Public information governing meetings/open meetings

Open Discussion - for our Readers, Islanders, and Web Site Visitors alike. Discussion regarding any and all aspects of Beaver Island are welcome here. Also a place for general Beaver Island conversation and discussion.

Moderator: Gillespie

Post Reply
Cathy Bauman

Public information governing meetings/open meetings

Post by Cathy Bauman »

This is information directly from the Opinions of the Attorney General relating to FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT - thru july, 1997
#22 states: The provision of the OPEN MEETINGS ACT permitting a public body to meet in closed session for a personnel evaluation is
NOT a statute that specifically describes and EXEMPTS the evaluation from disclosure under the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT so as to exempt the personnel evaluation from disclosure....Evaluations prepared by individual members of a Board
ARE SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE, if there is no intervening deliberative process between the creation of the individual evaluations and the adoption of a FINAL evaluation by the Board.
Attorney General Opinion #6668,pg.409, Nov., 28, 1990.

MICHIGAN's OPEN MEETINGS ACT (Public Act No.267, of 1976 as
amended: Closed Meetings: The law provides for closed meetings in a FEW SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES. In order for a Public body to hold a closed meeting, two-thirds of its members MUST vote affirmatively in a roll call. Also, the purpose for which the closed meeting is being called HAS TO BE stated in the meeting when the roll call is taken.

Closed Meetings MAY BE CALLED without a two thirds vote for the following reasons: (1) considering the dismissal, suspension or disciplining of, or to hear complaints, or charges brought against a public officer, EMPLOYEE, STAFF MEMBER or INDIVIDUAL *****
WHEN THE PERSON REQUESTS A CLOSED HEARING..............*****

(Sue Meis did not request a closed hearing, meeting.)

"DECISION" means a determination, action, vote or disposition upon a motion, proposed, recommendation, 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.

(The BIRHC Board made a decision NOT to renew Sue Meis' contract.... that decision process IS PUBLIC RECORD.......)

MINUTES OF A MEETING: Minutes MUST be kept for ALL meetings and are REQUIRED TO CONTAIN: 1) a statement of time, date, and place of meeting; 2) The members present as well as absent;
3) A RECORD OF ANY DECISIONS MADE at the meeting and a record of all roll call votes; and 4) an EXPLANATION for the purpose(s) IF
THE MEETING IS A CLOSED SESSION.

EXCEPT for minutes taken during a closed session, ALL MINUTES are considered PUBLIC RECORDS, open for public INSPECTION, and MUST be available for REVIEW as well as copying at the address designated on the Public notice for the meeting.

ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT: Under the Law, the Attorney General,
Prosecutor or ANY CITIZEN can challenge in circuit court the validity of a decision of a public body made in violation of its provisions. If a decision is made by the body in violation of the Law, THAT DECISION CAN BE INVALIDATED by the court.

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

UNDER OPEN MEETINGS ACT 267 #15.263 #(4) A person shall NOT be required as a CONDITION OF ATTENDANCE at a meeting of a
public body to register, or otherwise provide HIS or HER NAME or other information or otherwise to fulfill a condition precedent to attendance.

With the exceptions of my comments about Sue Meis came right out of the official documents on Freedom of Info Act and Open Meetings Act.

I would appreciate the Beaver Beacon publishing in paper form any and all of the above as a public service. The Letter of the Law must be adhered to even if we are out here in the middle of a lake on an Island. The Public has a right to know "WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, WHY and HOW public business is conducted on their behalf by a Public Board even if that Board is not elected by the Public which it is bound to serve legally, morally and ethically. When those in power believe themselves above the law, the public has a duty to resolve those problems with the backing of the laws governing the conduct of any public body.

I hope this imput can begin to put on track the resolutions needed to make Beaver Island unique for the quality of Health Care provided is residents, guests and visitors. Animosity has no place in Paradise.

I came to care for my 91 yr. old mother for the summer and found myself the object of threats, insinuations, and deceitful tatics and
my personal health has suffered as a result. I will certainly need
quality health care when I visit, or live here in the future. Thank you for allowing me this forum.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Cathy Bauman
Post Reply