Opinion ID: 2211455
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the city manager is a public body

Text: The majority holds that a person in his individual capacity cannot be a public body as defined under the OMA, distinguishing Booth Newspapers, Inc. v. Univ. of Michigan Bd. of Regents, 444 Mich. 211, 507 N.W.2d 422 (1993). Op., pp. 882-885. In Booth, the eight-member University of Michigan Board of Regents designated itself as the Presidential Selection Committee and embarked on the task of choosing a new university president. The committee made Regent Paul W. Brown chairman and also formed three advisory subcommittees. In all, five candidate-reduction decisions were made. Id. at 215, 507 N.W.2d 422. In the first, second, and fourth cuts, the candidate field was reduced from 250 to 70, 70 to 30, and 12 to 5, respectively. Regent Brown made the reduction decisions, although in doing so he consulted with the other regents, either by telephone or, in the case of the fourth cut, in a closed session. Id. at 216-218, 507 N.W.2d 422. This Court found that the OMA applied to the Presidential Selection Committee's procedures. It rejected the defendant's argument that the chairman did not act as a committee, that he was not a public body, and was, thus, outside the purview of the OMA. This Court found that the board's argument elevated form over substance: [D]elegating the task of choosing a public university president to a one-man committee, such as Regent Brown, would warrant the finding that this one-man task force was in fact a public body.... We do not find the question of whether a multi-member panel or a single person presides to be dispositive. Such a distinction carries with it the potential for undermining the Open Meetings Act.... [T]he selection of a public university president constitutes the exercise of governmental authority, regardless of whether such authority was exercised by Regent Brown, the nominating committee, the full board, or even subcommittees. Accordingly, this individual or these entities must be deemed public bodies within the scope of the OMA. [ Id. at 226, 507 N.W.2d 422, quoting Goode v. Dep't of Social Services, 143 Mich.App. 756, 759, 373 N.W.2d 210 (1985)(internal citation omitted).] The majority notes that in Booth, the Board of Regents, clearly a public body subject to the OMA, sought to evade the OMA by delegating its authority to the chairman of the Presidential Selection Committee. In the present case, however, the city commission did not delegate its authority to the city manager. The city manager was empowered by the city charter to recommend someone for the fire chief position. The city manager remained an individual executive throughout the selection process, and there is no basis in the OMA to combine ... two separate entities where each entity is performing its own independent function as designated in the city charter. Op., p. 883. Thus, the majority holds Booth inapposite. The majority's attempt to distinguish Booth from the present case is unpersuasive. Although the Booth decision involved a delegation of power, it did not limit itself to situations where a delegation had taken place. Rather, the Booth Court was concerned that form not prevail over substance and that the OMA's legislative purpose to promote a new era in governmental accountability not be defeated. [3] Booth, supra at 222, 507 N.W.2d 422. Regardless of the validity of the grounds on which the majority distinguishes Booth from the present case, I would hold that the city manager was a public body for purposes of the OMA. The OMA defines public body as: 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.... [MCL 15.262(a); MSA 4.1800(12)(a)(emphasis added).] The OMA does not define the term authority and, as the word has no unique meaning at law, it is appropriate to consult a lay dictionary for its definition. People v. Morey, 461 Mich. 325, 330, 603 N.W.2d 250 (1999); Horace v. City of Pontiac, 456 Mich. 744, 756, 575 N.W.2d 762 (1998); MCL 8.3a; MSA 2.212(1). The relevant definition of authority from Random House Webster's College Dictionary, p. 92, is a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency. Thus, the language of the OMA, itself, permits an individual to be considered a public body. [4]