Davis v. City of Detroit Financial Review Team
296 Mich. App. 568
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Open Meetings Act (OMA) and Emergency Financial Manager Act (EFMA) govern Detroit Financial Review Team (DFRT) conduct.
- EFMA §12(3) authorizes Governor to appoint a DFRT; DFRT can examine books, use state services, sign a consent agreement, and report findings.
- Consent agreements require local governing body approval and State Treasurer approval/execution to take effect.
- OMA defines “public body” and “meeting” and applies to deliberations or decisions by public bodies; DFRT claimed to be a public body.
- Court held DFRT is not a “governing body” or “public body” under the OMA; State Treasurer also not a public body; injunctive relief against DFRT reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DFRT is a public body under the OMA | Davis argues DFRT is public; misuses of executive power. | Defendants contend EFMA structure creates non-public body; Vague governance. | DFRT not a public body under the OMA. |
| Whether the State Treasurer, as executive actor, is a public body | Davis/McNeil contend Treasurer acts as public body; subject to OMA. | Treasurer acts in executive capacity; not a public body. | Treasurer not a public body when acting in executive capacity. |
| Whether the Governor/DFRT actions entitle injunctive relief | Trial court erred by granting injunctive relief based on public-body conclusion. | Injunctive relief appropriate to enforce openness. | Injunctions improper; declaratory relief preferred; remand for judgment. |
| Whether contempt remand was appropriate | Contempt findings justified by private meetings. | DFRT not public body; contempt improper. | Remand for civil contempt proceedings limited to appropriate scope; OMA not applicable to DFRT. |
Key Cases Cited
- Herald Co v Bay City, 463 Mich 111 (2000) (public body concept; individual executive not a public body)
- Booth Newspapers, Inc. v Univ of Mich Bd of Regents, 444 Mich 211 (1993) (one-man committee vs. public body; governing authority)
- Crowley v Governor, 167 Mich App 539 (1988) (not all governmental bodies are public bodies under OMA)
- Morrison v East Lansing, 255 Mich App 505 (2003) (advisory committee created by public body not necessarily public body under OMA)
- Straus v Governor, 459 Mich 526 (1999) (declaratory relief preferred; injunctive relief cautioned)