Opinion ID: 2211455
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: by means of his decisions, the city manager exercised governmental authority and performed a governmental function

Text: I also find that reduction of the candidate pool by the city manager through interviews was a decision that must be made at an open meeting by mandate of the OMA. [5] The majority does not refute Booth `s holdings (1) that decisions under the OMA encompass more than formal votes, (2) that reduction decisions must be made in public and are not protected by the specific contents exception of the OMA, [6] and (3) that interviews are meetings that must be held in public. [7] Booth, supra at 230, 507 N.W.2d 422; op., pp. 884-885. Finally, the city charter provides: The city commission shall appoint ... on the recommendation of the city manager... [the] fire chief.... [Bay City Charter, art. VII, § 1 (emphasis added).] This Court has consistently held that the word shall imposes a mandatory duty. See State Hwy. Comm. v. Vanderkloot, 392 Mich. 159, 181, 220 N.W.2d 416 (1974). This language compels the city commission to appoint a candidate that the manager recommends. The majority states that the only reasonable interpretation of the charter's language permits the city commission to reject a candidate recommended by the city manager. However, the candidate who is ultimately appointed, if any, must have been recommended by the city manager. I agree. What is relevant, here, is that the city commission cannot appoint absent the separate prior action of the city manager. Both must act before a fire chief can be appointed. Therefore, the city manager is a public body in his own right and exercises governmental authority in conducting interviews and making reduction decisions. [8] The majority's finding that the actions of the city manager are not subject to the OMA allows any city to circumvent the act by adopting similar charter language. Goode, supra at 759, 373 N.W.2d 210.