*1 SHELLUM v MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION 12, 1991, at Docket No. 137792. Submitted December Detroit. Decided 1, 1992, appeal sought. June at 9:25 a.m. Leave to Press, Inc., brought Bernie Shellum and The Detroit Free Wayne against action in the Circuit Court the Em- Commission, Security alleging ployment that the defendant had supply plaintiffs they requested refused to the concerning unemployment the insurance tax contribution rates argued of various The defendant that because the requested sup- information was calculated from information plied employers exempt was statute, the calculated rates also contribution were court, under the Freedom of The trial Information Act. Jourdan, J., Phillip granted disposition plain- for the supply tiffs and ordered that the defendant (cid:127) appealed. information. The defendant Appeals The Court of held: paid by employers The contribution rates to the defendant membership unemployment compen- for their continued in the system sation from disclosure under the Freedom of Act, Information because the information from which the rates exempt. are calculated is Reversed and remanded. J., dissenting, majority Jansen, stated that the construes too

broadly provision Freedom Information Act that exempts public body from disclosure of records or information from disclosure statute. The fact that the informa- supplied by does not render the exempt. rates calculated from that information also Unemployment Compensation — — Freedom of Information Rates. Contribution by Michigan Employment Security Information held Commis- concerning sion the calculated insurance tax References 2d, 32-46, Recording

Am Jur Records and Laws 46.14-46.19. §§ See the Index to Annotations under Freedom of Information Acts. Shellum v MESC Opinion op the Court contribution rate of an (MCL 15.243[l][d], under the Freedom of Information Act 421.11[b][l], 4.1801[13][l][d], 17.511[b][l]). *2 Honigman (by Miller Schwartz & Cohn Herschel Shpiece), P. Fink and Michael R. for the plaintiffs. Kelley, Attorney Gay Frank J. General, Secor Hardy, General, Grifka, Solicitor and Dennis J. Attorney General, Assistant for the defendant. Amicus Curiae:

Mary Employers’ Unemployment Kator, K Compensation Council. Gribbs, P.J.,

Before: and Doctoroff and Jan- sen, JJ. appeals right J. Defendant

Doctoroff, as of granting plaintiffs’ circuit court order motion for 2.116(0(10) summary disposition pursuant to MCR ordering supply plaintiffs and the defendant with (contribu- insurance tax rates rates) employers. for a number of Defendant argues exempt the contribution rates are agree from disclosure. We and reverse. requested, pursuant

Plaintiffs to the Freedom of seq.; Information Act MCL 15.231 et MSA (foia), seq., provide et that defendant them with contribution rates for a number of expressed rate, contribution rate is the as a percentage payroll, used to calculate the contri- bution an must make for continued membership unemployment compensation in system. An individual rate is calculated by applying complex formula set forth at MCL 421.19(a); 17.520(1), using MSA information that is employer. obtained from the Opinion op the Court plaintiffs’ Defendant denied determin- ing the information was from dis- 15.243(l)(d); § closure of the MCL foia, 11(b) 4.1801(13)(l)(d), by 421.11(b) Employment Security (mesa), (1); 17.511(b)(1), AACS, 421.10(1). seeking action, Plaintiffs then filed this requiring an order defendant the re- quested parties information. Both filed motions for disposition. The trial court ruled that information was not from granted plaintiffs’ disclosure and motion. argues Defendant that because the formula for determining the contribution rates utilizes infor- mation obtained from disclosure, the rates themselves are argue

from disclosure. Plaintiffs tion rates are not that the contribu- exempt, they rely because do not solely on information. *3 summary disposition pursuant A motion for to 2.116(C)(10) may granted except

MCR where, be damages, genuine for the amount of there is no concerning any moving issue party material fact and the judgment

is entitled to as a matter of law. A disposition motion for under MCR 2.116(C)(10) support tests the factual for a claim. Giving party the benefit of reasonable doubt to the opposing motion, the court must determine might developed whether a record be that would open upon leave an issue which reasonable minds might Corp, differ. Amorello v Monsanto 186 Mich (1990). App 324, 330; 463 NW2d 487 provide public

The of the foia in order to insure that public may fully participate informed cratic in the demo- 15.231(2); 4.1801(1)(2); Dep’t Management State Budget, Ass’n v of & (1987). 428 477 MESC Shellum v Opinion of the Court re- the disclosure of all requires The foia under MCL are not cords 4.1801(13). Ed, 431 Mich Hagen to 118, 123; exemptions 879 NW2d Id., p narrowly are to be construed. it bears the denies a public body When proving burden Id.; Booth exemptions. one of the act’s

falls within Bd of Inc v Newspapers, University 574; 481 App 192 Mich NW2d Regents, public body allows a Section of the foia or informa- "[r]ecords from dis- described specifically closure statute.” 11(b)(1) protects of the mesa the confi-

Section in by providing, of certain information dentiality part: relevant any employing unit

Information obtained from pursuant to the administration of or individual act, this and determinations as to benefit rights held conñdential any individual shall be public inspec- and shall not be disclosed perfor- in public employees tion other than to this act mance of their official duties revealing or the any manner the individual’s [Emphasis identity. unit’s added.] clear and language Where the of a statute precluded unambiguous, judicial interpretation the ordi- beyond and this Court should not look language meaning unambiguous nary v Iron Co Bd of giving effect to the statute. Wills Canvassers, 797, 801; 455 NW2d *4 (1990). However, ambiguous, this if the statute give and effect to the intent Court must determine Dharmani, 188 Legislature. Pemberton 317, 320; 469 74 App Statutory Mich NW2d a reasonable construe- language given should be App 478 194 Mich 474 Opinion of the Court considering purpose object sought its and accomplished. supra. Wills, to be wording 11(b)(1), applied when to the ambiguous. determining case, facts of this When may statute, of a a court examine many including interpreta- factors, administrative Interpretations tions of the statute. of a statute agency responsible for its administration are ADVO-Systems, accorded deference the courts. Treasury, App Inc v 419, 186 426; Mich (1990); Attorney 465 349 NW2d General v Ameri- Way Co, can NW2d 56 Life Ins 186 Mich (1991), quoting Comm’r, Szabo v Ins App 596, 598; Initially, we note that mesa was enacted to provide good lighten for the common and to involuntary unemployment burden of on the un- employed unemployed worker and on the worker’s family by encouraging employers stable employment by providing pro- for a fund to persons unemployed through vide benefits to no fault of their own. MCL MSA 17.502. Pursu- legislative grant authority, ant to its defendant promulgated 421.10(1), pro- AACS, which vides: information, files, All and records of the Michi-

gan employment security reflecting commission information obtained from an employing unit or individual the commission to administration of the act by agents representatives or its or shall be held confidential and shall not be dis- closed anyone, except nor private inspection provided.

as hereinafter reject plaintiffs’ argument We the rule impermissibly expands Instead, the statute. we clarify meaning find that the rule serves to legislative the statute and is consistent with in- *5 Shellum v MESC by Jansen, Dissent J. tent. By providing of informa- confidentiality tion, files, and records that reflect information units, obtained from the rule employing gives to keep effect the statute’s intent confidential information obtained from units. The cooperation administrative rule ensures the of employers employees is necessary achieve the of the mesa. purposes

The formula for determining con- tribution rate utilizes obtained from exempted from disclosure. Consequently, we hold that the contribution rates disclosure. The granting order summary disposition reversed, and this case is remanded for entry judgment in favor of defendant.

Reversed and remanded.

Gribbs, P.J., concurred. Jansen, (dissenting). J. respectfully dissent. As opinion, noted the majority (foia), Freedom of Information Act et 15.231 MCL 4.1801(1) seq.; MSA et seq., provide public public records to insure that an informed may fully participate the democratic 15.231(2); MCL State 4.1801(1X2); MSA Ass’n v Dep’t Management & Budget, 104, 109; 428 Mich 404 NW2d 606 All that are not from disclo- sure to MCL request. Hagen

must be upon proper disclosed Ed, exemptions to are to be Id., construed. narrowly p case, In present plaintiffs sought from defen- rates, dant tax or contribution rates, for a number of Defendant de- 194 by Jansen, Dissent

nied asserting the information was exempt from disclosure under of § 15.243(l)(d); foia, 4.1801(13)(l)(d), which exempts records or information specifically described and exempted from disclo- sure statute. The statute relied on by defendant 11(b)(1) was of the Michigan Employment Secu- rity 17.511(b) MCL 421.11(b)(1); MSA (mesa), *6 (1), which provides, in part, that "[information obtained from any employing unit . . . shall be held confidential and shall not be open disclosed or public inspection ... in any manner revealing . . . the employing unit’s identity.”

Defendant argues that because the formula used to determine the contribution rate utilizes infor- mation from employers that is from disclo- sure, the rates themselves are exempt from disclo- sure. The has majority adopted defendant’s argu- ment by holding: The formula determining con-

tribution rate utilizes information obtained from that from disclosure. . Consequently, we hold that the contribution rates of employers Ante, p from disclosure. I am of the opinion that the majority’s holding has construed too broadly the exemption provision 13(d) of the foia. Plaintiffs sought only the contribution rates of certain employers, not any information obtained from the employers used in formulating the contribution rates them- selves. Had sought information ob- tained from the employers, instead of merely the contribution rates for a given then I employer, would be constrained opinion follow the However, majority. that was not the case here. Shellum v MESC by Jansen, Dissent light, position to the contrary In a similar am not convinced majority, taken ACS, A acts to from disclo- sought plaintiffs. rates sure the contribution information, files, and provides rule that all reflecting information ob- records of defendant unit held from an "shall be employing tained and shall not be disclosed nor confidential except as public private inspection by anyone, provided.” hereinafter information, files, sought any

Plaintiffs have not reflect or records from defendant unemploy- obtained from the units. The employing defendant, computed ment insurance tax rate is part, provided by on the basis of information unit. rates Because contribution information, upon exempt do not rely solely are not and should be rates themselves Such a result is consistent plaintiffs. disclosed to foia, which, noted, as with the to insure that an informed public may fully participate *7 State democratic Ass% supra. would affirm order of the trial court and require that defendant

requested contribution rates.