Five Stories that Matter in Michigan This Week – June 3, 2022

Five Stories that Matter in Michigan This Week – June 3, 2022; Legal, Legislative, and Regulatory Insights


Michigan Senate Votes to Suspend Gas Taxes this Summer

  1. The Michigan Senate, in a bipartisan vote, passed a series of new bills that would temporarily pause gas taxes from June 15 to September 15. The bills pause collections on the 6% sales and use taxes on gas purchases and the 27 cent per gallon excise gas tax. According to AAA, the average price for a gallon of gas in Michigan as of June 1 was over $4.70.

Why it Matters: These bills reflect the sense of urgency—within both parties in Michigan and across the country—to address surging gas prices, as well as inflationary pressures more broadly, before the upcoming elections. According to reporting by Crain’s Detroit, Governor Whitmer, at the Mackinac Policy Conference, indicated her general support for the legislation, although she raised concerns about the impact of suspending tax collections that would otherwise be allocated for road repair.

———

Court of Appeals Rejects Michigan Public Body FOIA Exemption

  1. The Michigan Court of Appeals recently held that a public body in Michigan that is a plaintiff or defendant in litigation cannot deny a Freedom of Information Act request by the legal counsel to another party to the litigation based on a FOIA exemption for requests pertaining “to a civil action in which the requesting party and the public body are parties.” Learn more about this case here.

Why it Matters: MCL 15.243(1)(v) allows a public party to assert a FOIA exemption for requests pertaining “to a civil action in which the requesting party and the public body are parties.” However, as this case makes clear, the exemption will be strictly construed. If the FOIA requester does not meet the precise legal definition of a “party” in litigation, and instead is merely a friend, agent or legal counsel to a party, then the exemption will likely be denied. Accordingly, before asserting this or any other exemption, a public body should consult with legal counsel. Learn more about this case here.

———

Michigan Legislature Passes Bill to Fund Security Enhancements at Schools

  1. The Michigan House and Senate passed legislation that would provide $27 million in funding for safety and security assessments at public and private schools around the state. The legislation was passed in the wake of a mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. The bill would also set aside nearly $10 million for additional support to the Oxford Community School District following the November mass shooting at the district’s high school.

Why it Matters: Expect an increase in legislation, from security enhancements at schools to “red flag” laws meant to identify potential threats, being debated in Michigan and across the country.

———

Full Principal Residence Tax Exemption Available Even if Portion of Home is Rented

  1. The Michigan Court of Appeals, in the case of Keith W. DeForge v. Township of Allouez, recently ruled that homeowners in Michigan can still claim 100% principal residence tax exemption even if the homeowner rents out a portion of their home.

Why it Matters: This ruling clarifies a tax question that impacts the rapidly increasing number of homeowners in Michigan who generate rental income from their homes using services such as Airbnb.

———

Michigan’s Movers and Shakers Meet on Mackinac Island

  1. Michigan’s Mackinac Policy Conference wrapped up this week, and from this year’s election for governor to healthcare to housing in Michigan, a wide range of important issues were discussed and debated.

Why it Matters: The Mackinac Policy Conference has always been the place to take the pulse of politics and business in Michigan. A group of Fraser Trebilcock professionals were in attendance this year, and next week we’ll be sharing some of the key takeaways from the conference.


Related Practice Groups and Professionals

Election Law | Klint Kesto
Litigation | Thad Morgan
Administrative & Regulatory | Michael Ashton
Taxation | Paul McCord

FOIA Exemption Denied When Requesting Party is not Party to Civil Litigation

If a public body in Michigan is a plaintiff or defendant in litigation, can the public body deny a Freedom of Information Act request by the legal counsel to another party to the litigation based on a FOIA exemption for requests pertaining “to a civil action in which the requesting party and the public body are parties”? According to the Michigan Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion in the case of Jones Day v Dep’t of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, and at least as it relates to the facts of this case, the answer is no.

Background of the Case

The underlying litigation involves a lawsuit brought by the State of Michigan in state court against chemical companies alleging that the companies improperly released toxic synthetic chemicals called polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), which found their way into Michigan’s water supplies.

The state lawsuit was transferred to federal court and combined with similar cases from other jurisdictions, and a case management order was entered that precluded participation in discovery.

Jones Day, a law firm representing a defendant company, proceeded to file a state FOIA request with the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (“EGLE”) seeking documentation related to the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team.

EGLE denied the request, citing MCL 15.243(1)(v), the exemption cited above pertaining to parties to a civil litigation. Jones Day then filed a FOIA complaint in the Court of Claims, and the Court of Claims granted summary disposition in favor of EGLE. Jones Day appealed.

The Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court decision. The Court of Appeals relied upon precedent from a previous case, Taylor v Lansing Bd of Water & Light, in which a friend of the plaintiff to a lawsuit against a public body made a FOIA request after the plaintiff’s own FOIA request was denied by the public body defendant on the basis of MCL 15.243(1)(v). In the Taylor case, the Court of Appeals ruled that the exemption could not be used where, as in the Jones Day case, the party making the FOIA request was not a “party.”

In the Jones Day case, the Court of Appeals, in reaching a similar result, explained that “the Legislature did not act to obviate the Taylor decision and prevent FOIA actions from being filed by best friends, counsels of record, or associates despite this Court’s recognition that a ‘distasteful’ result occurs without such a restriction of the term ‘party.’”

Accordingly, in light of this case, and the Michigan case law it relies upon, public bodies should be aware that the MCL 15.243(1)(v) exemption will likely be strictly construed. If the FOIA requester does not meet the precise legal definition of a “party” in litigation, and instead is merely a friend, agent or legal counsel to a party, then the exemption will likely be denied.


Morgan, Thaddeus.jpgThaddeus E. Morgan is a shareholder with Fraser Trebilcock and formerly served as President of the firm. Thad is the firm’s Litigation Department Chair and serves as the firm’s State Capital Group voting representative. He can be reached at tmorgan@fraserlawfirm.com or (517) 377-0877. 

Michigan Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Newspaper’s Right to Disclosure of a Document Under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

In a precedent-setting case, a three-judge panel sided with a newspaper and journalists in their bid for a public body to disclose documents in a closed-session meeting. The Traverse City Area Public Schools Board of Education (TCAPS) couldn’t depend on a potential loophole in the OMA to shield information from FOIA requests. This case, at its crux, involves the intersection between the FOIA and OMA. The ruling is a victory for journalists and pushes increased accountability in Michigan’s transparency laws.

In the case, Traverse City Record-Eagle v. Traverse City Area Public Schools Board of Education and M. Sue Kelly, the three-judge panel affirmed the 13th Circuit Court Judge Kevin Elsenheimer’s order to the defendants, TCAPS and then-board president, M. Sue Kelly, to release documents related to a closed-session involving complaints against superintendent Ann Cardon. Cardon was hired by TCAPS as the superintendent. Soon after her hiring, complaints ensued. TCAPS requested a meeting to discuss complaints, and Cardon requested a closed session.

The session focused on Cardon’s employment status. A document known as the “Kelly document,” which contained the list of complaints against Cardon, was provided by Kelly at the closed session.

Cardon and TCAPS mutually agreed to her resignation. In an open session, a new interim superintendent, Jim Pavelka, was selected. The newspaper/plaintiff, the Traverse City Record-Eagle, requested the release of the Kelly document via a FOIA request. TCAPS refused to disclose the documentation, arguing that it was protected. The trial court and a three-judge panel disagreed.

TCAPS first argued the Kelly document qualifies as an exemption under OMA, where minutes of a closed session are not available via an FOIA request and only a court order could mandate disclosure. TCAPS cited the precedent established in Titus vs. Shelby, in which the court held the transcript of the closed session is part of the meeting minutes and could qualify as an exemption. This argument didn’t apply to the Kelly document. Although OMA doesn’t give an exclusive list on what may be contained in meeting minutes, it doesn’t mean every document referred to in the session can be exempt from disclosure. This would lead to a slippery slope, in that “it would seemingly allow any public body to attach anything to the official record in order to exempt it from disclosure.” The court did not consider the Kelly document as part of the meeting minutes.

TCAPS also argued that the Kelly document was a part of closed session deliberations and therefore exempt from disclosure under the OMA. This argument failed. The Titus court “focused on the fact that the transcripts were part of the minutes because of the plain and ordinary meaning of minutes and not because transcripts involved deliberations of the public body with the closed session.” In the current case, TCAPS didn’t show how the Kelly document falls within the plain and ordinary meaning of minutes.

The court used prior cases like Bradley v. Saranac Community School Board of Education and Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. Detroit to bolster its position. At issue in these cases was whether personnel files and settlement agreements were disclosable under the FOIA requests. The court found that these documents were not protected under the OMA and made an important clarification. Although minutes of a closed session meeting cannot be disclosed, the documents used in said session may be subject to a FOIA request. The specific discussions and deliberations surrounding those documents, however, are not subject to a FOIA disclosure request. But performance evaluations in Bradley, settlement agreements in Detroit Free Press and complaints regarding Cardon are subject to be disclosed as a part of a FOIA request unless a specific exemption exists. Ultimately, discussions surrounding the documents are not discoverable, but the public cannot be deprived of the documentation at the root of the case. This allows others to make their own interpretation of what is presented and requires a heightened level of transparency.

The newspaper also sued TCAPS for its decision to name Pavelka as interim superintendent. The newspaper claimed the decision was made outside of an open meeting, a violation of the OMA. The Court did not agree. An open meeting was held, and a motion was put forth to name the interim superintendent. All board members agreed. Although Kelly had an outside discussion and approached Pavelka regarding his interest in the position, there was no mention of contract terms or acceptance of the position. The newspaper failed to provide any evidence of a OMA violation. Although the court emphasized that the newspaper might be unhappy with the length of the discussions by TCAPS, “plaintiff points to no authority to show this was improper.”

This case provides important clarity for public bodies regarding their rights and responsibilities under FOIA and OMA. If you have any questions, please contact Ed Castellani or your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.


When it matters in Michigan, Fraser Trebilcock is the trusted advisor for businesses and individuals facing legal and regulatory challenges, and our capabilities extend to wherever clients require counsel.


Fraser Trebilcock Business Tax Attorney Edward J. CastellaniEdward J. Castellani is an attorney and CPA who represents clients involved with alcohol beverages as a manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer. He leads the firm’s Business & Tax practice group, and may be contacted at ecast@fraserlawfirm.com or 517-377-0845.