Plaintiffs challenge the validity of reforms to the Michigan workers’ compensation laws, alleging a violation of the Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.261
et seq.;
MSA 4.1800(11)
et seq.,
and improprieties in the holding of a special legislative session at which the reforms were enactеd. On December 11, 1985, the trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition as to
Plaintiffs are the Michigan Injured Workers, an organization formed for the protection of the rights of injured employees, and its president, Walter Crowley. Defendants are members of the Legislative Leadership Committee and several other state officials. In Count vi of the complaint, which is the only count at issue in this appeal, plaintiffs alleged that a special session of the Legislature was improperly convened and that the passage of the workers’ compensation reforms then enacted violated the Open Meetings Act.
On July 12, 1985, both the Michigan House of Representatives and the Michigan Senate were declared adjourned until September 18, 1985. On July 24, 1985, every member of the House of Representatives and Michigan Senate was notified that the Legislature would convene for а special summer session on Tuesday, July 30, 1985, at 2:00 p.m. . The purpose of the special session was to consider a conference report for Senate Bill No. 7, which provided for reforms to Michigan’s workers’ compensation system. Thе Legislative Leadership Committee called for the special session, pursuant to its authority under Rule 14 of the Joint Rules of the Senate and House, after determining that an emergency existed which necessitated reconvening the Legislature prior to September 18, 1985. At that time, the Legislative Leadership Committee consisted of Senator John M. Engler, as Senate Majority Leader, Representative Gary M. Owen, as Speaker of the House, Senator Harry DeMaso, as Prеsident pro tempore of the Senate, and Mathew McNeely as the House Speaker pro tempore.
During the special summer session, Senator Basil Brown challenged the procedure by which the Legislative Leadership Committee had reconvened
The Michigan Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 7 during the session, which later became
Defendants moved fоr summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) or (10) and, on December 11, 1985, the trial court granted defendants’ motion as to Count vi, holding that the passage of the workers’ compensation reforms did not violate the Open Meetings Act.
On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the Legislative Leadership Committee violated the Open Meetings Act by deciding to reconvene the Legislature without holding a public meeting. We disagree.
Rule 14 of the Joint Rules of the Senate and House of Representatives provides in pertinent part:
In any event where either or both Houses of the Legislature adjourns to a date certain for more than two days, a committee composed of the President pro tempore of the Senate, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker and the Speaker pro tempore of the House of Representatives may by a majority vote of that committee convene either or both Houses of the Legislature at any time in case of emergency.
The definitional provision of § 2 of the Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.262; MSA 4.1800(12), providеs:
(a) "Public body” means any state or local legislative or governing body, including a board, commission, committee, subcommittee, authority, or council, which is empowered by state constitution, statute, charter, ordinance, resolution, or rule to exercise governmental or proprietary authority or perform a governmental or proprietary function, or a lessee thereof performing an essential public purpose and function pursuant to the leasе agreement.
(b) "Meeting” means the convening of a public body at which a quorum is present for the purpose of deliberating toward or rendering a decision on a public policy.
(c) "Closed session” means a meeting or part of a meeting of a public body which is closed to the public.
(d) "Decision” means a determination, action, vote, or disposition upon a motion, proposal, recommendation, resolution, order, ordinance, bill, or measure on which a vote by members of a public body is required and by which a public body effectuates or formulates public policy.
The public meeting requirement of § 3 of the Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.263; MSA 4.1800(13), provides in pertinent part:
(1) All meetings of a public body shall bе open to the public and shall be held in a place available to the general public. All persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided in this act.
(2) All decisions of a public body shall be mаde at a meeting open to the public.
(3) All deliberations of a public body constituting a quorum of its members shall take place at a meeting open to the public ....
Additionally, MCL 15.270; MSA 4.1800(20) provides in part:
(1) Decisions of a public body shall be presumed to have been adopted in compliance with the requirements of this act. The attorney general, the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the public body serves, or any person may commence a civil action in the circuit court to сhallenge the validity of a decision of a public body made in violation of this act.
(2) A decision made by a public body may be invalidated if the public body has not complied with the requirements of section 3(1), (2), and (3) in making the decision or if failure tо given notice in accordance with section 5 has interfered with substantial compliance with section 3(1), (2), and (3) and the court finds that the noncompliance or failure has impaired the rights of the public under this act.
Plaintiffs argue that the Legislаtive Leadership Committee is a "public body” as defined in the Open Meetings Act and that the committee’s "decision” to reconvene the Legislature should have been made at a public meeting. Plaintiffs maintain that the committee imprоperly convened the Legislature, without a public meeting, by engaging in "round-robining,” a practice of instituting a series of telephone calls as notification to other committee members. Thus, pursuant to MCL 15.270(2); MSA 4.1800(20)(2), plaintiffs contend that the workers’ compensation reforms,
On the other hand, defendants deny that the Legislative Leadership Committee agreed on the
However, regardless of which method was used, the committee still engaged in a type of roundrobining and did not hold a meeting to consider if an emergency necessitated the reconvening of the Legislature.
Plaintiffs assert that, pursuant to two opinions of Michigan’s Attorney General, the Legislative Leadership Committee should be included within the purview of the Open Meetings Act and may not engage in the рractice of round-robining. In OAG, 1977-1978, No 5222, p 216 (September 1, 1977), the Attorney General opined that a legislative committee is a "public body” whose meetings are subject to the provisions of the Open Meetings Act and that the practice of round-robining defeats the public’s right to be present and to observe the manner in which decisions of legislative committees are made. Also, in OAG, 1977-1978, No 5300, p 451 (May 22, 1978), the Attorney General opined that meetings of legislative joint conference cоmmittees are subject to the Open Meetings Act.
On the other hand, defendants assert that the Legislative Leadership Committee is not a "public body,” pursuant to MCL 15.262(a); MSA 4.1800(12)(a), because it does not "legislate” or "govern.” Additionally, defendants argue thаt the committee’s setting of a date and time for reconvening the Legislature was not a "decision” of a public body that effectuates or formulates public policy. Thus, defendants contend that the Legislative Leadership Committee was not subject to the Open Meetings Act and did not have to hold a public meeting in order to set a time and date for reconvening the Legislature. We agree.
Even if the scheduling decision of the Legislative Leadership Committee was subject to the Open Meetings Act, this Court may not invalidate the decision of the committee unless the rights of the public have been impaired. In
Esperance v Chesterfield Twp,
Merely because secret balloting is prohibited by the Open Meetings Act does not automatically mean that the board’s decision in the present case must be invalidated, and that an injunction must issue restraining defendant from utilizing the procedure in the future.
Invalidation of decisions made in contravention of the act is discretionary with the court. Those seeking to have the decision invalidated must allege not only that the public body failed to comply with the act, but also that this failure impaired the rights of the public. MCL 15.270(2); MSA 4.1800(20)(2).
Plaintiffs allege in this appeal that the rights of 9,059 members of the public have been impaired because their right to have their workers’ compensation cases heard has been delayed at least nine
The instant case involves plaintiffs who are obviously displeased with the workers’ compensation reforms and are looking for a way to invalidate them. Yet, the Open Meetings Act, even if applied to the Legislative Lеadership Committee, would only invalidate the scheduling decision of the committee. The act would not invalidate the Legislature’s actual passage of the workers’ compensation reforms. Since the Legislature’s deliberations оver the workers’ compensation reforms were open to the public and did not constitute a violation of the Open Meetings Act, the actual passage of the workers’ compensation reforms should not be invalidated.
The trial court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition as to Count vx of the complaint.
Affirmed.