Plaintiff appeals by leave granted the order of the circuit court affirming the decision of a board of review made pursuant to the Drain Code of 1956 (Drain Code), MCL 280.1 et seq.) MSA 11.1001 et seq., decreasing the amounts that defendant landowners must pay in connection with a drain expansion project and increasing plaintiff’s assessment by the same amount. We reverse and remand.
i
This case arises out of a drain expansion project, known as “Austin Drain No. 1, Extension Drain” (Austin Drain), supervised by defendant Jackson County Drain Commissioner Geoffrey Snyder. Plaintiff and defendants Dennis and Cheryl Heselschwerdt, Dale and Grace Ebersole, and Debra Cramer own property within the drainage district affected by the project. Pursuant to the Drain Code, the drain commissioner commenced proceedings to correct a flooding problem caused by the inadequacy of the Austin Drain. In accordance with the provisions
Following the board of determination’s confirmation of the drain commissioner’s apportionment, defendant landowners filed an appeal of the apportionment with the probate court. As required by the Drain Code, the probate court appointed a board of review to determine whether there was manifest error or inequality in the drain commissioner’s apportionment. Pursuant to the notice requirements of the Drain Code, MCL 280.156; MSA 11.1156, the drain commissioner posted notice that the board of review would meet on August 27, 1996, for the purpose of reviewing the apportionment. Plaintiff concedes that he received actual notice of this meeting. Following the board of review’s initial meeting, the board of review adjourned and reconvened one week later on September 3, 1996. No public notice was given of the time and place of the second meeting of the board of review. At the conclusion of the second meeting, the board of review reapportioned the drain commis sioner’s apportionment to reflect a decrease in defendant landowners’ assessments and a corresponding increase in plaintiff’s assessment.
Plaintiff appealed the decision of the board of review to the circuit court, arguing that the board of review convened to review the drain commissioner’s apportionment in violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq.-, MSA 4.1800(11) et seq. The circuit court, however, affirmed the board of review’s reapportionment, finding that a board of review is a quasi-judicial body, not subject to the requirements of the OMA. Noting the Drain Code contains its own notice requirements, the circuit court ruled that plaintiff received all the notice that was required under the circumstances.
n
We are asked to determine whether the OMA applies to meetings held by a board of review appointed by a probate court pursuant to the Drain Code for the purpose of reviewing a drain commissioner’s apportionment of benefits. Because this is a question of law, our review is de novo.
Cardinal Mooney High School v Michigan High School Athletic Ass’n,
Plaintiff argues that business conducted by a board of review created pursuant to the Drain Code must comply with the OMA because the Drain Code expressly requires such compliance. We agree. The Drain Code provides as follows:
The business which a board or commission created pursuant to [the Drain Code], or a body of special commissioners appointed pursuant to [the Drain Code], may perform shall be conducted at a public meeting of the board, com mission, or body of special commissioners held in compliance with [the oma]. Public notice of the time, date, and place of the meeting shall be given in the manner required by [the oma], [MCL 280.8(1); MSA 11.1008(1).]
The primary goal of judicial interpretation or construction of a statute is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature.
Farrington v Total Petroleum, Inc,
Defendants contend, however, that the board of review is not a public body, and
It is uncontested in this case that the board of review made no attempt to comply with the oma. Although plaintiff had actual notice of the first meet ing of the board of review, the board of review adjourned this meeting and reconvened one week later, without affording fresh notice to the public. The OMA provides that “[a] meeting of a public body which is recessed for more than 36 hours shall be reconvened only after public notice, which is equivalent to that required under” MCL 15.265(4); MSA 4.1800(15)(4), which requires the posting of public notice of the date, time, and place of the meeting at least eighteen hours before the meeting. MCL 15.265(5); MSA 4.1800(15)(5). Here, because notice of the second meeting was not given to the public, the board of review conducted the meeting in violation of the oma.
Invalidation of a decision made in contravention of the OMA is discretionary.
Crowley v Governor of Michigan,
We find that plaintiff has shown a violation of the OMA that impaired the rights of the public. Plaintiff alleged that, at the second meeting of the board of review, defendant landowners persuaded the board of review to decrease the apportionment of benefits allocated to defendants and increase plaintiff’s apportion ment of benefits correspondingly. Therefore, plaintiff has proffered more than a mere recital that the rights of the public were impaired; he has set forth sufficient factual allegations to support that conclusion.
Accordingly, we invalidate the decision of the board of review and remand this case to the circuit court with instructions that the circuit court reinstate the drain commissioner’s original apportionment. Defendant landowners are entitled to again appeal the drain commissioner’s apportionment to the probate court; however, the business conducted by a board of review appointed by the probate court pursuant to the Drain Code must comply with the OMA.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.