Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.268

Closed sessions; permissible purposes; applicability to independent citizens redistricting commission.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

OPEN MEETINGS ACT

Act 267 of 1976

15.268 Closed sessions; permissible purposes; applicability to independent citizens redistricting commission.

Sec. 8.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes:

(a) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, or to consider a periodic personnel evaluation of, a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual agent, if the named individual requests a closed hearing. An individual requesting a closed hearing may rescind the request at any time, in which case the matter at issue must be considered after the rescission only in open sessions.

(b) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of a student if the public body is part of the school district, intermediate school district, or institution of higher education that the student is attending, and if the student or the student's parent or guardian requests a closed hearing.

(c) For strategy and negotiation sessions connected with the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement if either negotiating party requests a closed hearing.

(d) To consider the purchase or lease of real property up to the time an option to purchase or lease that real property is obtained.

(e) To consult with its attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy in connection with specific pending litigation, but only if an open meeting would have a detrimental financial effect on the litigating or settlement position of the public body.

(f) To review and consider the contents of an application for employment or appointment to a public office if the candidate requests that the application remain confidential. However, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, all interviews by a public body for employment or appointment to a public office must be held in an open meeting pursuant to this act. This subdivision does not apply to a public office described in subdivision (j).

(g) Partisan caucuses of members of the state legislature.

(h) To consider material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal statute.

(i) For a compliance conference conducted under section 16231 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16231, before a complaint is issued.

(j) In the process of searching for and selecting a president of an institution of higher education established under section 4, 5, or 6 of article VIII of the state constitution of 1963, to review the specific contents of an application, to conduct an interview with a candidate, or to discuss the specific qualifications of a candidate if the particular process of searching for and selecting a president of an institution of higher education meets all of the following requirements:

(i) The search committee in the process, appointed by the governing board, consists of at least 1 student of the institution, 1 faculty member of the institution, 1 administrator of the institution, 1 alumnus of the institution, and 1 representative of the general public. The search committee also may include 1 or more members of the governing board of the institution, but the number does not constitute a quorum of the governing board. However, the search committee must not be constituted in such a way that any 1 of the groups described in this subparagraph constitutes a majority of the search committee.

(ii) After the search committee recommends the 5 final candidates, the governing board does not take a vote on a final selection for the president until at least 30 days after the 5 final candidates have been publicly identified by the search committee.

(iii) The deliberations and vote of the governing board of the institution on selecting the president take place in an open session of the governing board.

(k) For a school board to consider security planning to address existing threats or prevent potential threats to the safety of the students and staff. As used in this subdivision, "school board" means any of the following:

(i) That term as defined in section 3 of the revised school code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.3.

(ii) An intermediate school board as that term is defined in section 4 of the revised school code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.4.

(iii) A board of directors of a public school academy as described in section 502 of the revised school code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.502.

(iv) The local governing board of a public community or junior college as described in section 7 of article VIII of the state constitution of 1963.

(l) For a county veteran services committee to interview a veteran or a veteran's spouse or dependent regarding that individual's application for benefits or financial assistance and discuss that individual's application for benefits or financial assistance, if the applicant requests a closed hearing. This subdivision does not apply to a county veteran services committee voting on whether to grant or deny an individual's application for benefits or financial assistance. As used in this subdivision, "county veteran services committee" means a committee created by a county board of commissioners under section 1 of 1953 PA 192, MCL 35.621, or a soldiers' relief commission created under section 2 of 1899 PA 214, MCL 35.22.

(2) This act does not permit the independent citizens redistricting commission to meet in closed session for any purpose. As used in this subsection, "independent citizens redistricting commission" means the independent citizens redistricting commission for state legislative and congressional districts created in section 6 of article IV of the state constitution of 1963.

History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 202, Imd. Eff. July 3, 1984 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 81, Eff. Apr. 1, 1994 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 464, Imd. Eff. Dec. 26, 1996 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 467, Eff. Mar. 27, 2019 ;-- Am. 2021, Act 31, Imd. Eff. June 24, 2021 ;-- Am. 2021, Act 166, Imd. Eff. Dec. 27, 2021

Compiler's Notes:

Enacting section 1 of Act 166 of 2021 provides:

"Enacting section 1. This amendatory act is intended to clarify that the independent citizens redistricting commission for state legislative and congressional districts, since its establishment under section 6 of article IV of the state constitution of 1963, has been required to conduct all of its business at open meetings, without exception and in a manner that invites wide public participation throughout this state, as provided in section 6(10) of article IV of the state constitution of 1963, and that the commission continues to be subject to this unqualified open meetings requirement."

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 69 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Harlan Vermilya v. Delta College Board of Trustees

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Harlan Vermilya v. Delta College Board of Trustees (2018) michctapp · cites it 17× “Pertinent to this case, a public body may meet in a closed session "[t]o consult with its attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy in connection with specific pending litigation, but only if an open meeting would have a detrimental financial effect on the litigating or…”

Herald Co. v. City of Bay City (2000) mich · cites it 8× “[MCL 15.268; MSA 4.1800(18) (emphasis added).”

Booth Newspapers, Inc v. University of Michigan Board of Regents (1993) mich · cites it 4× “Pursuant to MCL 15.268(f); MSA 4.1800(18)(f), authorizing closed meetings by the full public body to deliberate and review applications for appointment when the applicant requests confidentiality, the board met in a private session to evaluate the twelve candidates' curricula…”

Herald Co., Inc. v. Tax Tribunal (2003) michctapp · cites it 5× “243(l)(f), did not exempt the information from disclosure, and there was no basis for holding a closed session under the oma, MCL 15.268(h). The trial court further concluded that defendants violated the separation and description section of the foia, MCL 15.”

Wexford County Prosecutor v. Pranger (1978) michctapp · cites it 4× “The designation apparently is an attempt to characterize government under the statute as government operating in the sunshine of public scrutiny rather than the shadows of bureaucratic secrecy.”

Moore v. Fennville Public Schools Board of Education (1997) michctapp · cites it 8× “[MCL 15.268(c); MSA 4.1800(18)(c).] The issue whether defendants’ conduct violated the oma is one of first impression in Michigan, because no Michigan court has interpreted MCL 15.”

Barkley v. City of Detroit (1994) michctapp · cites it 4× “Although this was not an issue decided below, given the potential for the dissemination of information that might hurt the employees in the underlying cases, we wish to alert the parties to the possibility that such disclosure may not be required by either the Freedom of…”

Booth Newspapers, Inc v. University of Michigan Board of Regents (1992) michctapp · cites it 4× “*583 Defendant also argues that it was allowed to hold closed sessions pursuant to MCL 15.268(f); MSA 4.1800(18)(f). Section 8(f) allows a public body to meet in a closed session to review the specific contents of an application for employment or appointment to a public office…”

Federated Publications, Inc. v. Board of Trustees (1997) michctapp · cites it 4× “§ 15.268(f); M.S.A. § 4.1800(18)(f). [4] This section forbids the conducting of any private interviews and even provides that the specific contents of an application cannot be reviewed privately unless the applicant has requested confidentiality.”

Ritchie v. Coldwater Community Schools (2013) miwd · cites it 3× “§ 15.268(a) (permitting a public body to meet in closed session to consider charges brought against a public officer, employee, or staff member if such person requests a closed session).”

Willis v. Deerfield Township (2003) michctapp · cites it 3× “] *550 MCL 15.268 provides that a public body may meet in a closed session for specific delineated purposes.”

Manning v. City of East Tawas (1999) michctapp · cites it 2× “1800(18)(e), which permits a public body to “consult with its attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy in connection with specific pending litigation .”

Show all 69 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.268(1) — 1 case

Robert L Hindelang v. City of Grosse Pointe (2023) michctapp

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.268(1)(a) — 4 cases

Mockeridge v. Harvey (2022) mied

Robert L Hindelang v. City of Grosse Pointe (2023) michctapp

20240307_C363459_39_363459.Opn.Pdf (2024) michctapp

John C Floyd III v. City of Ann Arbor (2025) michctapp

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.268(1)(e) — 2 cases

Kirstie Russo v. Harry Trier (2024) michctapp

Robert L Hindelang v. City of Grosse Pointe (2023) michctapp

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.268(1)(h) — 5 cases

20241206_C365999_34_365999.Opn.Pdf (2024) michctapp

Robert L Hindelang v. City of Grosse Pointe (2023) michctapp

Kirstie Russo v. Harry Trier (2024) michctapp

20250225_C365726_49_365726.Opn.Pdf (2025) michctapp

Pinebrook Warren LLC v. City of Warren (2024) michctapp

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.268(a) — 13 cases

Kitchen v. Ferndale City Council (2002) michctapp

Craig v. Detroit Public Schools Chief Executive Officer (2005) michctapp

Gault v. City of Battle Creek (1999) miwd

Ritchie v. Coldwater Community Schools (2013) miwd “§ 15.268(a) (permitting a public body to meet in closed session to consider charges brought against a public officer, employee, or staff member if such person requests a closed session).”

Schmiedicke v. Clare School Board (1998) michctapp

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.268(b) — 1 case

Herald Co. v. City of Bay City (1998) michctapp

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.268(c) — 2 cases

Moore v. Fennville Public Schools Board of Education (1997) michctapp “[MCL 15.268(c); MSA 4.1800(18)(c).] The issue whether defendants’ conduct violated the oma is one of first impression in Michigan, because no Michigan court has interpreted MCL 15.”

Herald Co. v. City of Bay City (1998) michctapp

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.268(d) — 2 cases

Herald Co. v. City of Bay City (1998) michctapp

Michael Busuito v. Bryan C Barnhill (2021) michctapp

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.268(e) — 22 cases

Harlan Vermilya v. Delta College Board of Trustees (2018) michctapp “Pertinent to this case, a public body may meet in a closed session "[t]o consult with its attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy in connection with specific pending litigation, but only if an open meeting would have a detrimental financial effect on the litigating or…”

Barkley v. City of Detroit (1994) michctapp “Although this was not an issue decided below, given the potential for the dissemination of information that might hurt the employees in the underlying cases, we wish to alert the parties to the possibility that such disclosure may not be required by either the Freedom of…”

Booth Newspapers, Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of Mich. (1979) michctapp

Willis v. Deerfield Township (2003) michctapp “] *550 MCL 15.268 provides that a public body may meet in a closed session for specific delineated purposes.”

Manning v. City of East Tawas (1999) michctapp “1800(18)(e), which permits a public body to “consult with its attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy in connection with specific pending litigation .”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.268(f) — 8 cases

Herald Co. v. City of Bay City (2000) mich “[MCL 15.268; MSA 4.1800(18) (emphasis added).”

Booth Newspapers, Inc v. University of Michigan Board of Regents (1993) mich “Pursuant to MCL 15.268(f); MSA 4.1800(18)(f), authorizing closed meetings by the full public body to deliberate and review applications for appointment when the applicant requests confidentiality, the board met in a private session to evaluate the twelve candidates' curricula…”

Booth Newspapers, Inc v. University of Michigan Board of Regents (1992) michctapp “*583 Defendant also argues that it was allowed to hold closed sessions pursuant to MCL 15.268(f); MSA 4.1800(18)(f). Section 8(f) allows a public body to meet in a closed session to review the specific contents of an application for employment or appointment to a public office…”

Federated Publications, Inc. v. Board of Trustees (1997) michctapp “§ 15.268(f); M.S.A. § 4.1800(18)(f). [4] This section forbids the conducting of any private interviews and even provides that the specific contents of an application cannot be reviewed privately unless the applicant has requested confidentiality.”

Herald Co. v. City of Bay City (1998) michctapp

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.268(g) — 1 case

Herald Co. v. City of Bay City (1998) michctapp

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.268(h) — 18 cases

Herald Co., Inc. v. Tax Tribunal (2003) michctapp “243(l)(f), did not exempt the information from disclosure, and there was no basis for holding a closed session under the oma, MCL 15.268(h). The trial court further concluded that defendants violated the separation and description section of the foia, MCL 15.”

People v. Whitney (1998) michctapp

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.268(l)(h) — 1 case

Kirstie Russo v. Harry Trier (2024) michctapp

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.