Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 15 / Act 267 of 1976
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.269 (2026)

Minutes.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

OPEN MEETINGS ACT


Act 267 of 1976


15.269 Minutes.

Sec. 9.

    (1) Each public body shall keep minutes of each meeting showing the date, time, place, members present, members absent, any decisions made at a meeting open to the public, and the purpose or purposes for which a closed session is held. The minutes shall include all roll call votes taken at the meeting. The public body shall make any corrections in the minutes at the next meeting after the meeting to which the minutes refer. The public body shall make corrected minutes available at or before the next subsequent meeting after correction. The corrected minutes shall show both the original entry and the correction.

    (2) Minutes are public records open to public inspection, and a public body shall make the minutes available at the address designated on posted public notices pursuant to section 4. The public body shall make copies of the minutes available to the public at the reasonable estimated cost for printing and copying.

    (3) A public body shall make proposed minutes available for public inspection within 8 business days after the meeting to which the minutes refer. The public body shall make approved minutes available for public inspection within 5 business days after the meeting at which the minutes are approved by the public body.

    (4) A public body shall not include in or with its minutes any personally identifiable information that, if released, would prevent the public body from complying with section 444 of subpart 4 of part C of the general education provisions act, 20 USC 1232g, commonly referred to as the family educational rights and privacy act of 1974.

History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 130, Imd. Eff. Apr. 20, 1982 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 305, Imd. Eff. Aug. 11, 2004

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1940–2024 · leading case: Harlan Vermilya v. Delta Coll. Bd. of Trs., 925 N.W.2d 897 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harlan Vermilya v. Delta Coll. Bd. of Trs., 925 N.W.2d 897 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 7× “267(1) and MCL 15.269(1). Defendant appeals by right.”
Herald Co., Inc. v. Tax Tribunal, 669 N.W.2d 862 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “[MCL 15.269.] These statutes mandate that the public body separate exempt and nonexempt material, describe where practicable the exempt material, make the nonexempt material available, and state on the record the purpose of the closed session before initiating the closed session.”
Kitchen v. Ferndale City Council, 654 N.W.2d 918 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “[MCL 15.269.] A separate set of minutes shall be taken by the clerk or the designated secretary of the public body at the closed session.”
Willis v. Deerfield Twp., 669 N.W.2d 279 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “MCL 15.269 provides that the meeting minutes must reflect the roll call to proceed to a closed session.”
Titus v. Shelby Charter Twp., 574 N.W.2d 391 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “In reaching this result, the court reasoned that the “minutes” referred to in § 7(2) of the oma consist only of those items specified in § 9(1) of the oma, MCL 15.269(1); MSA 4.1800(19)(1). That section begins: Each public body shall keep minutes of each meeting showing the…”
Arnold Transit Co. v. City of MacKinac Island, 297 N.W.2d 904 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “” MCL 15.269(1); MSA 4.1800(19)(1). "Section 10(2).”
City of Detroit v. Collateral Liquidation, Inc., 295 N.W. 218 (Mich. 1940). “§ 15.269]). *442 The home rule act for cities (1 Comp.”
Jason Andrich v. Delta Coll. Bd. of Trs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “The court then addressed plaintiff’s claim that defendant had violated MCL 15.269(1) because the minutes of the July and October meetings did not accurately reflect defendant’s decisions at those meetings.”
Jason Andrich v. Delta Coll. Bd. of Trs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “The court then addressed plaintiff’s claim that defendant had violated MCL 15.269(1) because the minutes of the July and October meetings did not accurately reflect defendant’s decisions at those meetings.”
Robert L Hindelang v. City of Grosse Pointe (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 8× “Instead, plaintiffs cite MCL 15.269 and take issue with how certain minutes of meetings were presented, revised, and approved.”
Meyers v. Patchkowski, 549 N.W.2d 602 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “[MCL 15.269(1); MSA 4.1800(19)(1).] In her counterclaim, Patchkowski alleged that plaintiffs violated the Open Meetings Act by rescinding and expunging the February 14 vote.”
Harlan Vermilya v. Delta Coll. Bd. of Trs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 7× “] Similarly, MCL 15.269 requires in part that “[e]ach public body shall keep minutes of each meeting showing .”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.269(1) — 20 cases
Harlan Vermilya v. Delta Coll. Bd. of Trs., 925 N.W.2d 897 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “267(1) and MCL 15.269(1). Defendant appeals by right.”
Herald Co., Inc. v. Tax Tribunal, 669 N.W.2d 862 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “[MCL 15.269.] These statutes mandate that the public body separate exempt and nonexempt material, describe where practicable the exempt material, make the nonexempt material available, and state on the record the purpose of the closed session before initiating the closed session.”
Titus v. Shelby Charter Twp., 574 N.W.2d 391 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “In reaching this result, the court reasoned that the “minutes” referred to in § 7(2) of the oma consist only of those items specified in § 9(1) of the oma, MCL 15.269(1); MSA 4.1800(19)(1). That section begins: Each public body shall keep minutes of each meeting showing the…”
Arnold Transit Co. v. City of MacKinac Island, 297 N.W.2d 904 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “” MCL 15.269(1); MSA 4.1800(19)(1). "Section 10(2).”
Jason Andrich v. Delta Coll. Bd. of Trs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “The court then addressed plaintiff’s claim that defendant had violated MCL 15.269(1) because the minutes of the July and October meetings did not accurately reflect defendant’s decisions at those meetings.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.269(3) — 1 case
Robert L Hindelang v. City of Grosse Pointe (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Instead, plaintiffs cite MCL 15.269 and take issue with how certain minutes of meetings were presented, revised, and approved.”
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.