Margaret Mullendore v. City of Belding
335510
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- Margaret Mullendore was Belding City Manager; Council re‑approved her contract for one year on Nov 4, 2014; Dennis Cooper joined the Council Nov 18, 2014.
- Cooper informed Jones and Scheid (Council members) and some citizens by email in December 2014 that he planned to move to terminate Mullendore at the Jan 20, 2015 council meeting.
- Mullendore was on medical leave and absent from the Jan 20 meeting; Cooper moved during council comments to terminate her; Cooper, Jones, and Scheid voted to terminate; two members dissented.
- Mullendore sued under the Open Meetings Act (OMA), alleging (1) a prohibited meeting/sub‑quorum deliberation at the Parts Plus store on the morning of Jan 20 and (2) lack of public notice for that meeting.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). The trial court granted the motion, finding plaintiff’s evidence speculative and insufficient to show a quorum or deliberation outside an open meeting.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding plaintiff failed to present competent evidence of a meeting or deliberation by a quorum or an intentional sub‑quorum designed to set policy outside a public meeting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants violated OMA by convening a meeting/sub‑quorum to deliberate Mullendore's termination | Parts Plus conversations among Cooper, Jones, Scheid constituted a sub‑quorum meeting deliberating termination | Conversations were separate, non‑deliberative statements; at most informal polling, not a meeting | No OMA violation; plaintiff failed to show a quorum or deliberation; summary disposition affirmed |
| Whether there was deliberation or a decision rendered outside a public meeting | Circumstantial evidence (timing, change of vote) lets a jury infer deliberation and decision | Testimony shows only Cooper informed others of his intent; no analysis/discussion of options occurred | No reasonable inference of deliberation or decision; evidence speculative |
| Whether hearsay and speculative testimony sufficed to defeat summary disposition | Rumors and third‑party statements support inference of an impermissible meeting | Such testimony is inadmissible or speculative and does not impeach defendants’ sworn testimony | Plaintiff failed to produce competent evidence to create a material factual dispute |
| Whether Booth cases compel finding sub‑quorum violations here | Booth establishes sub‑quorum doctrine — similar conduct occurred here | Booth requires intentional small‑group deliberations to set policy; factual record here differs | Booth distinguished; no evidence of intentional, substantive sub‑quorum strategy here |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Detroit Police Chief, 274 Mich. App. 307 (summary‑judgment standard for review of motion for summary disposition)
- Latham v. Barton Malow Co., 480 Mich. 105 (evidence must be viewed in favor of nonmoving party on C(10) motion)
- Ryant v. Cleveland Twp., 239 Mich. App. 430 (definitions of "meeting", "deliberation", and "decision" under OMA)
- Booth Newspapers, Inc. v. Wyoming City Council, 168 Mich. App. 459 (sub‑quorum/constructive quorum meetings violate OMA)
- Booth Newspapers, Inc. v. Univ. of Mich. Bd. of Regents, 444 Mich. 211 (board violated OMA by meeting as quorum and sub‑quorum to discuss presidential candidates)
- Karbel v. Comerica Bank, 247 Mich. App. 90 (plaintiff’s burden to go forward at summary disposition)