Citizens for a Better Algonac Community Schools v. Algonac Community Schools
317 Mich. App. 171
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Algonac Board unanimously voted April 1, 2014 to offer a superintendent position and to “begin contract development,” but did not discuss contract terms at that meeting.
- Board members exchanged emails negotiating contract terms over the following weeks; at the April 28 regular meeting the board unanimously approved the contract without discussion.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Open Meetings Act (OMA), alleging the board’s email deliberations violated the OMA and seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief to stop ongoing email deliberations, and attorney fees and costs.
- Trial court found an OMA violation based on the emails but denied injunctive relief (no ongoing violation shown) and thus denied attorney fees and costs; it nevertheless entered a declaratory judgment for plaintiffs.
- On appeal, defendant argued no quorum deliberated in violation of the OMA; plaintiffs argued for injunctive relief and fees. The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory construction and Speicher v. Columbia Township.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the declaratory judgment, affirmed denial of injunctive relief and fees, and remanded to dismiss the OMA suit because plaintiffs failed to pursue a remedy authorized by the OMA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs could obtain declaratory relief under the OMA | Declaratory judgment should be available to vindicate OMA violations | OMA does not authorize independent declaratory relief; relief limited to statutory remedies | Held: OMA provides no standalone cause of action for declaratory relief; trial court erred in awarding it |
| Whether email exchanges constituted deliberations requiring open meetings | Emails surrounding the hiring/contract were deliberative and violated the OMA | Emails did not amount to quorum deliberations in violation of the OMA | Held: Trial court found an OMA violation as to those emails, but remedy issue controlled outcome (see injunctive relief) |
| Whether injunctive relief was appropriate under MCL 15.271 | Plaintiffs sought injunction to stop ongoing use of email for deliberations | Defendant: no ongoing pattern; violation was completed and not continuing | Held: No ongoing violation shown; injunctive relief not warranted; affirmed denial |
| Whether plaintiffs could recover attorney fees/costs under MCL 15.271(4) without injunctive relief | Plaintiffs sought fees despite being denied an injunction | Defendant: Fees available only if injunctive relief obtained per Speicher | Held: Fees and costs unavailable because injunctive relief was not awarded; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 497 Mich 125 (Mich. 2014) (OMA remedies are limited; declaratory relief not provided by OMA; fees under MCL 15.271(4) require injunctive relief)
- Loweke v. Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co., LLC, 489 Mich 157 (Mich. 2011) (summary disposition reviewed de novo)
- Estes v. Titus, 481 Mich 573 (Mich. 2008) (statutory construction principles reviewed de novo)
- Whitman v. City of Burton, 493 Mich 303 (Mich. 2013) (rules of statutory construction; effect given to plain statutory language)
- Morrison v. City of East Lansing, 255 Mich App 505 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (abuse of discretion standard for injunction and invalidation decisions under the OMA)
- Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 473 Mich 562 (Mich. 2005) (retroactivity of court decisions; prospective application only in exigent circumstances)
- Mich. Ed. Employees Mut. Ins. Co. v. Morris, 460 Mich 180 (Mich. 1999) (prospective-only application disfavored absent strong reasons)
- Nicholas v. Meridian Charter Twp. Bd., 239 Mich App 525 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000) (past OMA violations do not automatically justify an injunction)
- Ridenour v. Dearborn Bd. of Ed., 111 Mich App 798 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981) (earlier cases allowing recovery of fees absent injunctive relief overruled by Speicher)