had been made at a ‘meeting for which no public notice had been given despite such provisions in Iowa's open meetings act.122 Despite the fact that a majority of the Iowa supreme court conceded a violation, nullification was not seen as any remedy to the school board's action. Furthermore, mandamus was improper because there was no prior demand for performance. The court would issue no injunction because "rights already lost and wrongs already committed are not subject to injunctive relief . . . when there is no showing the wrong will be repeated.123 Dissenters argued: The case is important because it sets the tone of enforcement of a new statute which articulates an.important legislative policy. . . . The majority says . . . that because the meeting is over and done with the courts are powerless to (or will not) interfere. . . . This will always be the case. By the very nature of the problem {giief cannot be sought until after the meeting has been held. Similarly, the Massachusetts legislature provided that action otherwise valid will remain so in spite of a violation of its open- ‘meetings act.125 122Iowa, Code Annotated, sec. 28A.4 (Supp. 1973): "Each public agency shall give advance public notice of the time and place of each meeting, by notifying the communications media or in some other way which gives a reasonable notice to the public. . . ." 123Dobrovolny v. Reinhardt, loc. cit., p. 341- 124Ib1d., p. 842. 125Massachusetts, General Laws, Annotated (1973), C. 39, sec. 230: "(B)ut action otherwise duly taken at any meeting shall not be invalidated by the failure. . . ." 56 Similarly, the Michigan legislature in passing enrolled Senate Bill No. 920 has provided that: In any case where an action has been initiated to invalidate a decision of a public body on the ground that it was not taken in conformity with the requirements of this act, the public body may, without being deemed to make any admission contrary to its interest, reenact the disputed decision in conformity with this act. A decision reenacted in this manner shall be effective from the date of reenactment and shall not be declared invalid by reason of a deficiency in the procedure used for its initial enactment.1 Regarding Houk's concern over the criminal sanctions, Douglas Q. Wickham, an associate professor of law at the University of Tennessee, devoted extensive research to try to uncover a single instance in which an Open meeting case involving criminal prosecution had been brought to trial. Despite the fact that this type of sanction is the most prevalent, being found in some 18 states, Wickham could find no single open-meeting case involving criminal prosecution.127 In the Baker-Hull resolution, Houk took issue with provisions allowing grand jury deliberations to be closed, since the city conducts no grand jury proceedings. That was already acknowledged a month earlier by Baker. Houk found one oversight in that the proposed ordinance was silent to the matter of rescheduled meeting posting. He further took issue with the one-half quorum provision since it ‘would prevent two or more councihmen from.discussing business if they 126 Michigan, Enrolled Senate Bill No, 920 (1976), sec. 10.5 127Douglas Q. Wickham, "Let the Sun Shine In!" Northwestern Universit Law Review, LXVIII, (1973), 496. 57 served on the same committee. This provision appears to have been an arbitrary decision by the citizen's task force since, when this writer interviewed Hollister one week prior to House Bill 5684's referral to the House Towns and Counties committee, Hollister stated: We don't want to prevent people from talking because a lot of good things happen informally just discussing provisions. But any time a decision begins to be formulated--once it begins to get close to that magic number--and we thought half a quorum-- the meeting would have to be open. Perhaps the half-quorum figure was a bit arbitrary. On the other hand, one could argue that persons serving on the same three-man commit- tee could get together, they just would not be permitted to talk shop. Whatever the effect, the various provisions were negotiable. The half-quorum provision could have been negotiated to some other figure in city council to exclude two or more from violating the law through happenstance meetings. Council, however, particularly the ordinances and contracts committee, refused to adequately discuss this specific resolu- tion or offer amendments to effect compromise. The bill's primary sponsor, Baker, may have been negligent in not having met with the city attorney to iron out some of the legal barriers 'which would prevent the document from becoming a good law. Regardless of where the fault may lie, the resolution seems destined to die in committee. The ordinances and contracts committee comprises Councilmen Belen, Baker, and Gunther. Since we have not discussed Gunther's views as adequately as the previously cited two, they follow. 128Interview with Rep. David C. Hollister, OCt- 14: 1975- 58 Gunther has said he "is not adverse to open meetings" except for two areas. These are in the areas of personnel matters and the sale or purchase of real estate. Gunther said no real, frank dialogue can take place on personnel matters if the general public is invited. He has also said matters concerning the purchase and sale of real estate matters should remain closed up to the time an option is available. He said older people may be hurt and try to sell their homes in a panic situation to speculators. In Lansing's Logan corridor, for example, he said some had sold $16,000 homes for $12,000.129 The Logan corridor is a proposed major north- south artery now under construction. Northbound lanes will utilize the existing road which runs from the Capitol City Airport to Eaton Rapids. Southbound lanes will use newly constructed roadway. Originally the road had been a stagecoach route. Gunther also said any open-meeting law should draw the line at a full-fledged meeting and should not apply to a happenstance meeting of councilmen who run into each other on the street corner. He also favors the closing of labor negotiations saying that is mostly a game. The hiring of employes should be closed, he says, to prevent embarassment of applicants who might be discouraged from applying ‘where such proceedings take place in the open. On September 23, 1976 the ordinances and contracts committee again considered the Baker-Hull proposal for open meetings. "What are we doing now that is not an Open meeting?" Belen asked. 129Interviewwith Councilman Jack Gunther, Nov. 1, 1976. 59 "Minutes," Baker said. Belen said that if the state law was going to require the expense involved in keeping minutes, it had better provide funds. Currently, many sessions are tape recorded. Baker replied that keeping minutes applied only to closed sessions. This seemed to satisfy the other two members. He then said that the recently passed Senate Bill No. 920 contained a giant loophole which states: This act shall not apply to a meeting which is a social or chance gathering or conference not designed to avoid this act.130 "You don't want that?" Gunther asked, seeming surprised. Baker said no. "When does this law take effect?" Gunther asked. Baker said April 1, 1977 and Miss Belen added "April fools day." "That's a good day for a law like this to go into effect," Gunther said. "If you pass this," Miss Belen said referring to the city document, "I couldn't have you guys over for Christmas in my new apartment. . . . If three people rode down in the elevator and discussed business, they'd be in violation." "Frankly, I'm not for either this one or the state's," Gunther said. "It's a bunch of hogwash.131 Egging warm-up meets.--In previous years Monday afternoon committee-of-the-whole sessions served to minimize public debate and to convey to the public a sense of council unity. While the meetings have 130Michigan, Enrolled Senate Bill No. 920 (1976), sec. 3.10. 131City of Lansing, Michigan, Ordinances and Contracts Committee meeting, Sept. 23, 1976. 60 been open to the public, 2 p.m. does not encourage public attendance and they were usually very poorly attended. Four years ago, there had been talk of making city government more credible by improving communication between the council and the people. One experiment had been to move committee-of-the-whole sessions from the back, conference room to the city council chambers. "On a couple of occasions," Gunther said, we've moved our after- noon sessions into the council chambers and very few peeple ever showed up. Most councilmen, back in 1972, agreed that if they discussed every item on the agenda at the evening meeting, the meetings would be much longer than they presently are.132 This year, council ended the warm-up sessions of Monday after- noons. Surprisingly the move came not from the new bloc, which has been the most active proponent of open meetings, but from old-bloc members. The move was suggested by the rather conservative Lou.Adado and is seen by others as a means by which an aura of unity can once again be restored to council. Any openness obtained thereby is merely fallout. In the past, warm-up sessions developed concensus. This year, however, with the split, issues are argued in the afternoon session and rehashed in the evening session. This, it was felt, served to deepen the already wide split among council members. Following the decision to abandon the sessions, Mayor pro-tempore Terry McKane confirmed that one reason was to cut down on some of the "verbiage."133 132State Journal, Nov. 21, 1972, p. B-2 133State Journal, Sept. 14, 1976, p. 3-2. 61 Despite the fact that Baker has been an ardent Open-meetings backer, he has mixed feelings regarding the discontinuation of the warm- up meetings. Since the new bloc is in the minority, Baker, Blair and Hull have greater need to discuss that which is necessary to pass measures and obtain votes. Baker, for example, was very critical of the new state law because it permits closed partisan legislative caucuses but does not allow a group of non-partisan lawmakers the same procedural device.134 On Sept. 23 I met with Baker in his office before we went to lunch to discuss provisions of Open-meetings proposals. Blair dropped in and mentioned the decision to end Monday afternoon sessions. "Shut the door," Baker said, noting Gunther was in his office next door. "This is what's known as a 'caucus,'" he told me. The two discussed strategy noting that the decision required a rules change. That, in turn, would take a 2/3 majority.135 Baker did not, however, oppose the decision despite his role as a minority bloc member. In fact he supported the decision to discuss all business in the public meetings. All Of the overt dissent was left to Blair. "We're going to have more shuffling up and down the hallway here and that's why I'm.totally against it," Blair said.136 "I think it's going to drive more decisions underground in all than Open up city government." He said he also felt the decision would drive the cost Of government up because the staff would have to work longer hours. 134c1ty of Lansing, loc. cit. 135Meeting with Baker and Blair, Sept. 23, 1976. 136City of Lansing, Committee of the Whole, Sept. 27, 1976 62 He was also fearful that bored reporters would be driven away from the longer night sessions. "How many members of the public do you see here?" MbKane asked. There were only a handful of reporters and staff in the room. "I had the feeling that we would be putting business Of the public before members of the public.137 The end to committee-Of-the-whole sessions is being tried as a six to eight week experiment. For about the first time in 30 years, council met without a previous warm-up meet on October 4, 1976. Mary Flood Of the State Journal pinch-hitted for Otis White in covering the meeting. Her observations need no comment. The Lansing city council's Monday meeting was filled with parliamentary games, postponed decisions and occasional personal slurs. The first clash occurred about 10 minutes into the meeting when Mayor Graves forced the council tO take a special vote to allow councilman Richard Baker to speak for a third time about some proposed new rules for city council procedure. The venemous tones of the session continued for much of the four- hour meeting which ended with councilman Robert Hull exchanging some lengthy remarks with Lansing resident Anthony Shano. Shano vowed to "flatten‘' Hull if he speaks disrespectfully to him again. In between, the audience saw Graves go on a rampage about "matters being considered behind his back" . . . When Councilman Baker questioned Graves, the mayor's reply was that Baker must be "smoking a pipe of some kind." So Hull attacked the mayor saying: "The mayor is supposed to be the presiding Officer of the council and I wish one of these days he would start doing that instead of throwing monkey wrenches into everything.138 137City of Lansing, loc. cit. 138State Journal, Oct. 5, 1976, p. B-l. 63 The charter commissigg.--The proposal for a new charter made good news copy because it contained a "sunshine" provision requiring Open meetings and a "sunset" provision for eliminating governmental agencies. Since the proposal for a new city charter lost in the November 2, 1976 election, the following discussion may be moot. However, some Observers believe that the prOposal could pass in an election with light voter turnout. Therefore, a few brief remarks are in order. The charter commission is to be commended for meeting with Open doors just Off the first floor lobby of city hall. This writer must take issue with their failure to notify the public when particular points in the charter came up for discussion, however. The commission's document was written in a series Of 96 marathon meetings and much time was spent on routine business matters. While members of the public dropped in from time to time, the commission 139 secretary Mrs. Dorothy Treska said very few stayed for an entire meeting. On May 12, 1976, this writer wrote the commission asking for information of when open meetings might be discussed. Four months later, after the document had been entirely written, the commission still had sent no reply.140 Openemeetings provisions Of the charter commission document may Offer some improvements over the present council rule 49. However, they fall far short of the new state law and would have been immediately 139Conversation‘with Mrs. Paul Treska, Secretary, Lansing Charter Commission, Sept. 1, 1976. 140Letter to the Lansing Charter Commission, May 12, 1976. 64 superseded by April 1, 1977, had the charter passed. Basically, the document says meetings are to be Open and that all meetings of the city council shall be posted. The document is silent, however, on how many hours in advance notices must be posted.141 Unlike the new state law which requires a 2/3 roll call vote to adjourn to executive session, the presiding Officer of city council may call a closed meeting after 24 hours public notice. Any three council members may also call a closed meeting and, in the event the decision is made during a regular or special meeting, a 2/3 majority may vote for a closed session without a roll call being required.142 Exceptions to Open meetings are basically the same as have been spelled out in the Bgiesonneault decision.143 One change Of wording in the document could possibly provide a stumbling block to a tough Opendmeetings law such as the proposal being sponsored by Baker and Hull, except for provisions in the new state law. In a mimeographed c0py Of the document, Sec. 3-201.2 originally read: [511.meetings Of the City Council shall be Open to the public pursuant to state law and the public shall have a reasonable opportunity to be heard. (Emphasis added.)144 This was changed to read: Meetings Of the City Council shall be open to the public to the extent required by state law and this charter . . . (Emphasis added.)145 141City Of Lansing, Charter Commission, A report etc., loc. cit. 1421b1d. 143Boissonneault v. Mason, loc. cit. 144Mimeographed draft for Lansing Charter Commission Public Hearing, Aug. 14, 1976, Council Chambers, 10th Floor City Hall. 145City Of Lansing, Charter Commission, A report etc., loc. cit. 65 State law, however, provides that: Sec. 1.2 This act shall supersede all local charter provisiOns Sec. 173d After the effective date of this act, nothing in this act shall prohibit a public body from adopting an ordinance, resolution, rule, or charter provision which would require a greater degree Of Openness relative to meetifgg of public bodies than the standards provided for in this act. Thus, the new state law supersedes the charter, even if it should pass, and permits future councils the Option of adopting stronger measures. Conclusions.--Knowledge is power 147 and in the power struggles Of a game called "local government," charges of secrecy have become something of a political football. Various players may score an occasional point but nobody has truly scored a touchdown. 01d bloc city council members are quick to say "we don't have any secret meetings" and they may be right. This writer's experience as a former Lansing city employe supports the tenet that there are few, if any, secrets in city hall. Things told in strict confidence quickly spread like wildfire. There is, however, a problemrwith closed and unannounced meetings. Complaints from the press, from citizen groups, from individuals, and from the mayor are tOO'Well documented and prevalent to indicate otherwise. But they only seem to arise when a particular power base is threatened. 146Michigan, Enrolled Senate Bill NO. 920 (1970) secs. 1.2 and 1.3. 147v1de James Madison, Letter to w. T. Barry, Aug. 4, 1822, _T_hg Com lete Madison, Saul Padover (ed.), (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953), p. 337: "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance. And a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means Of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both." 66 The mayor accuses city council of holding secret meetings, yet neither he nor his Office have been champions of the public right to know which facilitates increased citizen participation. His charges appear to be little more than vindictiveness over actions which interfere with his authority as mayor. 0n the one hand, he castigates city council for alleged secret meetings which ignore the fact that he is a member Of every board and every committee, entitled to full notice. 0n the other hand, he is silent to the abysmal record of Openness by his appointees on various city boards. This stands in marked contrast to his long and bitter attacks against the Old model cities program whose advisers and Officials were elected, rather than appointed as political favors under the patronage system. Citizen groups, particularly the Eastside Neighborhood Organi- zation, have done much to bring the city's decision-making process a little more into the sunshine. However, they are special interest groups and are seen as being in competition with other sections Of the city. The local media have not been strong proponents Of Open-meetings efforts despite concerns Of the Michigan Press Association. This writer found no case in which any of the local news media ever brought suit against a public body which met behind closed doors. At the State Journal, individual reporters, particularly Poorman, Underwood, and Hughes, are vitally concerned with the Openrmeetings issue. While the paper may pay occasional, editorial lip service to the need for Openness, much Of its material concerning open meetings has been buried on inside pages. 67 On June 9, 1976, for example, it ran an Associated Press article on p. B-S. The story concerned the future Of what is now the new, state Open meetings law and featured comments by Rep. David Hollister, a local man. According to Mike Hughes,148 a Muskegon paper had run it as page one news. The electronic media are even‘worse. Instead of sending a man to report and interpret what happens, most simply stick a microphone in the face Of some Official and let him give the Official version of what happened. Councilmen Baker and Hull were elected to Office in the wake Of "Watergate" and other scandals which had shaken popular confidence in government at all levels. Their power bases depend on a platform Of Open government. As members of the minority bloc, however, they must rely on procedural maneuverings to get anything done. ‘While they did not write the rules of the game, they must nevertheless play by them and the rules do not allow for public, open caucus in most cases. For this reason, Blair, once the council's most ardent Open-meetings advocate, has not supported the Openemeetings resolution by Baker and Hull. For all the reasons cited above, it seems unlikely that any solution to the abuses Of closed government will be forthcoming at the local level in Lansing, Michigan. 148Conversation'with Mike Hughes, July 3, 1976. CHAPTER III THE MICHIGAN OPEN-MEETINGS IAN The (new) legislation is not ideal but it's a whole lot better than what we have on the law now. Present law requires only final actions of public bodies to be taken in public. Delibera- tions are taken very frequently in private meetings. Many boards meet the night before. We've had examples in our nearby communities of school boards meeting in the homes of other members in closed sessions-~all kinds of strange things happening. -- Rep. David C. Hollister, D-Lansing149 Members of the Jackson, Michigan School Board met secretly in the private home of its vice president tO discuss the closing of two elemen- tary schools on March 9, 1976. Two days earlier, the home had been the site of another such "administrative briefing" which featured a discus- sion of Jackson's transition from a junior high to middle school concept. Dr. Louis Romano, professor of administration and higher education at Michigan State University Offered expert input.150 There is little question that both issues were Of vital concern to the parents of school children despite claimm of a trustee that "lEJhere was no new information presented that hadn't been discussed at the public meetings we've had on the subject.151 Even if no new data had been presented, a decision had started to crystalize. 149Rep. David C. Hollister, Press Conference, Sept. 16, 1976. 150Jackson Citizen Patriot, Mar. 10, 1976, p. 3. 1511bid., quoting Trustee A. James Balfour, Jackson School Board. 68 69 According to one woman who had been to the meeting, lists Of advantages and disadvantages for both issues had been prepared by the administration. Furthermore, the board's public information coordinator stated that tentative recommendations were presented by the various subcommittees on the middle school program. When asked why the meeting had been held in a private home, the coordinator said "I don't know. I didn't make the arrangements."152 The following month, Michigan Attorney General Frank J. Kelley handed down a ruling in response to a question posed by Sen. Daniel 3. Cooper, DbOak Park, regarding school boards. In answer to your question, it is my Opinion that the public has a right to be present during discussion leading up to the final vote. Following that Opinion, the Lansing State Journal published an editorial regarding the Lansing School Board: Lansing Board of Education's decision to hold an open meeting today to review a new court plan for desegregation of city elementary schools was a good one--and overdue. The board has been spending too much time behind closed doors during recent months, especially on this subject. Today's session was to have been closed but that decision was apparently reversed after complaints from the news media and other sources. . . . The board debated the issue for months, again doing what should have been public business mostly in executive sessions, and then delivered four plans-~all of such a nature that it was predictable that Judge Fox would find them unacceptable. He did. . . The board should get that job done with all the local expertise it can gather-~and do it in the Open so all citizens 152Ibid., quoting Rick Burnham, coordinator for public information, Jackson, Michigan School Board. 153Letter Opinion from Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of 'Michigan to State Senator Daniel 8. Cooper, Apr. 26, 1976. 70 can understand what is going on and have an opportunity to respond to it.154 The actions of both boards represent a clear violation Of the Openrmeetings principle, if not the law. They reveal inadequacies of the Old openwmeetings law in Michigan. First, the closed sessions were repugnant to our system Of representative democracy. As pointed out in our first chapter, the public as the electorate needs to be apprised of the pros and cons which relate to any given decision by elected Officials if they are to make informed decisions on election day. Obviously, they cannot go beyond and behind decisions which are formulated in closed, secret, or "executive" sessions. Second, the board decisions did not make use of local talent available within the community, as the State Journal editorial pointed out . Third, the board, which acted in secret, is going to want to legitimize its decision. In the first case with the Jackson board, it will be harder to sell parents "the public good," if that is truly what the final product is. In the second example, the Lansing School Board found its proposals rejected--not only by the public--but by a federal ,district judge. Sources Of Michigan Openrmeetiggs law.--Michigan has what can best be described as a "patchwork of access legislation."155 To define the status of its Open-meetings provisions, one must consult English 154State Journal, Apr. 29, 1976, p. A-12. 155Vide Judith Murrill Baldwin, "Access Laws: Development," Freedom of Information Center Publication, No. 86 (Columbia, Missouri: School of Journalism, University Of Missouri, 1962), p. 3. 71 common law, both the U.S. and Michigan constitutions, statutory law, applicable case law, and Opinions by state attorneys general. A discus- sion follows below. Egglish common 1aw.--It is clear that the public has no common law right to attend the meetings of its governmental bodies. In this respect, Openrmeetings legislation has been diametrically different in its development both in point of time and nature from that of access to judicial proceedings and inspection of public records.* In 1950, the freedom of information committee of the American Society of Newspaper Editors coaxed former New York Herald-Tribune attorney Harold L. Cross out of retirement. The result, a commissioned study, stands as a monument to anybody researching the right to know.156 Cross concluded that in matters of access to state and municipal legislative and administrative proceedings, the law as declared is almost * Vide Trial Of John Lilburne, 4 How. St. Tr. 1270, 1273-4 (Comp ‘mission Of Oyer & Terminer, England, 1649): "I have something to say to the court about the first fundamental liberty of an Englishman in order to his trial; which is that by the laws of this land all courts Of justice ought to be free and Open for all sorts Of peaceable people to see, be- hold and hear, and have free access unto . . . and yet, Sir, as I came in, I found the gates shut and guarded, which is contrary to law and justice." The gates were opened, the guards were removed and Lieutenant Colonel Lilburne was eventually acquitted Of treason charges. Vide also Lord Coke, Institutes, Vol. II, Preface: "These records, for that they contain great and hidden treasure, are faithfully and safely kept (as they well deserve) in the King's Treasury. And yet not so kept but that any subject may for his necessary use and benefit have access thereunto, which was the ancient law Of England, and is so declared by an act of Parliament in 46 E 3." (Emphasis supplied). Similarly, the Michigan Supreme Court cited ancient common law rights dealing with the public inspection Of records in Nowack v. Auditor General, 243 Mich. 200; 219 N.W. 749; and 60 A.L.R. 1351 (1928): "If there be any rule of the English common-law that denies the public the right of access to public records, it is repugnant to the spirit Of our democratic institutions. Ours is a government of the people. Every citizen rules. . . ." 156Cross, loc. cit., see generally. 72 wholly constitutional. After extensive research Cross wrote "I find no judicial decision which grants or denies the right Of attendance in the absence of a constitutional provision." Furthermore, the English parliamentary history shows a complete disregard for the "right" Of reporters or anybody else to attend deliberative functions. Each year, before the Queen addresses parliament, there is a loud, ceremonious knocking at the doors before she is permitted to enter. While that custom probably stems from the time of Cromwell, the rivalry between parliament and the crown is much older. The secret meeting, for our purposes, probably has its origins in the wish of members Of the British House of Commons to protect themselves against the reprisal of the monarch for words uttered on the floor. Sir Edward Hoby, for example, was so roundly abused by Queen Elizabeth I in 1589 that members "durst use no freedom of speech which they thought would give the least Offence."157 By 1642, parliamentary enactments ended with a warning permitting that "none other" than the parliamentary printer was "to presume to print." In 1690, however, long after the House of Commons had ceased to fear the monarchy, meetings still continued in secret. Lord Macaulay described the situation: All the defences behind which the feeble parliaments Of the six- teenth century had entrenched themselves against the attack Of prerogative were not only still kept up, but were extended and strengthened. . . . The rules which had been originally designed to secure faithful representatives against the displeasure Of the Sovereign, now operated to secure unfaithful representatives 157David Hume, Histogy of Eggland (Edinburgh: 1809L,Vol. VI, p. 267, cited by Wiggins, loc. cit., p. 4. 73 against the displeasure of the people, and proved much more effectual for the latter than they had ever been for the former.158 As late as 1874, ”strangers" or reporters could be and sometimes were excluded upon the request Of a single member of the house. Since 1875, however, their exclusion is left to the vote of all members.159’ 160 In addition to the exclusion from parliamentary sessions, the press in England had faced a number Of repressive measures including licensing, taxing, and direct censorship. Framers Of the U.S. Consti- tution were primarily concerned with these methods of repression when they wrote the press guarantees of the First Amendment. Definigg Open-meeting rights under the U.S. Constitution.--At best, the right Of persons to attend legislative proceedings is only implied in the U.S. Constitution. The right, in part derives from press freedoms Of the First Amendment. One legal scholar argues: It is obvious that the freedom of the press implies the right to gather news and the right of those who possess information to impart news. He concludes that: It is certainly reasonable to conclude that freedom Of the press and speech under contemporary conditions includes the right to gather information from government agencies and stands as a con- stitutional prohibition against all forms Of withholding infor- mation beyond that reasonably required for the exerfige Of delegated powers or the protection Of other rights. 6 158Thomas Babington Macaulay, The History of Eggland (London: Macmillan & 00., 1913-15), Vol. III, p. 543. 159Cross, loc, cit., citing T. P. Taswell-Langmead, Egglish Con- stitutional History, 9th ed., p. 720; Frank Thayer, Legal Control Of the Press, 2d ed., sec. 9, p. 29. 160See generally Wiggins, loc. cit. 161Wallace Parks, loc. cit., p. 10. 1621bid., p. 12. 74 This, he says, is because a chief purpose of the Bill of Rights was to provide legal protection against the various methods by which minorities seek to gain or retain power.163 The writer then asks if there are constitutional rights residing in the non-governmental community which are abridged if the congress or President should exceed their constitutional powers in withholding information. If, then, there are such rights, he asks if they impose further limitations on the powers granted. Since the U.S. Supreme Court 164,165 has not dealt with this issue directly, however, one cannot define ‘Michigan Openrmeetings law under the U.S. Constitution. Defining Openemeetigg rights under the Michigan Constitution.-- The MHchigan Constitutions have always mandated that the doors Of each house Of the legislature be Open but that has been qualified. The 1908 Constitution stated "unless the public welfare demands otherwise."166 The 1963 Michigan Constitution changed that to read "unless the public security otherwise requires."167 To determine what was meant by "public security" it is necessary to consult the debates of the constitutional convention.168 That, Of course, was to take care of the possible but, we hope very remote situation where there would be such a disaster or uprising to affect the public safety and require the legislature to undertake matters with regard to the security Of the state. l631b1d.’ p. 12: citing James Madison. 164Ibid., p. 8. 16Wide Letter from Zolton Ferency, Associate Professor of Crimi- nal Justice, Michigan State University to Rep. Thomas H. Brown, May‘4, 1976: cited infra. 166Michigan, Constitution (1908), Art. 5, sec. 18- 167Michigan, Constitution (1963), Art. 4, sec. 20. 168Michigan, Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961 75 Similarly, the 1963 Constitution requires that legislative committee business be public: . . . On all actions on bills and resolutions in each committee, names and votes Of members shall be recorded. Such vote shall be available for public inspection. Notice of all committee hearings and a clear statement of all subjects to be considered at each hearing shall be published in the journal in advance of the hearing.16 In addition to the legislature, the Michigan Constitution establishes Open meetings by boards of institutions of higher education: Formal sessions of governing boards of such institutions shall be Open to the public.170 Unfortunately, the term "formal sessions" has been the cause of much argument and misinterpretation. TO find out exactly what is meant by "formal sessions" it is necessary to consult the Address to the People and the Official Record Of the 1961 Constitutional Convention: The concluding sentence of the section insures that formal sessions of the govprping boards of such institutions will be open to the public. 7 The explanation of Delegate Ink White, who offered the wording as an amendment to the section when it was Committee PrOposal 98, is also applicable: Actually, I think this amendment is self-explanatory. Meetings of governing boards Of the three major universities have been Open to the public and news media only for the past 1/2 dozen years and that has been accomplished only after a long period Of negotiations. As it stands, the public and news media are invited guests of the governing board, an invitation which could be, conceivably, withdrawn at any time. It seems to me that now that we are creating by constitutional enactment 7 more such governing boards, it would be appropriate that their formal (Lansing, Michigan: Speaker, Hines, & Thomas, 1961), Vol. II, p. 2380. 169Michigan, Constitution (1963), Art. 4, sec. 17 170Ibid., Art. 8, sec. 4. 171Michigan, Official Record, loc. cit., Vol. 11, p. 3396. 76 meetings should be conducted in public sessions. 1 yould urge your support of this amendment. (Emphasis added.) 7 Also speaking in support of the amendment was Delegate Downs: I would like to speak very strongly in favor Of Delegate Ink White's amendment. I believe that the boards should be Open to the public as a matter Of constitutional right. They are public business. The only possibility might be adding some clauses as we did in thp7%egislative, unless public security demands other- wise, . . Thus, from the above mention, given to the article by delegates in the Official record, it becomes quite clear that the intent of the wording was to Open up the clandestine sessions of college and university governing boards. In summation, then, the Michigan Constitution of 1963 mandates open meetings on the part Of the two houses Of the legislature, legis- lative committees, and governing boards of institutions of higher learning. In the case of the latter, however, additional clarification regarding university and college governing boards must come from the opinion of a Michigan attorney general. This will be discussed‘igfgg. Statutogy bases for Open-meetings legislation.--The most compre- hensive piece of existing Open-meetings legislation is the soon-to-be- replaced Michigan Public Meetings Act, 1968 P.A. 261.174 The act is very short, being only three sections long. The 1721bid., Vol. I, p. 1187. 173Ibid. 17“Michigan, Compiled Laws, Annotated (1970). 3935- 15-251 ' 15.253. 77 sections require that public meetings be public and provide for advance notice. Definitions are spelled out in Section 1. They are as follows: "Board" means the board of supervisors of any county, the council Of any city or village, the board Of trustees of any township, the board of education Of any school district, the governing body Of any state-supported or partially supported college or university, or the board, commission or other governing body of any state or municipal authority or department created by law which has for its purpose the performance Of an essential governmental function. and: "Public meeting" means that part of any meeting of a board during which it votes upon any ordinance, resolution, motion or other Official action proposed by or tO the board dealing with the receipt, borrowing or disbursement Of funds or the acquisition, use of (sic) disposal of services or of any supplies, materials, equipment or other property or the fixing Of personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties or Obligations Of any person or group of persons. The term "public meeting" shall not mean any meeting, the publication of the facts concerning which would disclose the institution, progress or result of an investigation undertaken by a board in the performance of its Official duties.175 In other words, if any body which performs an essential governmental function holds a meeting at which a vote is taken, the following section applies: "Every public meeting of a board shall be Open to the public."176 This section has required considerable interpretation. What, for example, is a "public meeting?" The attorney general has ruled and his Opinion will be discussed infra. 175M1ch1gan, ngpiled Laws (1970), sec. 15.251. 176Ibid., sec. 15.252. 78 The third section 177 requires posting of advance notice at least three days prior to the first regularly scheduled meeting and at least 12 hours prior to a rescheduled meeting or special meeting. Posting may be effected by (l) posting a OOpy of the notice prominently at the principal Office of the body holding the meeting, (2) posting the notice at the public building in which the meeting is to be held, 23_ (3) by publishing the notice in a general-circulation newspaper in the body's political subdivision.178 The section further requires that the board supply copies Of the public notice to newspapers and radio stations within the political subdivision if they so request. In addition to P.A. 261, a number Of other statutes require various boards tO be Open. These include county civil service commis- 180 city fire and police 182 sions,179 township civil service commissions, retirement boards,181 legislative retirement boards of trustees, 184 185, 186 township boards,183 county boards of commissioners, villages, 177Ibid., sec. 15.253. 1781bid. 179Michigan, Compiled Lawg, Annotated (1970), sec. 38.411. 18°Ibid., sec. 38.457. 181161d., sec. 38.552 182Ibid., sec. 38.1032. 183Ibid., sec. 41.72b. 1341mm, sec. 46.3. 185Ibid., sec. 65.4. 186Ibid., sec. 65.5. 79 city councils of fourth-class cities,187’ 188 189 190 metropolitan transportation authorities, and school boards. Case law effectigg the implementation Of Open meetings.--After extensive research, this writer has only been able to uncover three applicable cases involving enforcement of the current Michigan Open- meetings law. In the first, Fucinari v. Dearborn Board of Education,191 the iMichigan Court of Appeals ruled that a 60-day notice releasing a pro- bationary teacher from employment was defective because the board had acted at an executive session and such action had no legal force or effect. The board had earlier directed its personnel officer to send the 60-day letter to a teacher who lacked tenure. Under case law from other states, however, the board would have merely had to re-run its action in public session for it to have the full effect Of law. It is not known whether this was done or not. In the second case, PIRGIM v. Board Of Pharmacy of State of Michigan and Carl E. Cross,_Jr.. Executive Secretary, Board of Phar- macy,192 the Ingham County Circuit Court ordered the board to supply minutes even though those minutes had not yet been accepted by the board and were not in final form. Of course, the court set precedent only in Ingham County and not other circuits. However, it must be remembered 187Ibid., sec. 88.6 1381bid., sec. 88.7. 189Ibid., sec. 124.425. 19OIbid., sec. 340.561. 191Fucinari v. Dearborn Board Of Educagion, 32 Mich. App. 108; 188 N.W.2d 229 (1971). 192PIRGIM v. Board Of Pharmac of State of Michi an an Carl E. 80 that Ingham County serves as venue for state agencies. The case has also been used as part of the rationale of an attorney general decision.193 The most widely cited case involving Open meetings is Boisson- neault v. Mason or Boissonneault v.‘§ligg City Council.194 This case involved a complaint by Glen A. Boissonneault Of the ,Flint Journal against members Of the Flint City Council. The plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from meeting in private for purposes of discussing or conducting any business of the City of Flint and from precluding any member of the public from.attending any such meeting. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the lower court. The defendants then appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court and the case was remanded back to trial court. In remanding the case back to the trial court, the Michigan Supreme Court* opined as follows: The agreed statement Of facts are: "Flint city councilmen have met in City Hall at the request of the city manager on several occasions at which meetings the public was excluded. Subjects of discussion generally effect (sic) overall policy and on occasion may involve items which may require legislative action at a later date." ~Cross J . Executive Secretar Board of Pharmac , Circuit Court for the County of Ingham, Docket NO. 75-17842-CZ. 193Letter Opinion of Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of ‘Michigan to State Senator Joseph M. Snyder, Nov. 4, 1976. 194Boissonneault v. Mason, loc. cit. *T. M. Kavanagh, C.J., and T. G. Kavanagh, Swainson, Williams, Levin, and J.W. Fitzgerald, J.J., concurred‘with M. S. Coleman, J. 81 If one were to speculate upon what really occurred in these gatherings, any number of possibilities come into focus. For instance: 1. A firm decision could have been made with only the formali— ties of a vote remaining. 2. Vague theories could have been tested upon colleagues. 3. A preliminary discussion could have taken place regarding a subject which may or may not ever come to a vote. 4. Legal advice may have been sought from the city attorney. 5. Labor negotiations then taking place may have been the subject. 6. A rumor involving the reputation Of an employee could have been discussed. 7. A possible need for land could have been discussed, the knowledge of which might greatly increase the cost to the tax- payers if the probability blossomed into reality. . . . We cannot apply the law to facts which we do not have. The court retained jurisdiction and, on December 18, 1974, the trial court, acting on behalf of the Michigan Supreme Court handed down the following order: The City Council for the City of Flint, or any members thereof, are restrained from.meeting in private for the purpose Of making a decision or conducting discussions or deliberations which might lead to a decision involving the city government except for the following purposes: 1. To consider the employment and appointment, dismissal, suspension or disciplining Of any one Of the four appointed Officials who serve at the pleasure of the Council; 2. To consider the appointment or removal of citizens to City Boards and Commissions, provided however, if a decision is reached to remove such an Official said official shall have a right upon request to have a public hearing; 3. To discuss strategy sessions and interim.reports with respect to collective bargaining or potential or pending liti- gation; 4. To consider preliminary negotiations involving the purchase or sale Of property, both real and personal, but not involving services or the acquisition thereof except as provided herein- above; 5. To consider records which are specifically exempt by law from public inspection; 6. TO consider severe threats of riot or insurrection public knowledge of which, in the Opinion Of the City Council, would be detrimental to efforts to meet or lessen the threat. 82 The court stipulated that plaintiffs could commence contempt proceedings for non-compliance and mandated the city attorney to report any violation of the court's injunction. The court then dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal as moot. In summation, the three cases tend to indicate that (1) some actions taken in executive session are null and void, (2) persons living in Ingham County or suing state agencies have a right to minutes even though they have not been officially approved and are not in final form, (3) the courts have spelled out the limits to which certain boards may hold executive sessions. Open public meetipgs and Michigan attorneys genera1.--In the absence of other law, it is necessary to turn to the rulings by attorneys general regarding the status Of Open-meetings legislation. Not only must one turn to an attorney general decision to clarify a particular point of open-meetings law, he must also turn to such an opinion to determine the affect Of other Opinions.195 On April 17, 1972, the Michigan Attorney General issued an Opinion to the effect that his Opinions are binding not only upon state government officials but upon all government Officials within the state. Therefore, unless or until the courts rule otherwise, his Opinions are binding on most Officials to whom Open meetings legislation might apply.196 195See generally William Thompson, "F01 and State Attorneys General," Freedom Of Information Center Publication, NO. 307 (Columbia, Missouri: School Of Journalism, University Of Missouri, 1973). 196Letter Opinion Of Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, to State Senator William.Faust, April 17, 1972. 83 As was pointed out earlier, the Michigan Constitution Of 1963 requires advance notice of all committee hearings to be published in the journal of the House of Representatives. On July 8, 1965, however, the attorney general specified that did not apply to all committee meetipgs.197 In 1969, the attorney general clarified the term "formal sessions" in Article 8, section 4 of the Michigan Constitution dealing with the governing boards of institutions Of higher education. In his Opinion, Frank J. Kelley wrote: . . . it is my Opinion that whenever the governing board Of an educational institution Of higher learning is convened in accordance with established rules of such body for the trans- action of business, it must convene in public session to which the members of the public are to be admitted. Private or executive meetings not held in accordance with established rules or where no busineSs of the board is transacted are not formal sessions. Such private or executive meetings, however, are rarely necessary. And the spirit of our Constitution, the tradition Of our democracy, and the need for public access to the workings of public institutions and agencies compel the conclusion they should be actively discouraged. (Emphasis added.)198 An institution could conceivably argue, however, that since it is estab- lished under the Constitution and not by a lesser agency, the Opinion Of an attorney general is just that: an "opinion." As previously mentioned, one college board Of trustees chairman has even questioned the legis- lature's power to legislate Open meetings of such boards Of trustees.199 1971965 Michigan OAG 4427 (July 8, 1966). 1981969 Michigan OAG 4676 (Aug. 13, 1969). 199Mathews to Brown, loc. cit. 84 A ruling of September 4, 1970 permits members of the press to make tape recordings Of public meetings. They must, however, pay for the electricity. The recording must also be made in a way that would not unduly distract from or intrude upon the normal functioning of the meeting.200 The landmark attorney general ruling came on January 3, 1972 in a letter to Representative Kildee. According to Frank J. Kelley: (a) persistent problem has been the inclination on the part of the members Of some public bodies to go into "executive session" to discuss a matter and then, after private discussion, Open the doors of the meeting and take a vote on the decision already made in private. As Attorney General, I have ruled that this conduct is not permissible. . . . I said that such behavior was contrary to the intent of the act (P.A. 261) and that the public has a right to be present during any discussion leading up tO the final vote since this portion of the meeting is inherenfly a part of the requirement that public meetings be open.20 Thus, the public has not only a right to attend the voting sessions of public bodies, it also has a right to attend sessions leading up to the vote. On May 22, 1972, the attorney general ruled that in city council rules, any resolution.limiting speech of council members during the citizens' portion of a meeting was null and of no effect. Apparently the ruling is meant to encourage a dialogue between the public and its elected Officials.202 200Letter Opinion of Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, to State Representative William Ballenger, Sept. 14, 1970. 2011972 Michigan OAG 1372 (Jan. 3. 1972)- 202Letter opinion of Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General Of Michigan, May 22, 1972. 85 On June 7, 1974, the attorney general ruled that county boards Of commissioners need not publish verbatim.transcripts of their meetings, however, they "must be specific enough to indicate what occurred at the meeting."203 On April 26, 1976, at the request Of Sen. Daniel S. Cooper, D-Oak Park, Frank J. Kelley reaffirmed an earlier Opinion204 mandating that the public has a right to be present during discussion leading up to the final votes of boards governing institutions of higher education.205 The most recent attorney general decision relating to Open- meetings concerns was handed down while this chapter was being written. It involves the City of East Detroit and the public's right to listen to tape recordings of city council meetings which are used to prepare minutes. The attorney general ruled that yes, in fact, the public could listen to the tapes, but does not carry a mandate for municipalities to preserve them.206 The decision was based on an Ingham County Circuit Court decision.207 and a Utah decision208 in addition to a Michigan statute that states "that all sessions Of the legislative body and all records Of the municipality shall be public."209 2031974 Michigan OAG 4820 (June 7, 1974»). 204Letter opinion of Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan,to State Senator Daniel 8. Cooper, April 26: 1976' 2051969 Michigan OAG 4676 (Aug. 13, 1969) 206Letter Opinion Of Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, to State Senator Joseph M. Snyder, Nov. 4, 1976. 207PIRGIM V. Board, loc. cit. 208COnver. et al v. Board Of Education Of Nebo School District, et a1, 1 Utah 375; 267 P2d 768 (1954). 209Michigan, Public Act 279 (1909): sec. 3(L) 86 In summation, the Michigan attorneys general have ruled (1) that their opinions are binding on all government officials, (2) that only committee hearings and not all meetings are required to be posted in the legislative journal, (3) that boards governing institutions Of higher education are to be Open, (4) that the press may tape record public meetings, (5) that the public has a right to be present in discussion leading up to the vote, (6) that published reports by county boards of commissioners are not required to be verbatim transcripts, and (7) that tape recordings of city council proceedings are subject to public disclosure. Strengthenipg the Michigan open-meetipgs law.--On April 1, 1977 a new, tougher Open-meetings law will go into effect in Michigan. The law represents the culmination of years to effect stronger legislation and to many, it is less than perfect because it allows a number of exceptions to Open.meetings which will be discussed-12:53. gpglygefggrts to Open meetings.--In the 1958 session Of the Michigan legislature, three bills were introduced to provide a general Open meetings law and one passed the Senate with only four dissenting votes. In the House, however, there ensued a bitter committee fight and the Michigan Press Association withdrew its support after amendments permitting executive sessions were added to the bill. It then died in committee.210 The following year, an open meetings bill was not reintroduced, but one dealing with meetings of boards Of education was. It would have 210Judith Murrill Baldwin, "Access Laws: Defeats," Freedom of Information Center Publication No, 86 (Columbia, Missouri: School of Journalism, University of Missouri, 1962), p. 3. 87 changed the law from the current: All public meetings of the board shall be public and no person shall be excluded therefrom. The board may hold executive ses- sions but no final action shall be taken at an executive session. to: The board may hold executive sessions whenever the public interest shall require. In an editorial of July 15, 1959, the Detroit Free Press asked How can the public consider and determine its-interest if it is disallowed from knowing what considerations are involved or even what action is being taken on its presumed behalf?211 The amendment failed and the bill passed. By 1975, five Open meetings bills were being sponsored in the Michigan legislature. The bills, their chief sponsors and dates Of introduction were as follows: Senate Bill 920 Sen. David Plawecki June 3, 1975 House Bill 4380 Rep. James Smith February 25, 1975 House Bill 5405 Rep. Perry Bullard June 23, 1975 House Bill 5684 Rep. David Hollister October 22, 1975 House Bill 5931 Rep. Paul Rosenbaum January 27, 1976 Two house bills, those of Bullard and Hollister generated interest in the media but it was Senator Plawecki's bill, as amended by the House which became law. A discussion follows. House Bill 5405 by Perry Bullard.--This bill was the reintroduc- tion of an open-meetings bill which Bullard had sponsored the previous session. In the end, he had had to vote against it because exceptions had watered it down. Bullard reintroduced the bill on June 23, 1975, 2111bid., citing Detroit Free Press. July 15. 1959. n-P- 33:: 88 saying Senator Plawecki's bill was too weak.212 In general, the Bullard bill was somewhat more detailed than the Hollister bill. Definitions are somewhat more complete than the Hollister bill but advance notice is not spelled out to the same extent. In addition, meetings would have been defined as a full quorum in lieu of the one-half quorum provision of the Hollister bill. Penalties were detailed to a greater extent than they were in the Hollister bill which provided for 90 day imprisomment or a $500 fine. Bullard's bill specified who could commence civil action, declared actions taken in violation as null and void, declared fines for violation of not more than $100 unless the violation were inten- tional, in which case fines could reach $1,000. The bill also made violating public Officials personally liable in civil actions. House Bill 5684 by David C. Hollister.--This bill has previously been discussed in Chapter II,‘ppppp. It had been drafted by a l3-member citizens' task force and was introduced to the House on October 22, 1975. Following public hearings on December 10, 1975 in Lansing and on December 15, 1975 in Livonia, the bill attracted the attention Of the media across the state. On January 8, 1976, for example, the Grand Blanc ‘Nggp carried an editorial by Elmer White, executive secretary of the Michigan Press Association.213 Will the sun shine in Michigan? Will lawmakers adopt so-called "sunshine" legislation, designed to bring the light Of open meetings of public bodies to the public? . . . One (pending bill) sponsored by Democratic Rep. David C. 212State Journal, June 26, 1975, p. B-12. 213Grand Blanc News, Jan. 3: 1976- 89 Hollister of Lansing, defines a meeting as "a gathering of more than one-half quorum Of the members Of a public body to deli- berate or take action upon a matter within the jurisdiction of the public body." Sunshine backers have Offered this thought: If people are truly interested in having the meetings Of their public governing bodies Open, their legislators will vote to Open them. On January 16, the legislative Office Of Rep. Thomas Brown, chairman Of the House Towns and Counties Committee, released copies of pertinent testimony regarding the Bullard and Hollister bill. A press release quoted Brown as saying: Both of December's hearings were very well attended . . . After all, this is a matter which directly touches all of our lives; the right to know what our elected public Officials are doing 'with our tax dollars, how they are allocating our resources, and if they are protecting the public trust and interest. On January 30, 1976, Representative Hollister delivered a speech before a Michigan Press Association conference. Hollister stressed that House Bill 5684 deals with open meetings, not Open government and said the bill has five definitions and no exceptions. He justified the lack of exceptions to Open meetings on the five following points: 1. Legal advise from an attorney regarding pending litigation. In January 1973, I was elected chairman of the Ingham County Board Of Commissioners. The first day after being so elected, I was served in my home with a lawsuit. I was new tO the job and frankly scared. I immediately called the County Corporation Counsel. Thereafter, I found that the county usually has $1 to $3 million dollars worth of lawsuits pending on any given day. To allow closed meetings to discuss pending lawsuits would Open a loophole large enough to drive a freight train through. 2. Land Purchasing. . I would point out that although the meeting is closed to discuss the transaction, the real estate people know, the bankers 214Press release of Rep. Thomas H. Brown, Jan. 16, 1976. 90 know and so do many others. . . . If a compelling public need is demonstrated, the right of eminent domain can be used to acquire the property. 3. Threats to Peace and Public Safety when Emergency Situations Arise. . . Emergencies are handled by executive function and are no way hindered by open-meeting legislation. 4. Personnel Questions. One out Of every five employees works for the government and is paid for with taxpayer dollars. To allow this exception is to create another large loophole. Personnel procedures, hiring, firing, disciplining are admini- strative functions . . . not . . . subject to this act. However, if the employee opted to go to the governing board for a hearing or ultimate appeal, the case would be heard Openly. 5. Labor Strategy Sessions. This is the toughest issue of all, for even Florida has written in an exception for strategy sessions. I see collective bar- gaining and especially sophisticated pre-bargaining strategy development being done by administrative staff. This is an exec- utive function 82? not covered. When presented to the Board, it would be public. 5 Responding to Hollister's press conference, the Port Huron Times- M wrote: The speaker looked more like a college student--an appropriate appearance at Michigan State's Kellogg Center-~than a legislator which he is. . . . It is a strong bill and probably doesn't stand a chance, since the idea Of making government totally Open makes many legis- lators uncomfortable. They can always think of reasons why cer- tain discussions, certain decisions should be private. 215David C. Hollister, D-Lansing, "A New Day of Sunshine in Michigan," speech to the Michigan Press Association Conference, East Lansing, Michigan, January 30, 1976. 91 . . Life in a fishbowl is probably no great fun for the elected Official. But that should be his commitment when he seeks office.2 The Lansing State Journal wrote: For elected Officials in Michigan who prefer to conduct public business in the dark shadows of secrecy, State Rep. Dave Hollis- ter, D-Lansing, has a message: Open the door and let the sun shine in.217 By February 9, Baya Harrison III, former deputy attorney general Of Florida, arrived in Lansing to stump for both the Hollister bill and the sister resolution, the Baker-Hull proposal for Open meetings in the Lansing city government. The Menominee Herald Leader editorially urged the Menominee Charter Commission to create a strong sunshine provision and cited Harrison's appearance to help effect such a provision in Lansing.218 At the same time the Menominee Charter Commission is meeting tomorrow night, the Lansing City Council will be meeting to consider an open meeting ordinance. They will hear from a former Florida official who helped to interpret and enforce Florida's "sunshine law" which requires that all meetings of public Officials be open--without exception. . . . Obviously a current is running through the state toward a stronger Open meetings law. Whether or not the state legislature passes a bill, the time is ripe for the City of Menominee to make its own statement of policy on Open government in its new charter. The Kalamazoo.GazetLe editorially urged the passage of a strong open-meetings law by the legislature after Harrison's testimony in a February 11 Kalamazoo hearing of the House Towns and Counties Committee: 216Port Huron Times-Herald: Feb. 4: 1976: P- 5- 2”State Journal, Feb. 8, 1976. p- D-l- 218Menominee Herald Leader, Feb. 4, 1976, p. 4. 92 . . . As he (Harrison) described the (Florida) law, it requires public bodies to work in public, with labor negotiations being the only exception. Michigan, in our Opinion, would do well to give consideration to something similar. After all, government is the people's business. In addition to the editorial support,219 the Gazette also gave the hearing front page coverage, citing objections from school Officials including the earlier cited Fred Mathews who called the plan "entirely impractical" and aimed at "terrorizing" local Officials.220’ 221 House Bill 5684 remained in committee while Plawecki's Senate Bill 920 served as the vehicle Of discussion. Although the Hollister bill failed to get out of committee, both it and the Bullard bill served as levers in the passage of the senate bill. If Senate Bill 920 had been rejected, legislators were told, an even tougher bill would take its place.222 Passage of Senate Bill NO. 920.--Senator David Plawecki introduced his open meetings bill on June 20, 1975 to the Senate Affairs Committee Of the Michigan legislature. ‘When it got back on the Senate floor, it was promptly gutted by a series Of crippling amendments. First, Sen. Charles 0. Zollar, RpBenton Harbor, inserted language which would require only "formal" decisions and deliberations to be open to the public.223 The Associated Press, on December 3, 1975 quoted Sen. 219Kalamazoo Gazette, Feb. 12, 1976, p. A-6. 2201bid., pp. A-1 and A-3. 221Hearing before the House Towns and Counties Committee, Kalama- zoo City Hall, Feb. 11, 1976. (Tape recorded). 222Interview'with Neil Krentzin, Michigan House Towns and Counties committee aide, Sept. 28, 1976. 223Interview'with Beth Leeson, aide to Sen. David Plawecki, Sept. 29, 1976. 93 Plawecki as saying: Essentially, it has eliminated public access to the process of decision-making, which is the major abuse my bill hopes to end. Through this amendment, public bodies can discuss and vote on a bill in secrecy, and merely confirm the private vote at the "formal meeting." If the word "formal" is broadly construed by the courts, the Open meetings law could provide less protection than the current law for the public's right to know.2 4 A January 25, 1976 Detroit Free Press editorial took Sen. Daniel S. Cooper, D-Oak Park, to task for other amendments: One of Sen. Cooper's amendments, for example would allow public bodies to exclude the public from an "informational session." Any meeting to discuss any kind of public business can be called an "informational session"--the result will be government by secrecy. Only a handful of senators had the courage to stand up to Sen. Cooper and the Senate majority.225 As has been seen from our earlier discussion of boards governing institu- tions Of higher education, the term "formal" has been the principal stumbling block to their meetings becoming Open and "informational sessions" are very much a problem. About the same time, in his state of the state message, Gov. William Milliken called for a strong Open meetings law. A year ago I suggested that Michigan's open meeting law was too vague and called for it to be strengthened. . . . I will Oppose any attempts to weaken the existing law. At the same time, I feel that further clarifications designed to prevent any doubts about the meaning 0; the current provisions should be considered by the Legislature. 26 2243tate Journal, Dec. 3, 1975, p. B-7. 225Detroit Free Press, Jan. 25. 1976: P- Z‘C- 226Governor William G. Milliken, "State of the State Message," Speech before the joint session Of the Michigan legislature, January, 1976. 94 On January 14, House Speaker Bobby D. Crim emphasized that the House must enact a strong open meetings bill which will enable the people of this state to exercise full the political responsibilities of citizen- ship. The public's business will truly belong to the public only insofar as all citizens have clear and certain access to the rooms and chambers in which it is conducted, and this Legislature ought to act now to Open them at every level Of government in this state. On February 3, the governor supported the Plawecki bill and cri- ticized the weakening amendments. The law very definitely needs further clarification and streng- thening--but it certainly does not need to be'weakened.22 iMilliken spelled out what he wanted in an open meetings bill--Only limited executive session exceptions, mandatory public notice for all meetings, the publication of a phone number to call for information, and stiff en- forcement provisions including the voiding of actions taken at illegal secret meetings. He said these were the minimum standards a new law should'meet. Any attempt at revision of the existing law that does not meet these basic Objectives will represent an unacceptable retreat from the real progress that has been made in ensuring that gov- ernment is Open and responsive to the people it serves. On March 3, Senate Bill 920 passed the Senate and was sent to the House Towns and Counties Committee. Commenting on the bill's inadequacy, the Lansing State Journal wrote the following: 227Rep. Bobby D. Crim, Speaker of the Michigan House Of Repre- sentatives, Speech before the Michigan House, Jan. 14, 1976. 228State Journal, Feb. 4, 1976, p. B-9. 2291bid. 95 For those concerned about the need for government to conduct the public's business in public, there might be an initial im- pulse to applaud an Open meetings bill just passed by the State Senate. Even a quick look, however, shows there is not much to cheer about. The Senate measure appears to be little more than window dressing--and, in fact, could make for more secrecy in govern- ment rather than less. Basically, the bill starts out by saying that the business Of public bodies be conducted in the open. Cheers. Then it goes on to list all kinds of exemptions. The House should not accept this bill and indeed should come back with something much stronger and more specific. Between March 4 and June 8, when House Substitute for Senate Bill NO. 920 left committee with a 9-1-1 bipartisan vote and a recommendation for passage by the full House, some 45 amendments had been offered in re- sponse to questions posed by various groups such as the Michigan Municipal League, the Michigan Hospital Association, the Liquor Control Commission, school board, township and county associations. Commenting on the Michi- gan Hospital Association's opposition, a committee aide told this writer that "they would rather have a doctor go on killing people rather than discuss discipline in public because malpractice insurance might go up." Below are some of the comments the bill drew.231 Tim Richard, editorial director of the Observer and Eccenpric Newspapers told the committee to "(k)eep up the good work," adding I'm not enough Of a legal expert to detect any fishhoOks, but in general I think this is a vast improvement over previous legis- lation the two houses were considering. I am particularly pleased that the problem Of special meetings is being treated in the context Of an Open meetings bill, because 230State Journal, Mar. 6, 1976, p. A-6. 231Krentzin interview, loc. cit. 96 this is where a great many abuses were coming from. I am happy to see that the hypocritical term "executive" has been replaced by the more honest term "closed." 232 Stanley A. Thompson, Superintendent of Inland Lakes Schools found the bill "demanding yet reasonable." However, he went on to say: I cannot understand why legislation already in existence in the state is insufficient to provide pioper surveilance (sic) Of meetings Of various public bodies. 3 Zolton Ferency, associate professor of criminal justice at Michi- gan State University, also a former Democratic state party chairman and standard bearer for the Human Rights Party questioned the need for such a law because of existing constitutional guarantees: Such legislation tends to water'down constitutional guarantees, and should only be considered after a court of appropriate jurisdiction has ruled against the assertions of such rights under constitutional provisions. In my Opinion, such a test has not yet been made of the people's right Of Open access to all proceedings of public bodies.23 Thus, he is in agreement with previously cited constitutional lawyer Wallace Parks that the implied constitutionality of the public to attend proceedings Of its public bodies has not been tested thoroughly in the courts. Differing with Ferency was Fred L. Mathews, chairman of the board Of trustees of Southwestern Michigan College, who supported his opinion ‘with an unnamed legal Opinion by Professor Charles Rice Of the Notre Dame 232Letter from Tim Richard, Editorial Director, The Observer & Eccentric (Birmingham.and Livonia) Newspapers, to Rep. Thomas H. Brown, Chairman House Towns and Counties Committee (hereinafter cited as Rep. Brown), Lansing, Michigan Apr. 30, 1976. 233Letter from Stanley A. Thompson, Superintendent of Inland Lakes Schools, to Rep. Brown, May 3, 1976. 23“Ferency to Rep. Brown, loc. cit. 97 Law School. Several weeks ago I sent you a copy of my testimony before the House Town (sic) and Counpies Committee in.which I opposed the Open Meetipg Bill on practical, ethical and constitutional grounds. I again assure you that if this unconstitutional legis- lation is passed, it will also be tested in the courts. I am confident it tOO will be declared unconstitutional. (Emphasis supplied.)235 Elmer White, executive secretary Of the Michigan Press Association said "I believe most newspaper people in Michigan would support SB 920 in its present form," but cautioned against any more exceptions to Open meetings.236 Richard A. Ross, State Personnel Director, took issue with the five day preparation time for minutes and Offered several other amend- ments dealing with hiring in executive session, leaving personnel matters to closed session unless Openness is requested, allowing closed sessions for determining pay and benefits and/or potential or pending litigation, and requiring persons seeking civil relief to post security.237 Charlotte Copp, president of the League of Women Voters Of Michigan urged the committee to adopt the bill238 while Malcom Katz, n239 deputy superintendent Of the Michigan department Of educatiO and 235Mathews to Rep. Brown, loc. cit. 236Letter from Elmer E. White, Executive Secretary, Michigan Press Association to Rep. Brown, May S, 1976. 237Letter from Richard A. Ross, Michigan Personnel Director, to Rep. Brown, May 10, 1976. 238Letter from Charlotte Copp, President of the League of Women VOters of Michigan, to Rep. Brown, May 10, 1976. 239Letter from Malcom Katz, Deputy Superintendent, Michigan Department Of Education, to Rep. Brown, May 10, 1976. 98 Carl Levin, president of the Detroit city council240 urged still more 'weakening amendments and exemptions from Open-meeting requirements. Associated Press writer Mary Stevenson summed up the difference between Senate Bill No. 920 when it left the Senate on May 3 and the document as House Substitute for Senate Bill No. 920 as it left the House Towns and Counties Committee on June 8. The bill as it came from the Senate allowed closed sessions for a variety Of reasons including informational sessions, discus- sions on hiring or meetings with attorneys. The bill as it now stands requires that before a closed meeting is called for the reasons allowed, a roll call vote must be taken and the minutes must contain an explanation of why the closed session is needed. A closed-door session requires approval by a two-thirds majority. Under the bill, a public Official who intentionally violates the act is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 for the first offense. If he is convicted a second time in the same term, he must be removed from Office. 4 The measure passed the House of Representatives on June 24, 97 to 6. Representatives Hollister and Brown had done their homework by pro- viding ready answers to a number Of potentially crippling amendments. In all, the house substitute bill withstood four and one half hours Of debate and escaped mere than three dozen floor amendments. Following passage Of the bill, Rep. Brown directed a press release which said with his upper- case phrases: All of the valid questions and objections to Openness have been dealt with in this act. 80 in this, our 200th year as a nation, the nation Of Democracy, it could not be a better time to assure the people of Michigan that what rightfully belongs to them shall 240Letter from Carl Levin, President Detroit Common Council, to Rep. Brown, May 20, 1976. 241State Journal, June 9, 1976, p. B-S. 99 truly be theirs: THE ABILITY TO OPENLY VIEW THEIR AGENTS OF GOV- ERNMENT--Our elected and appointed public officials--TO VIEW THEM AS THEY PERFORM THEIR DUTIES WHICH WE HAVE DELEGATED TO THEM-- TO VIEW THEM AS THEY SPEND _O_U_§ fl DOLLARS-- AND TO VIEW THEMTWHEN THEY MAKE THE NECESSARY AND CRUCIAL DECISIONS THAT AFFECT OUR LIVES!242 House Substitute for Senate Bill No. 920 then went to conference committee. Conferees for the House were Reps. Brown and Hollister. Conferees for the Senate were Senators William Faust, DeWestland; Robert Vander- Laan, R-Grand Rapids; and David Plawecki. Senator Cooper fought to get on the conference committee but was unsuccessful. Following that, 8 committee aide said there were some 13 changes from the way the bill had passed the House and Of those, probably eight or nine were at the insis- tence of Cooper.243 Among the changes, subcommittees were exempted from advance notice provisions. Partisan caucuses Of members of the state legislature were permitted to meet in closed session over objections from Hollister and Fredricks who later cast a dissenting vote saying: ‘Mr. Speaker and members Of the House: I voted against the conference report on Senate Bill 920 because this is another instance Of separate standards for the legis- lature compared with local government. The conference report provided that legislators caucuses will be exempt from the provisions Of the bill. How different is a caucus decision on policy from a meeting Of part of the school board at someone's home or the closed gathering of part of the township board? It is easy for the legislature to impose strict Open meeting requirements when it is basically exempt from them itself.244 242Press release from Rep. Brown, June 25a 1976- 243Krentzin interview, loc. cit. 244Michigan, Journal of the House of Represenpatives, 78th Legislature, Regular Session, 1976, IXXXXVIII, 2730. 100 Hollister's section requiring automatic removal from Office was con- sidered unconstitutional because it conflicted with Article IV, section 16 Of the Michigan Constitution. In its place, second Offences were made a high misdemeanor with a possible year imprisonment and a $2,000 fine. The conference conmittee required some 150 meetings and on July 2, the bill went to the floor of the Senate.245 The July 2 session of the Senate was the last before the legis- lature adjourned for the sunlner. Senator VanderLaan was not anxious to report the bill out of committee because Of the bulk of legislation requiring action.246 The bill went to the floor but was repeatedly held up by Senator Cooper. In a not so veiled reference to Cooper, Rep. Brown directed a press release which, in part, stated: . . . even while the Conference report was being printed and then, while the report was being debated in the Senate, one senator continued to demand changes in the bill's language.247 Every time Cooper demanded changes, of course, the report had to be sent back for re-printing. Because Of this, a number of senators including Earl Nelson, D-Lansing, were absent from the final vote. The report lost with 19 yeas and 8 nays because it lacked a majority of senators.248 Senator Plawecki, however, moved to reconsider the vote by which the 245Leeson interview, loc. cit. 2“maid. 247Press release from Rep. Brown, July 9, 1976. 248Michigan, Jou nal Of the Senate, 78th Legislature, Regular Session, 1976, LXXXIX, 1752-54. 101 conference report was not adopted and the motion to reconsider pre- vai1ed.249 During the summer, extensive lobbying took place to secure passage Of House Substitute for Senate Bill 920 in its amended form as the first conference. In addition to representatives and aides supporting the report and gathering support from fellow Democrats, Bill Long of the governor's staff lobbied with Republicans. In a press release directed by Sen. Plawecki's Office, Dan Troumman'wrote: One of the first tasks before the Senate when the Legislature reconvenes on September 13 will be reconsideration of the Open Meetings Act, which addresses one of the most critical--and con- troversial--issues in government. The press release further mentioned the Plawecki motion to reconsider which had kept the bill from dying and, fortunately, a second conference was not necessary. On September 16, 1976, the bill passed both the House and Senate. It passed the Senate with 32 yeas and 3 nays. It passed the House with 86 yeas and 7 nays.251’ 252 The bill was enrolled and presented to the governor on September 23 at 11:41 a.m.253 Senate Bill NO. 920 was signed into law on October 5, 1976 by Governor Milliken. He said: 249Ihid. 250Press release of Sen. David Plawecki, Sept. 6, 1976. 251Michigan, Journal Of the Senate, 78th Legislature, Regular Session, 1976, LXXXXIII, 1867. 252M1¢higan, Journal of phe House, loc, cit. 253Journal of the Senate, Op, cit., LXXXXVII, 1924. 102 Citizens need to know--in fact they must know-ewhat their govern- 'ment is doing. This new law helps open government to the bright light of public scrutiny and responds to the public's right to know. Reactions from the news media.--Reaction to the new Open-meetings bill has generally been supportive if not overwhelmingly laudatory. Immediately following passage by the Senate and House, Detroit Free Press reporter Louis M. Heldman wrote: Both houses of the Legislature passed Thursday the most compre- hensive bill in Michigan history requiring open.meetings of pub- lic bodies. . . Ironically, after passing the Open meetings measure, the Senate adjourned into closed party caucuses, which are permitted under the bill.255 The Lansing State Journal said: The bill passed last week was a compromise. It is one of several "Open meetings" bills argued in the legislative halls in recent years. The bill has some weaknesses, but overall it is an encouraging step away from the closed door practices. . . . Though the proposal may have weaknesses cited by critics, it puts in writing rules designed to help the public know'what's going on in government. That is an improvement compared to what we have now.256 Following the governor's signature, the State Journal wrote: One of the best things to come out of the Michigan legislature this year was passage in September of an open.meeting bill for public agencies after years of struggle and delay. Gov. Milliken signed the measure into law Tuesday despite critics who contend it is both too lenient and tOO restrictive. We think the law is a reasonable compromise between such extremes. The alternative for the legislature was to do nothing--which is 254Press release from.the Executive Office, Michigan Capitol, Lansing, Michigan, Oct. 5, 1976. 255Detroit Free Press, Sept. 17: 1976a Po 3- 256State Journal, Sept. 20, 1976, p. A-4. 103 what it has done for years. Because Of that the state has lived tOO lpng with largely meaningless and unenforceable open.meeting laws. 5 Editorially, the Detroit Free Press wrote: The Open Meetings bill passed by the Legislature represents a significant step toward better government in Michigan. Better because the public can be more assured that it will know what government is doing. . . . The new law does not go as far as we would have liked. . . . We are sorry to see the House and Senate insisting that the secrecy of their own partisan legislative caucuses be sanctioned by state law. Even Congress is starting to Open up its party caucuses to public view; state legislative leaders should Open up the Lansing meetings, especially since such a blast of fresh air would not be prohibited by the new law.258 The Oakland Press editorialized that: In Oakland County, many government boards and commissions have traditionally found it advantageous to keep the public at arm's length, each nurturing its own style of excluding the public from debates over policies. The county commissioners meet in closed-door party caucuses. Road commissioners huddle in the managing director's office before public sessions. The parks commission frequently sched- ules meetings without notifying the press or public. And many school boards routinely meet privately before public sessions convene. If those bad habits persist next year, some of thogg public Officials could find themselves in court--or jail. 9 Conclusions.--In lieu Of conclusions, this writer has opted for a side-by-side analysis of the Old and new openemeetings laws. 257State Journal, Oct. 7. 1976: Po A-12. 258Detroit Free Press, Sept. 19, 1976, p. Z-F- 259The Oakland PreSS, Sept. 215 1976: P- A‘4- APPENDICES APPENDIX A ANALYSIS OF MICHIGAN OPEN-MEETINGS LAWS 104 no Houooaouo>ow ooaouoxo on cash no .ooauoaooon .OOoodaouO .uouuono .OuOuouo .aoausuauoooo Ououm an oouosomeo ma noses..auooooo no .kuauoauou .oouuuaeoopom .Oouuaaaoo sooaooweaoo .onooo o wawosaooa .mooo moanuobow no O>HumaowwOH HmOOH uo dunno how moose .hooo Oaaopm.: .4 Aoum .oz “Ham museum ousfiouom on Human cesaoo menu ca 0» oouuomou mooauOOm Hamv :.ouoo «0 ounce one ouoo oaouuoo Hoses“ Ou one “moan nausea mou>ouo ou "moocmumsoouao namuuoo noon: ocoamfiooo Houcoeouo>ow mo coauoowam>cu now OpHDOun ou mucoaoouomco you opa>oue ou mowoauooe mo mouoowa mo wowmoox can one coauoo ouwooou Ou mowsooe Ocu Ou demo on ou weapon oaanpe oaouuoo mo nwduuooa oqouuoo ouasoou on use o<= uo nounoweaoo .ouooo on» no .huaouo>woo no owOHHOO oouuoneoo haamauuoe no oouuoaenououmuo has mo moon mownuo>ow on» .uowuuoao Hooaoo has no oowuooooo mo ounce Ono .nwaoosOu how no noouoouu mo whoop so» .owofifiub no hugs has no swooped may .huoooo ham mo ouooa>uoeso mo onooo on» mouse .ouoom.: .¢ "mZOHBHZHhun .HH .eoeoeuooom Amoea .Hmu .<.mv s.oaHooa are on demo on Hausa mooauoopm Houooaauo>ow Howuooooo megahomuoe «meadows nonuo one mowuwuoauoo awouuoo MO was mooaoa>aoo5o Hmoauaaoe mo weapon wagouo>ow Ono mo mwcauooa_quu ouasoou ou uoo o<= Amwoauooa some woa>ao>cu cowuomauaa ououom you soon can uomv "HzmazH\wUHaom mo mazmzua<fim .H ONm AAHm maoz oouoeoumv 3&4 mozH muslzmmo z< Hmonwho mHmHA¢z< < anzumm< 105 Am.mV :.w ooo m moonuOOm on ooon>ono Oonsnonuo mo unsold onaaoe on» on ammo weapons o on Ocean oxen Hanan endgame mun mo apnooo m wonuaunuooOo. noon cannon o no econoanocnnoe nnas .u Au.mv :.OnHooo sou On some wonuooa o no more or nnoco eooo cannon e no soononooe nnar .m Aa.mV :.uoo anon on ooon>one Omnsnocuo no demons monuooa and odouum on oouunanoe so Hausa mooonoe HH< .onfioon Honooow on» on oHooHnm>o woman m an odds on Hanan ooo deacon can on ammo -oo Harem moon Onaooa o no omenuooa HH<: .< Acme :.monHoo cannon moumHoenom no nonrandommo moon onaosn o canes he one oonnooon on hooo undone a mo oneness he ouo> o auna3.oo onomooe no Hana .ooomnnono .noono .oonu5HOoon .oonumooueeooon .Hmooeonn ecoauoa a doe: nonunoommno no .OuO> conuom .OOnumonenouoo o momma .oononooo.: .n Aomv =.onnooa are on ooooao on cones hooo Onaooo a mo wonuooa u no anon no wcnuooa o momma .oonoooo oOoOHo.: .o Anmv :.mOnHoo onfiose u so cononooo m wnnnoocon no onoBOu wcnuonoonsoo mo moonnon can now unooonn on aonoso o sonsB um hoop Onaooe o mo wonoo>ooo ecu momma .wonuomz.: .m Aouv :.uooaoonwo momma Ono Ou nonsense conuooom one Ooonnoe onfiooe Honuooomo do wonenomnon moonoau common a no .oonuuoom mnouonnnone no Houooeano>ow o anomnon no hunnocuoo unouonnnonm .Annen .m .ouov «nan one counronz.~nenv s. . . ouo> scone sou on no monomOH sonooooono has mannno unooonn on on unmnn a one undone sou . . . : .u . damn—m swcnuooa cannons no conuncnnoo onoocoo .m .oooomnoeom .ANmN.mH .Ooo ..onoHv :.Onaooe sea on sumo on Hanan onooo o no wanuooa onaoon hno>m= .< "UHAmam mm OH mquHmmz .HHH .oooOmnomom .AN.Hmu.mH .Ooo ..o«oHv :.ooOonoe mo noonw no noonoe ham mo moonuuw unHoo no monuoo .oonunonaaa .mowoan>nne .oucwnn hunoeone no announce mo manage can no hunonono nonuo no unmannooo .oaonnouma .oonaeeom mom mo no moon>noo mo Homonono Aonov mo so: .oonunmnnoom can no moonm mo newswonooono no monsonnoo .uanooon can cun3.wonaooo onooo can on no he oOooaona conuoo Hononmmo nonuo no conuoa .oonuoHOoon sooooonono has coop mouo> on conga wonnso onooo a mo wcnuooe has mo anon noon momma .wonuooa onaonm.: .m .ooooouooom .An.nn~.mn .ooe .Aononv neon wmmmmmmm..oown50nzv :.oonuoosw Houooaono>ow Honuooooo and mo doomenomnoe can coonnnn nun now no: nonos.soH no oouoono unmannoaoo no hunnoauoo HoQHOnuna no Ououo has no hoop monono>ow nonuo 106 Am.nv :.nuo onpn on now ooon>onn monoonmnm opn nopn monoOp Onapne mo mwnnnooa on o>nnofion moonnono mo oonmoo nonmonw o onnnoon oHnos.ponp3 nOnmn>onn nonnmpo no oHnn .nonnonomon .oononnono no mnnnnooo eonm hoop Onapne a unpnponn Hanna non onpn on wnnpnon .noo mnpn mo onoo o>nnoommo opn nonmonn Omnanopno no nonmnwon on hoop Oannn a mo mnnnooa o no oonoononno On nonnno unou o no oonnnoon op non anopo nomnon <: .m Am.mv =.nneo ownnnoua monnneeoo one ownnnoop no moann oopnnoo none On oonnana up has noonooo on upwnn opn nmpn anon m oon>onn hoe onnnoaonmoa opn mo monop o no onnnofionmoa may .hoop onfipnn opn hp ooonooon one oopmnaponmo oOHnn noon: hoOp oannn a mo wnnnooe o moonoon On oonnnenon op Hanna noonon 4: .n .Aumn.mm .ooo ..onomv .uouuoo nnoeonnnon cannon one onnm hnno .o oflfimqomm comm .OvflnHV .mflOmeflflu—UOO 00%.?“0” HAL/H0 fiflsmflghfi on .Anne.wm .ooo .Aonenv oououoeoa neon pone o .eomneonzv .ononmonaaoo oon>noo Habno hnnnoo .e .Ao .Ooo .w .nn< ..oan .momOHHOO one monnnono>nnb .m .AhH .Ooo .o .nn< .ovflnH omuuUUHEEOO Q>WUQHOHM0A oN .A.o~ .ooo .e .uue .Amoonv conuou unnonoo newnpoezv .OnnnoaonwOH spa .H "nonconmz mnnnooznnoeo annonnnoo< .h .oonqu hnna now hnmaonono nonmo on :onann noonw: mo wnnnwnm .m .Annon .Nu no: .oouneonz no nuuocoo noououua .hOHHoM .o annnh mo nonnnno nonnoqv .noommo on no one anon on wnnnooa a mo nonnnon .mnounnno opn wnnnno unopeoa anonnoo mo possum opn wnnnnEnH nonnnaooon hnm .oOHnn anonnoo hnno na .9 107 up fiance hoop Onapnn Hosea a now cannon Onapnn oonnnoon opn .oonmmo Honnonnnn o o>op non mooo hoOp Onapnn a «H .nonnnono Hoopoo no nonon>nopno amonnnaon no .nnnoo oaonnno Opn mo xnoao nonunOm onono can no hnononoom .uo>nnmnnooonnon mo Oonop opn mo anoHo .nOHnounoo nopwnp no nonnnnnnonn opn .nnoannonoo Ononm opn mo oonmmo nuenonnnn o>nn uoonmon opn nn oonmon op Oman Hanna cannon oannn o .nonnnmno Hoopom no nonmn>nopno Hounnnuon a mo nnmn no .nOnannoo nopwnp mo nonnnnnnmnn o no nnmn .nnoenno>ow Ononm no pononp Honononn no o>nnmnmnmoH opn mo nnon .nnoannonoo Ononm o no nnon on hoop Onapnn m «H .hoOp Onapnn opn hp onnnnnonnno omnoonmnoo mnonnoooH nopno hno one monmmo Hmnnonnnn nun nmcoonmon op ohmsao Hanna hoOp unapon o now cannon onupnn <: .< AmmN.mH .oou ..encnv= . . . one; on nnns.wenoooa one once: nonon>nopno Hoonnnaon can on nOnnoHnonno Hononow mo nononoaon m nn Oono Oonnon opn wnnpmnapnn hp no one: up on on wnnnoua opn pawns nn wnnofinnp unapne can no no wnnnooa opn wnnoaop hoop opn mo oonmmo Honnonnnn can no thnon«EOnn cannon opn mo hnoo o wnnnmon hp no>nm op Hanna cannon onnpnm: .< nonnoz .3 .Anom.oen .ooo ..ononv .eouooo nooeom .mn .Amee.enn ..oncnv .oonu unnOpnno nOnnonnonmnonn nonnaononnoz .NH .An.wm one o.ww .oooo ..enonv .monnno momHoupnnnom mo manonnoo hnno .HH .An.me one e.mo ..oncnv .ennoeooo owonnne .on .Am.oa .oom ..oanv .mnOnonmonano mo monmop hnnooo .m .AoNn.ne .oou ..ononv .uonuoc caresses .m .Aumoa.mm .OOm ..oanv .moononnn no monoop nnoaonnnon O>nnonmnwop .n 108 A~.o .oou ..mmmmV e.omuuso no menu .ononu can on oonoooH nannono nonon>o~on one onomn how on onu ononm opn nn ooponapnn nonoooson hop on wnnnooa nnpn mo nonnon Onapnn opn mo hnoo o oon>onn Hanna .m nonnOOm on nnonmnnn oonoon on wnnnooa.o mo connon onnpnn o Oann seam can no hoop Onapnn o .nmonoon nonnnns noon: .H "cannon oanno mo nonnonnBOmona .m ha.nv :.moonnneeoopnm mo ownnnooa Honoono On hflnoo non Hanna cannon nnop ma mo nnoeonnnoon spa .wnnnooe opn mnowop unnop ma nonoH no oonmon op Hampm wnnnooa mpn no woman one dawn .Onoo opn wnnnonm oonnon onnpnn m .hoop unapnn a mo mnnnooe Honoonm o no nonsmon ooHooopOmon m now: .9 An.mv :. . . cannon Onapnn m noOh Hooonm no nooh nmo unmade puns nn hoop Onapnn opn mo wnnnooa nonnm opn nonmo ohoo OH nnpnna oonmon Op Hanna onopn .hoop Onapnn o mo omnnnooa nopowon nom: .o An.nv =.nooo onnooo opn hp oononwnmoo nOonon o hp nonnooo opn nn ooon>onn on no>nw on ounnon unapon omoann oHop op non Hanan hoop Onapnn a mo mnnnmoa n: .m Adv :.omonooo onn one .mnmnxo one mn nopann onopnoaon mun .monnnnm oonnon opn poan on hoop onapnn can no mean opn nnonnoo ohmaao Hanna cannon Onapnn < .Onono mo hnononooo opn mo oonmmo opn nn oonoon op Hanna hoop Onapnn onono u now cannon unapnn oonnnoon can one mo>nom hoop Onapnn opn ponp3.nn xnoHO hnnnoo opn mo oonmmo opn nn oonmon A.mmmmV =.eono un>nopno anonnnfioe Opn onnn onoooooonp thoHnwon poan nounmno onoon hnn on one oaop op Hana wnnnooa opn ponpa nn nonon>nopno Hounnnnon opn nn nonnoanonno Hononom mo nonunmaon hnn on moonopn oonnon Onapne opn mo nonnoo .nmonoon no .hnnnnm snore monsooe_neu menonoc ouuoo urn: .n "cannon onnpnn mo nOnnonnaoomnn .m A.oanv :. . . .mwnnnooevooanoopooon no Honoonm mo some opn nn wnnnooe opn mo oEnn can on nonnn onnop NH noose no one . . .: .n A.ompwv :. . . ownnnooe noH nowon no mono opn nn wnnnooa oOHnoopoo hnnoanwon nonnm opn mo cann opn on nonnn mhoo m noooH no . . . no>nw up ”Hope cannon onapnm: .0 A.oanv :.no>nw op Hanna monnon unapnn ponp3_mo .oooonn one moann oonwnoono no ownnnooa unnooa nno once nnoro euros noose: .m 109 Am.ev s.nooo unnoaa one no ooeoueeo ono monnnna opn pangs no wnnnoon opn nonmo ohoo ooonnonp m nopn nonoH non nonnoononn Onapnn now oapoanobo op HHopo nonnnna.oo>onnn¢: .m An.ev e.uen uhnoo ono wnnnnnnn nom noOO oonofinnoo OHponOooon opn no onnpnn opn on oHpoHno>o op HHopo nonnnna opn mo monnoo .q nonnooo on nnooonnn moonnon onnpnn oonoon no oononmnooo ooonooo can no oHpoHno>o op HHopo ono nonnoononn onfipnn On nono monooon Onapnn op HHopo monnnnz .N ha.av :.wnnnooa opn no noxon monO> anon anon HHo oonHonn Haopo monnnna_opa .onop on ,nonoooo ooooao o ponp3.nom mononnnn no Ooonnnn opn ono .onapnn opn on nono wnnnooe_o no oooa onononooo hno .nnoopo onopsoa .nnooonn onopaoa .oooHn .Oann .Onoo opn monsopo wnnnooa pooo mo nononna noon HHopo hoOp onapnn poou: .H ”osoafiom oo ownnooooonn mo onnonon Hononmmo now honaon anomnnn mononaponoo owe .oz Hana ononom ooasonnm "Amonnnnzv onnonom Hononmmo .4 An.ov =.Anvm ou ANVm nonnooo On nnononnn oonoon op On oonnnoon oonnon hno mo hnoo o anon oooHO nonnm hp hnnon wnnn noonoon opn on once Haopo hoop Onapnn o .ooonnon pone mo owonoon ono wnnnnnnn non nmoo oonoe unnoo caponoooon opn nopn onoa no: no new thooh o no nnoehon o.hnnon wnnnmonoon opn noon ono .nonnononnoo no ennm .nonnonnnomno .Honon>nonn no mo noonoon nonnnn3.opn noes: .N uhHHononow oonooon noonunn on npmnm .o .nonnoonoo no sensor "nom.oem .ooo ..onon .m .oononowo ononm "Anon monsoon -oun concouuenenaoev n-.en on n-.en .oooe .Aonenv oonouoeea. upon oonn o .eowneonz, .e .nnoenonnnonno o>nnononmoa no ononooneaoo up .Ooo .o .nnd ..oan .m .onnonon oonnneaoo onnnononwoq "NH .Ooo .e .nn< ..oan .N .oHonnnOo o>nnoaonwoq "ma .ooo .e .uua .Amoonv conuaunuoooo euwnconz_ .n "moonnOo wanoHHom opn nanonoo noooon opn oonoowwno on nn .Hononow nH .soH oonooon nono nownponz mo xnosponon o hp oono>oo on ownnooooonn mo onnonon Hononmmo wnnnnopow nOnnoaonon ono son nnonnno "Amonnnnzv onnonom Hononmmo .< umwanmmuomm ho mfimommm .> .3oH wnnnonno noon: onnOm on unapnn Hononow opn On nonnonnaooono can now nOnon>Onn 02 .N llO Am.ev :.nomon oonnnHa opn pOHpa on wanooE opn nonmo ohoo moonnoop w nopn onoa non nOHnoononH OHHpnn now oHpoHHo>o op HHopo oonnnna oooononmz “onnoeon Hononnnoen .m An.nv .oo>onnno oo3 nOHoooo oooOHO opn pOHp3 no manooE noHnwon opn mo mononna opn mo Ho>onnno nonmo hoo H ono nooh H oohonnooo op hoe monnnna ooope .mH no .HH .oH nonnooo noon: ooHHm nOHnoo HH>HO o hp ooanoon «H ooooHOono op thO HHopo ono OHHpon opn On oHpoHHo>o op non HHopo .hoop OHHpnn opn mo xnoHo opn hp oonnonon op HHopo oonnnHa ooopH .nOHoooo ooooHO opn no hoop OHHpnn opn mo hnononooo oononwnooo opn no anoHo opn hp noxon op HHopo oonnnna_mo noo onononoo o: .o .o xnonm mo nOHano nonnoHv .manooE.opn mo wnH unOHnOnnm Hoenon opn noon ooonnnn no aonm noonnoHo thonn non oHnoa nopn hos o nn oooa on wnHonooon opn ono hnHOHnnooHo OHHpnn now hon hopn «H wanooa OHHpnn o no wnHonooon onon o wnnxoa.aonm ooanHp none op non hos ooonn opn mo onopeoz .m A.onmn .e .>oz .noohem .z reason nononom ononm on nopronz_mo Hononou honnonno .hoHHoM .o anonm mo nOHano nonnoHv .onnoOHooHo OHHpnn On noompno ono ownHooooonn HHOnnOO hnHO mo oonnnfia onononn on ooon ownHonooon onoH .N .oonoop ono mononowo onono nonnowo nOnnoanHH noon now onno> on nnnoo oHoo .nnnoo nHoonHo hnnnoo BopmnH opn nH thO noo oo3.nnooooonn oHsz "onoz A.No-~emnn-mn .oz season .aorwen no season one now nnnoo anonHo . ooanopm mo o oom nononoom obnnnooxm no moono .u Hnoo ono no Hponz mo _mmummummaummommmmrnaluummm..>.mmmmme .auon noonn nH hopn ono3.non onoop opn.hp oonnoooo noop noh non oop oonnnHE ooopn pmnopn no>o ooonoonn op on oonoono onos oonnnHa_oooononm .H "unnonom Hononmmonn .m .oonooon HoHonoth “mu .Ooo .m .nn< .Amosnv conuoonuoeoo .cuwneonz .o .monooon unconson ono .hnHo .nucooo “use.omn .oos ..onon .u lll nnoEnnnonno nO nnthOHneo now nOHnoOHHeno no mo onnonnoo onMHoo o opn soH>on OH: .o nononnoa Honnoonom .H “nonnofi noohpno hp onOHonHOnm .m Awmv .ononoHonoH ononu opn mo unopeos mo moononoo noonnnom .w AoH.mv .noo opn oHO>o on oonwnooo non ooononomnoo no owanopnow oonopo no HoHOOm .h nom.mv .omn an no son oneness ou reassure oonooHom Honon nOHnonanno n< .o nom.mv .nOHooneBoo onOHnoHon nnthOHeao opn hp oonnnonno Honon nOHnonanno no nononanno n< .m Aow.mv .nOHooHaEOo onnnon nopooon opa .o pr.mv .onoOp oHoonno hannoom nnthOHnao opH .m Aoo.mv .onooo Hoonno nOHnoononaoo o.noanB opH .N Ah.mV .ownHooooonn HoHOHono .H ”honomo no onoOp hm .< wanHHnHOoHo no nOHononono .HooofiaoHo .nnoannHo o ono nnomNOHmmo opn nooHonOO OH: .o "ononnoa HonnOonom .H ”nonnoa noonpno hp onOHonHOxm .m .ooneaoxo hHHoOHmHoono on nonnoa noofipno noHnOHnnon no .onoop .honowo no oooHnn ooonnono wanoonoB oo nooo hHHononow on soH son opa .ononoooo ooooHo oHop oHo ono oHnOO oonoOp onOHno> sowanooE OHHpnn noeo oHop on oonoonoa hHHoOHmnoono mo nnooxm "honomo no onoOp hm .< mquammz zmmo 20mm monamzmxm .H> A.ohmH .o .nnom .nownoHHom.noHHHH3 o>Hnonnooonnon ononm on nownpOHz mo Hononow honnOnn< .hoHHoM 112 HoHononHm Honnoannnoo o o>op oHnOB wanooa nono no nop3_thO nnp .nOHnoanHH wnHonon OHmnoono puns nOHnoonnou nH hwononno nnoaoHnnoo no HoHnn wnHonowon honnonno onH anB.anonOO OH: .o Aowv .oonHonpo on hnnononn Hoon nopn ooooH no oooponnn on nOHnno no oaHn opn on on hnnononn Hoon mo ooooH no oooponnn opn nooHonOO OH: .m Aomv .manoop oooOHO o onoonoon hnnon wanoHnowon noano nop3_nnoaoonwo wanHownop o>nnooHHoo o no nOHnoHnomon opn an3.oonoonnou mnonmooo nOHnoHnowon ono hwononno non: .N prv :.wanoop oooOHo o onoonoon noHononw no nnonon o.nnoonno opn no nnoonno opn nope .mnnononno on nnoonno opn pOHpB nOHnoonoo noppr mo nOHnnanonH no .nOHnnoHo HOOpOo onoHooEnonnH .nOHnnoHo HOOpOo opn mo nnon on hoop OHHpnn opn nop3_nnooono o no wanHHnHOoHo no .nOHononono .HoooHaoHo opn nooHonOO OH: .O Aomv :.wanoop oooOHo o onmonoon noonon ooaon opn nops nnowo HonoH>HonH no .nopeoa muono .ohOHoEo .noonmmo OHHpnn o .nonnowo npwnonp oomnono no mnnHoHnaoo noop on no .mo wanHHnHooHo no none anonmoo .HomoHEoHo opn noononoo OH: .p Anon :.uoo ones on nnonmnnn wanooE nono no on oHop op HHopm oonmmo OHHpnn o on nnoannHonno no nnoehOHgao now hoOp oannn o hp oson>nonnn HHo .no>oaom .Honnnoonmnoo nHoeon nOHnoOHHnno opn nopn onoonoon onoononoo opn nop3 oonmmo OHHpnn o on A.oumau ANV none ..mwmmv :.nOHnoannH mononon . . . oooooHo OH: .o “.mmmmV =.o>oouenonos oooH>Onn no nnooxo .moonopn nOHnHoHnoOo opn no ooonbnoo wnH>Ho>nH non nop .Honoonon ono Hoon pnop .hnnononn mo oHoo no oooponnn opn wnH>Ho>nH onOHnoHnowon hnonHeaHonn nooHonOO OH: .m A.ononv :.nOHnoanHH wnHonon no Honnnonon no wanHownop o>HnooHHoo on noonoon an3_onnonon.EHnonnH ono onOHoooo hwononno monooHo OH: .N A.mmmmV :.wanoop OHHpnn o o>op on noonoon non: npan o o>op HHopo HoHOHmmo oHom HoHOHmmo no peso o>oEon on oopooon on nononooo o Mn .no>o3op oooH>onn .ononooneeoo ono oonoop hnHO On onoanHO mo Ho>oaon no nnoannHonno opn nooHonoo OH: .p .Anenonv one on.3.z mun “moo .eonz.~em .ooooz .> anoonnoooHom :.HHOnnOO onn mo onnoooHn opn no o>noo opB oHoHOHmmo oonnHonno . . . opn mo hno mo 113 AN.NHV .pnop no .nooh H nopn onoE non nom nnoanOoHnnEH nO\ono oo.ooo.~m nopn onos no: mo onHw o "oonommo onooom .N An.~nv .oo.ooo.nn coco once non mo onnm o «ounommo noth .H "ononnonom HonHeHno .o AoH.mv :.oonnmoo hHonOH>onn mo :wnnnooe: o no oonnooo non on ponpa ono HoHnoeoa no onannn mo nOHnoHooon wonthOHHonnon o nnooo On hoOp OHHpnn o mo oonnHEBOO o hm: .p as .2333. Honooom no onono hp onnoOHOoHo no nOHoonOoHo Eonm neaoxo HoHnonoE nooHonOO OH: .m Aowv :.hoop OHHpnn opn mo nOHnHoon nnoeoHnnoo no wanoanHH opn no Aonv noommo A.Amnenv one .soneom sen nunouoenc=_ououuoeruuoz we ooH>v .onOHoH>Onn pono oop o>op pOHpB oonono wH opn nH o>Hnoommo oo noon hHHononom noz "onOHnOnom HonHEHnu .< Hzmzmumthm .HH> AHm~.mH .ooo .AOnenv mmmm:mmmmommm..oemnconzv s.uonuoe HoHOHmmO onH mo oonoanomnoo opn nH onoop o hp noxonnoonn nOHnoanoo>nH no mo anoon no moonwonn .nonnnnnnonn opn ooOHooHo oHnos.pOHp3 wnnnnoonoo onoom opn mo nOHnoOHHpno opn .wano E hno noon non HHopo .wanooa OHHpnn. anon ops: .m A.mmmmV .noonpn opn nooooH no noon on onnomwo on HonnoaHnnoo op oHnoB_Aonoopv opn mo nOHano opn nH .poHpa mo owooHsonx OHHpnn nonnoonnnonn no nOHn mo onoonpn ono>oo nooHonoo Os: .5 A.enonv :.nOHnoononH OHHpnn Eonm 3oH hp nnono hHHoO unmnoono ono pOHpB monooon noononoo OH: .m 114 hHHonOonon op HHopo noo onpn oonoHoH> hHHonOHn unonnH ops Hononmmo OHHpnn o: .o "nunnnoonn noooouoe .e Ao.HHv :.oonHonpO oH moHHon HH>HO «H . . . nOnnoo opn nom moon honnonno Honnoo ono onooo nnnoo no>ooon HHopo noonon opn . . .: .m Am.HHv :.mHoonno mo nnnoo opn nH ooonoEEOO op HHopo . . . hoOp OHHpnn o nonnowo oneoonoa now nOnnoo no: .N 3.3 o5 H.HHV .onnnoo nnoonno opn nH onno> an; doonon o no .hnnnoo opn mo honnonno wannoooonn .Hononow honnonno opn hp npwnoo op hoe hoop OHHpnn HoOOH o nonHowo moHHon o>HnonnnnH .H conuoe nneno .u Am.OHv :.nnoanoono HoHanH onn now oooo onnoooonn opn nH honoHOHmoo o no nOooon hp oHHo>nH oonoHooo op non HHopo ono nnoanoonoon mo onoo opn aonm o>Hnoommo op HHopo nonnoe oHpn nH oonoonoon nonHooo o .noo onpn an3.hnHanomnOo nn nOHoHooo oonnnono opn noonoon . . . hos hoop OHHpnn opn . . .: .N Am.OHv :. . . mnnoaoanoon opn anB ooHHnBoo non mop hoop OHHpnn opn «H oonooHHo>nH op hoe hoOp OHHpnn o hp oooE nOHoHooo o: .H "nonuuonnnnnoz .m .eunnnounn Honoonon no .onaoonoa .nOHnonanH no snow opn nH moHHon HH>Hu now onoonoa nooHO 02 .N .mmmlqmmw..anoonnOooHom on nH oonnonm ooB moHHon o>nnonnfinH .H nOHnO¢ HH>HU .0 A.nxon oomv .noo owanooE nono no onoHOH> hHHoOanoon thO pOHp3.onOHonooo onooHHo>nH on nnononHon noop o>op oonono nopno nH onnnoo .N A.Annenv emu e~.3.z men “on .nn< .pOHz mm .nOHnoonom mo onoom nnopnoon .> mmmmmmva .nOHoooo oooOHo o nH oOoHn xoon nOHnoo opn oonooop noommo on no op On onnom oo3 onnnon wonOoH nopooon o no HoooHsoHo ope .H “donuoonnnnnoz .m 115 Am.mHv .moHHon hnoHneoxo no o>HnOnnfi inn now nOHnoo no pnna oonH0n op hoe mH nOHnooo noon: moonoo now nOHnoo no .p AH.MHV :. . . moom honnonno Honnoo ono onooo nnnoo oan .Honon oo.oomw nopn onoE no: mo mowoaoo hnoHneoxo ono Honnoo now nOHnoo HH>HO o nH oHpoHH APPENDIX B ENROLLED SENATE BILL N0. 920 STATE OF MICHIGAN 78TH LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION OF 1976 Introduced by Senators Plawecki, Corbin, Kammer, O’Brien, Davis, McCOllough, Hertel, Pursell and F axon ENROLLED SENATE BILL NO. 920 AN ACT to require certain meetings of certain public bodies to be Open to the public; tO require notice and the keeping of minutes of meetings; to provide for enforcement; to provide for invalidation of governmental decisions under certain circumstances; tO provide penalties; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts. The People of the State of Michigan enact: Sec. 1. (1) This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Open meetings act”. (2) This act shall supersede all local charter provisions, ordinances, or resolutions which relate to requirements for meetings of local public bodies tO be Open to the public. (3) After the effective date Of this 'act, nothing in this act shall prohibit a public body from adopting an ordinance, resolution, rule, or charter provision which would require a greater degree of openness relative to meetings of public bodies than the standards provided for in this act. Sec. 2. As used in this act: (a) “Public body” means any state or local legislative or governing body, including a board, commission, committee, subcommittee, authority, or council, which is empowered by state constitution, statute, charter, ordinance, resolution, or rule tO exercise governmental or proprietary authority or perform a governmental or proprietary function, or a lessee thereof performing an essential public purpose and function pursuant tO the lease agreement. (b) “Meeting" means the convening Of a public body at which a quorum is present for the purpose of deliberating toward or rendering a decision on a public policy. (0) “Closed session” means a meeting or part Of a meeting Of a public body which is closed to the public. (d) “Decision” means a determination, action, vote, or disposition upon a motion, proposal, recommen- dation, resolution, order, ordinance, bill, or measure on which a vote by members of a public body is required and by which a public body effectuates or formulates public policy. Sec. 3. (1) All meetings of a public body shall be Open to the public and shall be held in a place available tO the general public. All persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided in this act. (2) All decisions of a public body shall be made at a meeting Open to the public. (3) All deliberations of a public body constituting a quorum Of its members shall take place at a meeting Open tO the public except as otherwise provided in sections 7 and 8. (4) A person shall not be required as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a public body to register or otherwise provide his name or other information or otherwise tO fulfill a condition precedent to attendance. (94) (5) A person shall be permitted to address a meeting of a public body under rules established and recorded by the public body. The legislature or a house 0 the legislature may provide by rule that the right to address may be limited to prescribed times at hearings and committee meetings only. (6) A person shall not be excluded from a public meeting except for a breach of the peace actually committed at the meeting. (7) This act shall not apply to judicial proceedings but shall apply to a court while exercising rule-making authority and while deliberating or deciding upon the issuance of administrative orders. (8) This act shall not apply to the following boards, commission, or panel only when deliberating the merits of a case: (a) The worker’s compensation appeal board created under Act No. 317 of the Public Acts of 1969, as amended, being sections 418.101 to 418.941 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. (b) The employment security appeals board created under Act No. l of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1936, as amended, being sections 421.1 to 421.67 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. (c) The teacher tenure commission created under Act No. 4 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1937, as amended, being sections 38.71 to 38.191 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, when acting as a board of review from the decision of a controlling board. (d) An arbitrator or arbitration panel appointed by the employment relations commission pursuant to the authority given the commission by Act No. 176 of the Public Acts of 1939, as amended, being sections 423.1, to 423.30 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. (e) An arbitration panel selected pursuant to chapter 50A of Act N o. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, being sections 600.5040 to 600.5065 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. (9) This act shall not apply to a committee of a public body which adopts a nonpolicymaking resolution of tribute or memorial and which is not adopted at a meeting as defined in section 2. (10) This act shall not apply to a meeting which is a social or chance gathering or conference not designed to avoid this act. Sec. 4. The following provisions shall apply with respect to public notice of meefings: (a) A public notice shall always contain the name of the public body to which the notice applies, its telephone number if one exists, and its address. (b) A public notice for a public body shall always be posted at its principal office and any other locations considered appropriate by the public body. (0) If a public body is a part of a state department, part of the legislative or judicial branch of state government, part of an institution of higher education, or part of a political subdivision or school district, a public notice shall also be posted in the respective principal office of the state department, the institution of higher education, clerk of the house of representatives, secretary of the state senate, clerk of the supreme court, or political subdivision or school district. ((1) If a public body does not have a principal office, the required public notice for a local public body shall be posted in the office of the county clerk in which the public body serves and the required public notice for a state public body shall be posted in the office of the secretary of state. See. 5. (1) A meeting of a public body shall not be held unless public notice is given as provided in this section by a person designated by the public body. (2) For regular meetings of a public body, there shall be posted within 10 days after the first meeting of the public body in each calendar or fiscal year a public notice stating the dates, times, and places of its regular meetings. (3) If there is a change in the schedule of regular meetings of a public body, there shall be posted within 3 days after the meeting at which the change is made, a public notice stating the new dates, times, and places of its regular meetings. (4) For a rescheduled regular or a special meeting of a public body, a public notice stating the date, time, and place of the meeting shall be posted at least 18 hours before the meeting. The requirement of 18 hour notice shall not apply to special meetings of subcommittees. (5) A meeting of a public body which is recessed for more than 36 hours shall be reconvened only after public notice, which is equivalent to that required under subsection (4) has been posted. If either house of the state legislature is adjourned or recessed for less than 18 hours, the notice provisions of subsection (4) are not applicable. Nothing in this section shall bar a public body from meeting in emergency session in the event of a severe and imminent threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the public when 2/3 of the members serving on the body decide that delay would be detrimental to efforts to lessen or respond to the threat. Sec. 6. (1) Upon the written request of an individual, organization, firm, or corporation, and upon the requesting party’s payment of a yearly fee of not more than the reasonable estimated cost for printing and postage of such notices, a public body shall send to the requesting party by first class mail a copy of any notice required to be posted pursuant to section 5(2) to (5). (2) Upon written request, a public body, at the same time a public notice of a meeting is posted pursuant to section 5, shall provide a copy of the public notice of that meeting to any newspaper published in the state and to any radio and television station located in the state, free of charge. Sec. 7. (l) A 2/3 roll call vote of members elected or appointed and serving shall be required to call a closed session, except for the closed sessions permitted under section 8(a), (b), (c), and (g). The roll call vote and the purpose or purposes for calling the closed session shall be entered into the minutes of the meeting at which the vote is taken. (2) A separate set of minutes shall be taken by the clerk or the designated secretary of the public body at the closed session. These minutes shall be retained by the clerk of the public body, shall not be available to the public, and shall only be disclosed if required by a civil action filed under section 10, 11, or 13. These minutes may be destroyed 1 year and 1 day after approval of the minutes of the regular meeting at which the closed session was approved. Sec. 8. A public body may meet in closed session only for the following purposes: (a) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual agent, when the named person requests a closed hearing. (b) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of a student when the public body is part of the school district, intermediate school district, or institution of higher education which the student is attending, when the student or the student’s parent or guardian requests a closed .hearing. (0) For strategy and negotiation sessions connected with the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement when either negotiating party requests a closed hearing. (d) To consider the purchase or lease of real property up to the time an option to purchase or lease that real property is obtained. (e) To consult with its attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy in connection with specific pending litigation, but only when an open meeting would have a detrimental financial effect on the litigating or settlement position of the public body. (f) To review the specific contents of an application for employment or appointment to a public office when the candidate requests that the application remain confidential. However, all interviews by a public body for employment or appointment to a public office shall be held in an open meeting pursuant to this act. (g) Partisan caucuses of members of the state legislature. (h) To consider material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal statute. Sec. 9. (1) Each public body shall keep minutes of each meeting showing the date, time, place, members present, members absent, any decisions made at a meeting Open to the public, and the purpose or purposes for which a closed session is held. The minutes shall include all roll call votes taken at the meeting. (2) Minutes shall be public records open to public inspection and shall be available at the address designated on posted public notices pursuant to section 4. COpies of the minutes shall be available to the public at the reasonable estimated cost for printing and copying. (3) Proposed minutes shall be available for public inspection not more than 8 business days after the meeting to which the minutes refer. Approved minutes shall be available for public inspection not later than 5 business days after the meeting at which the minutes are approved by the public body. Sec. 10. (1) Decisions of a public body shall be presumed to have been adopted in compliance with the requirements of this act. The attorney general, the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the public body serves, or any person may commence a civil action in the circuit court to challenge the validity of a decision of a public body made in violation of this act. (2) A decision made by a public body may be invalidated if the public body has not complied with the requirements of section 3(1), (2), and (3) in making the decision or if failure to give notice in accordance with section 5 has interfered with substantial compliance with section 3(1), (2), and (3) and the court finds that the noncompliance or failure has impaired the rights of the public under this act. (3) The circuit court shall not have jurisdiction to invalidate a decision of a public body for a violation of this act unless an action is commenced pursuant to this section within the following specified period of time: (a) Within 60 days after the approved minutes are made available to the public by the public body except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b). (b) If the decision involves the approval of contracts, the receipt or acceptance of bids, the making of assessments, the procedures pertaining to the issuance of bonds or other evidences of indebtedness, or the submission of a borrowing proposal to the electors, within 30 days after the approved minutes are made available to the public pursuant to that decision. (4) Venue for an action under this section shall be any county in which a local public body serves or, if the decision of a state public body is at issue, in Ingham county. (5) In any case where an action has been initiated to invalidate a decision of a public body on the ground that it was not taken in conformity with the requirements of this act, the public body may, without being deemed to make any admission contrary to its interest, reenact the disputed decision in conformity with this act. A decision reenacted in this manner shall be effective from the date of reenactment and shall not be declared invalid by reason of a deficiency in the procedure used for its initial enactment. Sec. 11. (1) If a public body is not complying with this act, the attorney general, prosecuting attorney of the county in which the public body serves, or a person may commence a civil action to compel compliance or to enjoin further noncompliance with this act. (2) An action for injunctive relief against a local public body shall be commenced in the circuit court, and venue is proper in any county in which the public body serves. An action for an injunction against a state public body shall be commenced in the circuit court and venue is proper in any county in which the public body has its principal office, or in Ingham county. If a person commences an action for injunctive relief, that person shall not be required to post security as a condition for obtaining a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order. (3) An action for mandamus against a public body under this act shall be commenced in the court of appeals. (4) If a public body is not complying with this act, and a person commences a civil action against the public body for injunctive relief to compel compliance or to enjoin further noncompliance with the act and succeeds in obtaining relief in the action, the person shall recover court costs and actual attorney fees for the action. Sec. 12. (l) A public official who intentionally violates this act is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00. (2) A public official who is convicted of intentionally violating a provision of this act for a second time within the same term shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $2,000.00, or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both. Sec. 13. (1) A public official who intentionally violates this act shall be personally liable in a civil action for actual and exemplary damages of not more than $500.00 total, plus court costs and actual attorney fees to a person or group of persons bringing the action. (2) Not more than 1 action under this section shall be brought against a public official for a single meeting. An action under this section shall be commenced within 180 days after the date of the violation which gives rise to the cause of action. (3) An action for damages under this section may be joined with an action for injunctive or exemplary relief under section 11. Sec. 14. Act No. 261 of the Public Acts of 1968, being sections 15.251 to 15.253 of the Compiled Laws of 1970, is repealed. Sec. 15. This act shall take effect January 1, 1977. APPENDIX C TRANSCRIPT or LANSING CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 1975 RELATING To PASSAGE OF RULE 49 TRANSCRIPT OF LANSING CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 1975 RELATING TO PASSAGE OF RULE 49 City Clerk Theo Fulton: "By Councilman Belen--Whereas . . ." Councilman Lucile Belen: "Mr. Mayor." Mayor Gerald Graves: "Councilman Belen." REESE: "This is the amendment to the council rules which provide for executive sessions for consideration of board appointments, personnel matters, purchasing of real estate and matters of that type. This is being recommended by the city attorney and has been prepared by him for addition to our council rules. I would like to move they be considered read and they be approved." Unidentified councilman: "Support." Graves: "Moved and supported that the resolution amending the council rules be considered read and an affirmative roll be attached." Councilman James Blair: "Mr. Mayor." Graves: "Councilman Blair." Blair: "Just receiving a copy Of this new rules change this afternoon, I haven't had a chance to study it as thoroughly as I hoped I would be able to. But in reading it this evening and during supper, I did come up with many questions which I feel I'd like to have answered possibly before we vote on this. 120 121 "As being a person who's asked for Open meetings and trying to get this council to go on record as keeping open meetings, I do not want to do anything that would stop having a rule being put on the council books that would help us have these open meetings. ”But I really feel this is a half attempt at open meetings. I have very many questions that have come up . . . (Councilman Joel Ferguson coughs near a microphone) . . . Are you through, Mr. Ferguson?" Councilman Joel Ferguson: "Okay." Blair: "I have had many questions that have come up while I have been reading it, such as the first section, it says 'council shall meet in executive session only for the following purposes.‘ Does this mean official meetings of the city council or does it mean unofficial meetings Of the city council when more than a quorum Of them are together? "Does this mean that this is council committees, or does this just mean the committee of the whole? Many of our committees of council have just as much control over events in their committee sessions as the council does as a whole. Are we actually talking about forms of councils or are we just talking of official city council meetings? Some other questions I've come up with. 122 "I really haven't had a chance to compare this open meeting rule with other open meetings laws of other communities. I was hoping that before we saw . . . ah . . . when we saw this, that we would have a chance to check with the Municipal League and have some other open meetings rules that we could look at. "I'd like to know in what areas that there are penalties for violations. It says that the council shall not do it but there seems to be no penalties or any action if such a meeting goes on. I think that the whole idea of a code Of ethics—-the ethics of the council as it has to do with open meetings--needs a lot more discussion before we pass this type of a piece Of a council rule change. I think that more time needs to be spent on it and I think that if we really want to have open meetings up here, that this thing needs a lot more looking into than I think we've really had a chance. I'd like to have a whole lot more discussion on it. I would like to have this council send this to the committee of the whole for one week so that I could have some time to look at this thing over a little better because, again, I didn't receive it. I had to request a copy from the city clerk this afternoon at about 2 o'clock." REESE: "Mr. Mayor." Graves: "Councilman Belen." 123 Belen: "I would like to point out to Mr. Blair that you got a copy of the opinion Of the city attorney over a week ago and this contains the same language as the opinion. Now, if you didn't read it in one week, then, perhaps you wouldn't read it in another week." Councilman John Anas: "Mr. Mayor." Graves: "Councilman Anas." Anas: "Mr. Mayor. Mr. Blair has been with us now almost two years. I can't remember too many meetings where we have attempted to have a so-called closed session. And, prior to that time, the nine years prior to that time, we've had very few so-called closed sessions. Sometimes they're referred to as secret meetings, incorrectly, because I defy anybody in this city to have a so-called secret meeting and get away with it. There's just no such animal. "Very frankly, I can think of no particular meeting where we have had occasion to have a so-called closed meeting where we were in violation of these precepts established or set down by (city attorney) Mr. (Peter) Houk. And I don't know where people keep getting the notion that the Lansing City Council has closed meetings or meetings where the public is not entitled to have the information and is not entitled to be in attendance because this just doesn't occur that frequently. I think it's too bad we have to keep running on this subject because it isn't an area where 124 we of this council violate the basic precepts of governmental body meetings and hold 'em in public and I think it's too bad to have to keep enlarging and talk and when we make so much to do about this because there isn't that much to do about it." Ferguson: ”Mr. Mayor." Graves: "Councilman Ferguson." Ferguson: "I almost agree with Mr. Anas. I think Mr. Blair has been here in the council for two years although he hasn't been with us. I might think that it's just totally impossible to have a secret meeting with Mr. Blair here. I don't know why he keeps beating us over the head saying that we've had secret meetings because that is not been the think that has happened. We've had some meetings Where, in error, we could have expanded on a subject longer than we should have, but, the council has never intentionally had secret meetings to do the city's business. In fact, every action that we take has to be voted upon before the full council. "The problems we have right now are Mr. Blair wants to dialogue this alleged secret meetings matter as he runs interference for other individuals. And.what's really hurting is we don't end up talking about the real issues and the real problems of the city. "SO, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move to question." Blair: "Mr. Mayor." Graves: "The question's been moved, is there a support?" 125 Several: "Support." Graves: "The question's been moved. Proceed with the vote. The question's on the motion by Councilman Ferguson and we shall vote without further debate. All those in favor say aye." Several: "Aye." Graves: "Opposed, say no." Blair: "No." Graves: "Clerk will call the roll." Fulton: "Councilman Anas." Anas: "Aye." Fulton: "Belen." Belen: "Aye." Fulton: "Blair." Blair: "NO." Fulton: "Brenke." Brenke: "Aye." Fulton: "Ferguson." Ferguson: "Aye." Fulton: "Gunther." Gunther: "Aye." Fulton: "May." M: "Aye. " Fulton: "McKane." McKane: "Aye." Fulton: "Seven ayes and one nay." Graves: "Question's on the motion by Councilman Lucile Belen. Resolution be considered read, affirmative 126 roll be attached. All those in favor say aye." Several: "Aye." Graves: "Opposed, say no." Blair: "No." Graves: "Clerk will call the roll." Fulton: "Councilman Anas." Anas: "Aye." Fulton: "Belen." Belen: "Aye." Fulton: "Blair." Blair: "Aye-~33!" (laughter) Fulton: "Brenke." Brenke: "Aye." Fulton: "Ferguson." Fer on: "Aye." Fulton: "Gunther." Gunther: "Aye." Fulton: "May." E213 "Aye." Fulton: "McKane." McKane: "Aye." Fulton: "Seven ayes, one nay." Graves: "I will say that Councilman Ferguson made a tremendous story of no secret meetings when he knows it's not fact and I know it's not fact." 127 Unidentified: "That's correct." Graves: "Councilman Ferguson, you've been at meetings that we haven't even been invited to. (Laughter) And for you to sit here and say there have been no secret meetings is an untruth. And, I'll ask you if you were at the meeting when members Of this body, when I was first elected, hired a private detective agency to look into my background with help from a TV station and a newspaper. And this council, the night I took office, paid the bill. Were you at the meeting?" _Ferguson: "I'm not aware of such a meeting." Belen: "I'm not aware of such a meeting." Graves: All right, it should come out in the future hearings on WJIM on competence." Ferguson: "Mr. Mayor, what we should have is a grand jury to find out why we haven't had a grand jury." Graves: "Mr. Ferguson, I'll produce you the bills." Belen: "Well, there's certainly no (inaudible)." Graves: "And Ferguson voted for those bills." Anas: "It was not a council meeting, sir." Graves: "That council session-~if there are more than five members at a meeting somewhere else--you don't call it a council session? Well, I think Mr. Blair is on the right track because I haven't been at meetings or even been notified of some meetings. And I think that charter says the mayor is a member of 128 every board and every committee." Unidentified: "That's right." Graves: "I've been notified some days the same day of the meeting; I've been notified after we've been here and nobody showed up that the council committee has been changed to some other location. And I don't look kindly on it. For a man like MrzFerguson, who knows that bill was paid out of city funds to a Grand Rapids private detective agency, to sit here and say that 'Mr. Blair, you're wrong,' well, that's an untruth, Mr. Ferguson, and I will not accept you calling that man wrong when I know personally in my heart he's right." Ferguson: "Mr. Mayor. Senator McCarthy, I know that he used to, you know, I, uh, he used to do it that way. But I think you owe it to the news media and to everyone here to produce copies of those bills that councilmen Ferguson, Belen, Anas, May, who were on the council at that time voted for. I think that . . ." Graves: "They will be produced." Ferguson: "They certainly should be. What's just happened here illustrates What I said earlier in the meeting that this whole dialogue on alleged secret meetings is a political ploy to run interference for certain individuals. And I don't feel that it could be more graphically illustrated than by this latest outburst of this thing that allegedly happened. That the mayor speaks forth with great authority and, being the mayor 129 of the city, has access to these records and everything else where we voted on the transfer and now he thinks he knows (inaudible) happened and can't produce the documents." Graves: "I didn't say I couldn't produce them, Mr. Ferguson. - They were produced at a federal meeting and they will be be up at another federal meeting shortly. Ferguson: "Mr. Mayor. That's the other point I said earlier. I think what we should have in this city is a grand jury to find out why we haven't had a grand jury." Graves: "It would be interresting. When a man can buy a major apartment house with repairs for $300,000 as a member of this council, forward a communication to a law firm in Washington, be advised that he can buy it back in another corporation for $750,000, and I'll produce that letter, Mr; Ferguson. It was addressed to you. You do own the Embassy Apartments at this time, don't you? I'll produce that for you this week. Addressed from a Washington law firm." Ferguson: "Fine." Graves: "All right." Ferguson: "And the money too. I'd like to spend some of it, sir. 13292;: "Mr. Mayor. " Graves: "Councilman Blair." Bluug: "I think that it's very unfortunate that remarks were made that my reason for opposing this council rule is because Of the election coming up. I think that 130 this, by its own admission one week before the election, is a half-hearted attempt to try to snow the public into thinking that the council has open meetings. I can't say that I would not support this, but when it's attempted to bring these things in, to shuffle them in at the last minute on you, something of this magnitude, which our council rules were developed over very many years, and to not have a chance to have these things checked by our municipal league and by other governmental agencies around and compared to some of the bills that are in the legislature with open meetings, I think, is very dangerous. Graves: "In regard to the investigation, Mr. Ferguson, I happened to see a copy of the report and I've seen the account numbers. Insofar as secrecy goes, I'd like to ask Mrs. (Jacqueline) warr (former Model Cities director and currently heading Community Development) signed a purchase order for church pews in Henderson, Texas before the approval went through and they were delivered? Can you advise me Of that while we're talking about secretness? £253: "Mr. Mayor, you are also aware of the fact that that has been investigated by the controller's office and I would not Sign purchase orders for any other agency (inaudible). Graves: "Your name is on the purchase order, m'am." 131 Warr: "Purchase orders, as they are sent through in terms of requisitions are cO-signed. I would not sign anything that the city controller doesn't sign, nor have I ever." Graves: "We'll produce those for you." Warr: "Fine." Graves: "Clerk will read." Fulton: "Resolutions approving the following contracts . . ." B IBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Public Documents California. Government Code (1953). Sec. 54950. Florida. Statutes Annotated Su . 1 72). Sec. 286.011. Indiana. Statutes (1953). Sac. 49-3907. Iowa. Code, Annotated (Supp. 1973). Sec. 28A.4. Lansing, Michigan, Charter Comission. A Report to the People on the Proposed Charter. 1976. , City Council. Council Proceedings. Oct. 27, 1975, pp. 921-2. Proposed Open Meetipg Ordinance. Jan., 1976. Massachusetts. General Laws, Annotated (1973). C. 39, sec. 23C. Michigan. Constitution (1908). Art. 5, sec. 18. Constitution (1965). Art. 4, sec. 17, Art. 4, sec. 20, Art. 8, sec. 4. Cpppiled Laws,.Annotated (1970). Secs. 15.251-3, 38.411, 38.457, 38.552, 38.1032, 41.72b, 46.3, 65.4, 65.5, 88.6, 88.7, 124.425, and 340.561. Enrolled Senate Bill NO, 920 (1976). House Bill NO, 4380 (1976). House Bill NO, 2405 (1976). House Bill No, 5684 (1976). House Bill No. 5931 (1976). Journal of the House of Represenpapives. 78th Legislature, Regular Session, 1976. LXXXXVIII, 2729-31. . Journal Of the Senate. 78th Legislature, Regular Session, 1976. LXXXIX, 1752-54. 132 133 Journal of the Sepate. 78th Legislature, Regular Session, 1976. LXXXXVII, 1924. Letter opinion of Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, to State Representative William Ballenger, Sept. 14, 1970. Letter opinion of Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, to State Senator William Faust, Apr. 17, 1972. Letter opinion of Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, May 22, 1972. Letter opinion of Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, to State Senator Daniel S. Cooper, Apr. 26, 1976. Letter opinion of Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, to State Senator Joseph M. Snyder, Nov. 4, 1976. Official Recogd, Constitutional Convention, 1961. Lansing: Speaker, Hines, & Thomas, 1961. OAG 4427 (July 8, 1965). OAG 4676 (Aug. 13, 1969). OAG 1372 (Jan. 3, 1972). OAG 4820 (June 7, 1974). Public Acts 279 (1909). Sec. 3(L). Legal Cases Basset v. Braddock. 262 So.2d (F1a.) 425 (1972). Glen A. Boissonneault and Booth Newspapers, Inc., A Michigan Copporation doipg business as THE FLINT JOURNAL, v. Carl Mason, Woody Etherly, Gerald Yurk, Fred Tucker, John Northrpp, Douglas Philpott, Francis Limmer and Edward Little. State of Michigan in the Circuit Court for the County of Genesee. Opinion No. 21123 (1974): Also cited as Boissonneault v. Mason. 392 Mich. 685; 225 N.W.2d 519 (1974). Conover, et al v. Board of Edupation of Nebo School District, et a1. 1 Utah 375; 267 P2d 768 (1954). Dobrovolny v. Reinhardt. 173 N.W.Zd 837 (Iowa 1969). Fucinari v. Dearborn Board of Education. 32 Mich. App. 108; 188 N.W.2d 229 (1971). 134 In re John Lilburne. 4. How. St. Tr. 1270, 1273-4 (Commission of Oyer & Terminer, England, 1649). Nowack v; Auditor General. 243 Mich. 200 (1928). PIRGIM v. Board of Pharmacy of State of Michigan and Carl E. Cross, Jr., Executive Secretapy, Board of Pharmacy. State of Michigan in the Circuit Court for the County of Ingham. Docket No. 75-17842- CZ. Books Cooper, Kent. The Right to Know. New York: Fararr, Strauss & Cudahy, Cross, Harold L. The People's Right to Know: Legal Access to Public Records and Proceedings. Morningside Heights, N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1953. Dahl, Robert A. Who Governs? New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961. Hume, David. History_of England. Edinburgh: 1809. Cited by Wiggins, James Russell. Freedom or Secrecy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1956. Macaulay, Thomas Babington. The History of Epgland. London: Mac- Pickerell, Albert G. and Feder, Edward L. Open Public Meetings of Legislative Bodies: California's Brown Act. Berkely, Calif.: Bureau of Public Administration, University of California at Berkely, 1957. Taswell-Langmead, T. P. English Constitutional History, 9th ed. Cited by Cross, Harold L. The People's Right to Know. Morningside Heights, N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1953. Thayer, Frank. Le a1 Control of the Press, 2d ed. Cited by Cross, Harold L. The People's Right to Know. Morningside Heights, N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1953. Wiggins, James Russell. Freedom or Secrecy. New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1956. Wilson, Woodrow. The New Freedom. New York: Doubleday, Page 8 Co., 1913. 135 Articles and Periodicals Baldwin, Judith Murrill. "Access Laws: Development." Freedom of Information Center Publication No. 86. Columbia, Missouri: School of Journalism, University of Missouri (1962). Parks, Wallace. "The Open.Government Principle: Applying the Right to Know Under the Constitution," The George Washington Law Review, XXVI (October, 1957), p. 1. Tugman, W.M; "The People's Right to Know," [Spate Government, XXVII (1954), p. 225. Thompson, William. "F01 and State Attorneys General." Freedom of Information Center Publication No. 307. Columbia, Missouri: School of Journalism, University of Missouri (1962). Wickham, Douglas Q. "Let the Sun Shine Inlz Open-Meeting Legislation Can Be Our Key to Closed Doors in State and Local Government," Northwestern University Law Review, LXVIII (1973), p. 480. Newspapers Christian Science Monitor (Boston). Feb. 7, 1957, assim. Detroit Free Press. July 15, 1959. Jan. 25, 1976, p. 2-C. Sept. 17, 1976, p. 3. . Sept. 19, 1976, p. 2-F. Grand Blanc News. Jan. 8,1976, n.p. Jackson Citizen Patriot. Mar. 10, 1976, p. 3. Kalamazoo Gazette. Feb. 12, 1976, p. A-6. Lansing Star. Oct. 30, 1975, p. 10. Mengpgnee Herald-Leader. Feb. 4, 1976, p. 4. Oakland Press. Sept. 21, 1976, p. A-4. Port Huron Times-Herald. Feb. 4, 1976, p. 5. 136 The State Journal (Lansing). Nov. 21, 1972, p. B-2. . June 26, 1975, p. B-12. . Oct. 20, 1975, p. A-l4. . Oct. 26, 1975, p. B-5. . Oct. 28, 1975, p. B-l. . Nov. 2, 1975, p. B-3. Dec. 3, 1975, p. B-7. . Feb. 4, 1976, p. B-9. Feb. 6, 1976, p. B-3. Feb. 8, 1976, p. D-l. Feb. 10, 1976, p. A-6. Mar. 6, 1976, p. A-6. . Apr. 29, 1976, p. A-12. June 9, 1976, p. B-S. Aug. 22, 1976, pp. A-l-3. . Sept. 14, 1976, p. B-2. . Sept. 20, 1976, p. A-4. . Sept. 28, 1976, p. B-2. Oct. 7, 1976, p. A-12. . Oct. 30, 1976, p. B-2. Nov. 19, 1976, p. B-2. The State News. Dec. 5, 1975, p. 1. Letters Letter from Charlotte Copp, President, The League of Women Voters of Michigan, to Rep. Thomas Brown, May 10, 1976. Letter from Zolton Ferency, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, to Rep. Thomas Brown, May 4, 1976. 137 Letter of Douglas Finley, Assistant Director, Lansing Parks and Recre- ation Department to Jean MacDonald, President, Eastside Neighbor- hood Organization, Apr. 9, 1975. Letter from Gerald W. Graves, Mayor of Lansing to Carl L. Parks, Apr. 22, 1976. Letter from Peter Houk, Lansing City Attorney to Gerald W. Graves, Mayor of Lansing, July 18, 1974. Interoffice Communication from Peter D. Houk, Lansing City Attorney, to Lucile Belen, Chairman, Ordinances and Contracts Committee of the Lansing City Council, March 9, 1976. A Jefferson, Thomas. "Letter to Coray, 1823." Democpacy, ed. Saul K. Padover. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, Inc., 1939, p. 164. . "Letter to Judge Tyler, 18043"‘ Democrac , ed. Saul K. Padover. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, Inc., 1939, p. 163. Letter from Malcom Katz, Deputy Superintendent, Michigan Department of Education, to Rep. Thomas Brown, May 12, 1976. Letter from Jerome R. Lawler to Gerald W. Graves, Mayor of Lansing, June 17, 1974. Letter from Carl Levin, President, Detroit Common Council, to Rep. Thomas Brown, May 20, 1976. Madison, James. "Letter to W. T. Barry, August 4, 1822." The Complete Madison, ed. Saul K. Padover. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953, p. 337. Letter from Fred L. Mathews, Chairman, Board of Trustees, Southwestern Michigan College, Dowagiac, Michigan, to Rep. Thomas Brown, May 7, 1976. Letter from Tim Richard, Editorial Director, The Observer & Eccentric Newspapers, to Rep. Thomas H. Brown, Apr. 30, 1976. Letter from Richard A. Ross, Michigan Personnel Director, to Rep. Thomas Brown, May 10, 1976. Letter of Lyle L. Stephens, Chairman, Lansing Public Service Board to Jean MacDonald, President, Eastside Neighborhood Organization, June 5, 1975. Letter of Stanley A. Thompson, Superintendent of Inland Lakes Schools, to Rep. Thomas Brown, May 3, 1976. Letter from Elmer E. White, Executive Secretary, Michigan Press Associa- tion, to Rep. Thomas H. Brown, May 5, 1976. '138 Proceedings and Hearings Lansing, Michigan. Proceedings of the city council. Oct. 27, 1975. . Hearing of the Lansing city council relative to the Baker- Hull Open Meetings proposal. Feb. 10, 1976. Proceedings of the Ordinances and Contracts Committee of the city council. Sept. 23, 1976. . Proceedings of the Committee of the Whole of the city council. Sept. 27, 1976. Michigan House of Representatives. Hearing of the Towns and Counties Committee in Lansing, relative to House Bills 5684 and 5405. Dec. 10, 1975. (Tape Recorded). Hearing of the Towns and Counties Committee in Livonia, relative to House Bills 5684 and 5405. Dec. 15, 1975. (Tape Recorded). . Hearing of the Towns and Counties Committee in Kalamazoo, relative to House Bills 5684 and 5405. Feb. 11, 1976. (Tape Recorded). Press Releases Press release from Thomas H. Brown, Chairman House Towns and Counties Committee, Jan. 16, 1976. Press release from Rep. Thomas H. Brown, June 25, 1976. Press release from Rep. Thomas H. Brown, July 9, 1976. Press release from.Sen. David Plawecki, Sept. 6, 1976. Press release from the governor's office, Oct. 5, 1976. Speeches By Rep. Bobby D. Crim, Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives, to the Michigan House, Jan 14, 1976, By William G. Milliken, Governor of Michigan, "State of the State - Message," January, 1976. By Rep. David C. Hollister, D-Lansing, "A New Day of Sunshine in Michigan," to the Michigan Press Association, Jan. 30, 1976. 139 By Rep. David C. Hollister, D-Lansing, to a press conference, Sept. 16, 1976. Other Sources Interview with Dick Baker, Lansing City Councilman, Sept. 1, 1976. Interview with Dick Baker, Sept 23, 1976. Interview‘with Bob Black, assistant to the Lansing mayor, Sept. 23, 1976. Interview with James Blair, Lansing City Councilman, Feb. 10, 1976. Conversation'with James Blair, Oct. 8, 1976. Interview with Jack Gunther, Lansing City Councilman, Nov. 1, 1976. Conversation'with Mary Haney, Lansing hotel and restaurant owner, Feb. 10, 1976. Interview with Rep. David C. Hollister, D-Lansing, Oct. 14, 1975. Interview with Mike Hughes, Lansing State Journal reporter, Apr. 12, 1976. Conversation with Ray James, reporter for WILx-TV, Nov. 2, 1976. Interview with Neil Krentzin, Michigan House Towns and Counties Committee aide, Sept, 28, 1976. Interview with Jerome R. Lawler, President Eastside Neighborhood Organi- zation, Oct. 4, 1976. ' Interview with Beth Leeson, aide to Sen. David Plawecki, Sept. 29, 1976. Conversation with Dan Poorman, Lansing State Journal reporter, Oct. 21, 1976. SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL READING Adams, John B. State Open Meetings Lawg: an Overview. Columbia, Missouri: Freedom.of Information Foundation, 1974. Baldwin, Judith Murrill. "Access Laws: Comparison." Freedom of Information Center Publication No. 87. Columbia, Missouri: School of Journalism, University of Missouri (1962). "Access Laws: Interpretations." Freedom of Information Center Publication No. 88. Columbia, Missouri: School of Journalism, University of Missouri (1962). 140 "Access Laws: Defeats." Freedogiof Information Center Publication No. 89. Columbia, Missouri: School of Journalism, University of Missouri (1962). Barnes, Ruth Mayes. "Government in the Sunshine: Promise or Placebo?" University of Florida Law Review, XXIII (1971), pp. 361-375. Brenner, D. J. "Covering Local Government." Freedom of Information Center Publication No. 106. Columbia, Missouri: School of Journalism, University of Missouri (1963). Clarke, Jack. "Open Meeting Laws: An Analysis." Freedom of Information Center Report No. 338. Columbia, Missouri: School of Journal- ism, University of Missouri (June, 1975). Higginbotham, Robert. “The Case Law of Open Meetings Laws." Freedom of Information Center Report No. 354. Columbia, Missouri: School of Journalism, University of Missouri (May, 1976). Kalb, Earl L. Jr. "Florida Sunshine Law: Is Florida Sunshine the Most Powerful of Disinfectants?" Florida Bar Journal, XLIX (Feb., 1975). PP. 72-82. Miller, Susan. "City Council Executive Sessions." Freedom of Infor- mation Center Publication No. 118. Columbia, Missouri: School of Journalism, University of Missouri (1964). "Open Meeting Statutes: The Press Fights for the 'Right to Know,'" Harvard Law Review, LXXV (1962), p. 1199. Peterson, C. Petrus. "The Legislatures and the Press," State Govern- ment, XXVII (1954), p. 223. Petrini, Edward, and Stone, Amy. State Secrets: .Freedom of Information in Michigan (Lansing, Mi.: Public Interest Research Group in Michigan (PIRGIM) , 1975). HICHIGRN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES 11111111 41 9 Hlllllll lllll I"!!! 9 "III!” 312 310014 1