Court Opinion

ID: 9685197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:25:49.516701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:03.167758
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part). I dissent from that portion of the majority’s opinion which vacates the injunction. The plain language of the Open Meetings Act persuades me that the trial court should be affirmed in full.
In MCL 15.271; MSA 4.1800(21), the act provides that if a public body is not complying with the act, the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the public body serves may commence a civil *206action to enjoin further noncompliance with the act.
The majority agrees that the act has been violated by defendants’ noncompliance. Yet my colleagues deny the specific relief made available in the statute. They do not and cannot say that the injunction was improperly granted, for it was not. Rather, the majority apparently puts its faith in the defendants and assumes they will comply with the Open Meetings Act. That relief, if one may call it such, is, however, not the relief afforded by the statute nor is it the relief requested by the prosecuting attorney.
The majority cites no proper reason for its vacation of the injunction. The statute provides for injunctive relief when a public body fails to comply with the act. The injunction against the members of the Cadillac City Commission enjoining further noncompliance with the act should be continued.