Appeals Court Upholds Part, Dismisses Part of Open Meetings Act Case Against Northville Township

The Michigan Court of Appeals has found that Northville Township has violated one aspect of the open meetings act in 2008 but did not violate another.

Citizens for Public Accountability and Responsible Development, a citizens group,  was actively involved in opposing development plans in the township several years ago by REIS-Northville L.L.C. In an unrelated lawsuit, REIS sued the township and eventually a settlement agreement was reached. 

The citizens group accused the township of not providing sufficient notice of the meeting in which a deal was struck. The court documents acknowledge that no citizens were present at the 2008 meeting. The group also accused the township of not providing clear enough detail in meeting minutes from the township's settlement with REIS.

A Wayne County Circuit court ruled in favor of the township, dismissing the claims against it. The appeals court upheld the lower court's ruling that sufficient meeting notice was given. But it overturned the lower court's finding that the meeting minutes were clear enough.

Claim of insufficient notice for meetings dismissed

According to the court opinion, the dispute goes back to 2008 when the township was involved in a lawsuit with REIS about development. The citizens group was active in public meetings and opposing the proposed project.

“Eventually, (the township) and REIS entered into a global settlement agreement regarding the dispute on July 30, 2008. Before the township approved the settlement, several public meetings were held for the purpose of considering the matter,” according to the court’s opinion.

The township held a special meeting on July 24, 2008 in which a global settlement agreement with REIS was adopted. At a later meeting, the minutes of the July 24 meeting and the settlement resolution were approved, according to the opinion.

In accordance with the open meetings act, the township is required to provide 18 hours notice for meetings. The group, according to court documents, said that the 18 hours were not business hours but hours overall and thus did not constitute sufficient notice.

The appeals court disagreed saying the OMA “simply requires that a public notice stating the date, time, and place of the meeting be posted at least 18 hours before the meeting. As we have indicated, defendant fulfilled that requirement.”

The opinion adds that the citizens group asked the court to read “additional requirements or limitations into the statute,” which it cannot do.

“I found the ruling favorable particularly as it related to the fact that the township followed state laws on the OMA,” said township manager Chip Snider. He also said he was pleased at the court’s finding that the township complied with time limits within the OMA but had no further comment because the case is still being litigated.

Appellate court overturns lower court ruling on meeting minutes, remands case

The court of appeals, however, ruled that the township was in violation of the OMA in the ambiguity of its meeting minutes.

The court said the minutes do not accurately reflect the township’s decision to settle with REIS made at that meeting.

“In our view, the recorded minutes do not adequately reflect what decision was made at the meeting,” the court said in its opinion. “All that can be inferred from a reading of the minutes as a whole is that the supervisor and clerk were authorized to execute those documents presented and recommended by the attorney pertaining to litigation and settlement issues, if any were presented at all. What is not stated in the minutes is defendant’s actual decision to settle the REIS litigation.”

One of the plaintiffs in the case, representing the citizen group, was at the township meeting Thursday night.

The court said “your minutes are garbage,” Steve Emsley told the board.  He said he viewed the appellate court’s decision as a victory for his group.

The case is still ongoing, though. It has been sent back to the trial court to determine a proper remedy for the citizens group. According to court documents, the trial court can determine whether or not the group can be awarded court costs or attorney’s fees at the township’s expense.