Martin v. Murray
309 Mich. App. 37
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Detroit Public Schools (DPS) was under a declared financial emergency and an emergency manager (EM) was appointed; statutory scheme shifted among 1990 PA 72, 2011 PA 4, and ultimately 2012 PA 436, under which Jack Martin served as EM.
- Board member Carol Banks resigned effective June 28, 2013, creating a vacancy on the 11-member DPS board.
- On July 10, 2013, EM (Roy Roberts) appointed Jonathan Kinloch to fill the vacancy; on July 11, 2013 the remaining ten board members voted to appoint Sherry Gay‑Dagnogo.
- Roberts filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; defendants moved to set aside Kinloch’s appointment and to declare that the EM lacks authority to fill board vacancies.
- The trial court upheld the EM’s appointment authority under 2012 PA 436 and validated Kinloch’s appointment; the board’s appointment of Gay‑Dagnogo was held void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2012 PA 436 gives EM authority to fill school‑board vacancies during receivership | EM: statute vests authority in EM to act for governing body and fill/appoint to boards | Board: vacancy‑filling power remains with remaining board members under school code/Election Law; statute violates separation of powers | Held: EM exclusive authority to fill vacancies during receivership unless power delegated in writing to board |
| Whether EM’s appointment of Kinloch was invalid and board’s appointment valid | EM: appointment valid under 2012 PA 436 and MCL provisions vesting appointment/removal powers in EM | Board: Kinloch appointment void; their appointment of Gay‑Dagnogo was proper under Revised School Code/Election Law | Held: Kinloch’s appointment validated; Gay‑Dagnogo appointment void (EM power controlled) |
| Whether the statute violates separation‑of‑powers by letting an executive‑type officer appoint legislative body members | EM: statute remedial for local financial emergencies and permissible for local government structure | Board: unconstitutional because executive fills seats on legislative body akin to Governor filling legislature vacancies | Held: No separation‑of‑powers violation — doctrine limited to state level and local officials often exercise mixed functions |
| Whether there is an impermissible conflict of interest or lack of independent check if EM appoints board members | EM: statute anticipates receivership authority and limits board oversight; removal after 18 months requires supermajority | Board: appointment creates conflict and removes board independence to check EM | Held: No impermissible conflict under statutory text; legislature limited board powers during receivership |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Chatman, 292 Mich. App. 603 (2011) (quo warranto is exclusive remedy to try title to public office)
- Harbor Tel 2103, LLC v. Oakland Co. Bd. of Comm’rs, 253 Mich. App. 40 (2002) (separation‑of‑powers doctrine does not apply to local government)
- Risk v. Lincoln Charter Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 279 Mich. App. 389 (2008) (questions of law and statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Rental Prop. Owners Ass’n of Kent Co. v. Grand Rapids, 455 Mich. 246 (1997) (local officials may exercise both legislative and executive functions)
- People v. Bragg, 296 Mich. App. 433 (2012) (when two statutes conflict, the more recent/specific controls)
- Barrow v. Detroit Election Comm., 305 Mich. App. 649 (2014) (standards for reviewing equitable relief and related procedures)