“The public has the right to see you during your thinking process. They don't just have the right to see the end result,” Sue Jeffers, an attorney for the Michigan Municipal League, said of the Open Meetings Act. “It's an act designed for the citizens, it's not to make your job easier.”

Mrs. Jeffers briefed Mackinaw City officials from the village council, planning commission, and several subcommittees on what the Open Meetings Act was designed for during a public meeting Friday, February 19. The village officials asked her to provide the information as a refresher course and to help familiarize newly elected officials with the law. She also instructed them on when meetings are required to be open and the limited circumstances when they can be closed to the public.

The intention of the Open Meetings Act is to enable the public to observe elected public officials deliberate toward and make decisions that affect them. While the meetings do not have to be held in the same municipality governed, Mrs. Jeffers said, they cannot be so far away that attending a meeting would be inconvenient for the public. The village council could not hold a regularly scheduled meeting in Las Vegas, for example.

In general, if a quorum of a public body is working toward a decision or is making a decision, and the decision affects the public body, then the meeting must be open. Mrs. Jeffers defined a public body as a board, commission, committee, subcommittee, authority, or council performing a governmental function. While a quorum is present, Mrs. Jeffers urged Mackinaw City officials to make meetings open.

“Comply! Do it! It's easy! It's not hard!” she said. “Just comply, lawsuits are no fun whatsoever.”

When a public meeting is scheduled, she said, notice of it must be posted within 10 days. If the schedule changes, then a new posting must be made within three days. In the event of a special or irregular meeting, 18 hours notice must be given. Minutes must be taken during the meeting and they must be available to the public.

During the meetings, a public comment period must be scheduled. Officials can limit the time per person to a reasonable degree, she said, with three minutes often the average. Limits can be set to prevent the public from abusing that time and disrupting the meeting. The public also has the right to record the meeting, videotape it, or broadcast it live, Mrs. Jeffers said. The public body has the right to enact rules to minimize the possibility of those acts disrupting the meeting.

Opening meetings to the public is a safer avenue, Mrs. Jeffers explained, than closing a meeting, because that could result in a lawsuit. Even if the courts find in favor of the officials, the legal fees can be high. If the court finds in favor of the plaintiff, on the other hand, it could result in a huge loss, as the officials may have to pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees as well as their own.

In the event of a violation, officials will receive an order to comply with the act. Criminal misdemeanor penalties may be imposed on any official who intentionally violates the act, Mrs. Jeffers said. Penalties can include up to a $1,000 fine for the first offense and up to a $2,000 fine for the second offense. The official can also be held personally liable and fined for damages up to $500, along with paying the court costs and actual attorney fees of the person or group that brought the suit.

“Don't get yourself in a situation where someone can sue you,” Mrs. Jeffers advised.

Besides legal ramifications, restricting access to meetings can make the public suspicious, she said, and should be avoided.

There are certain cases where officials can call a closed session. If the session deals with the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of a public officer or employee or is to hear complaints brought against that person, that person has the right to request a closed session. If the person does not request a closed session, the meeting must be open to the public, Mrs. Jeffers said. The evaluation of a public officer or employee may also be held in closed session, but only at that person's request.

A closed session may also be held if the public body is considering purchasing, selling, or leasing a piece of land. Information discussed during such conversations could put the public body at a disadvantage in negotiations, Mrs. Jeffers said, and that would not benefit the public. The public body may also enter into closed session to discuss a pending lawsuit, but not a threatened lawsuit.

If the Village of Mackinaw City or any other public body is unsure if a meeting should be made public, she said, they should always refer to what the basic intent of the Open Meetings Act is: Enabling the public to know what government is doing by conducting all business in an open forum.