Attorneys offer clarity on Jan. 22 closed meeting

Marshall City Council Trustee and municipal attorney Jim Dyer took umbrage with our position last week regarding the council’s Jan. 22 closed meeting called to consider attorney-client privileged written communication.
Last week, we investigated the claims made by a citizen and tried to get to the bottom of whether the meeting was legally held and concluded, based on Open Meetings Act interpretation listed on the Michigan Press Association website that the closed meeting might not have been legal because it had not been previously posted though the reason given for the meeting was valid.
Dyer contacted us Saturday and met with our editor Monday to explain further why the meeting did not need to be posted.
The Q&A section on which we based our opinion and conclusion that the meeting did not appear legal because it had not been separately posted referred to meetings held separately from regular, posted meetings in fact referred to a little bit different situation.
After hearing from Dyer, we checked with our Michigan Press Association Attorney to verify his claim that the meeting did not need to be posted because the meeting was called during an open and properly posted meeting.
“If you have a regularly scheduled meeting, you can vote to go into closed session,” said Dyer. “You do not have to make a secondary notice. If you are in a regular meeting and you are contemplating going into closed session, you can do that if you have a two-thirds majority vote to do so.”
An MPA hotline attorney specializing in Freedom of Information Act, Open Meetings Act and other issues of concerns to reporters agreed with Dyer that the meeting, held for the reason cited at the time it was called, was in fact a legal reason to hold a closed session and therefore, the meeting was legally held.
Minutes were taken as required by law and the vote to enter the session met the two-thirds requirement.
The MPA website reads:
“A public body can sometimes meet in closed session to consider material exempt by law such as a written opinion of the attorney covered by attorney-client privilege, or to discuss specific, pending litigation but they must post a notice that such a meeting will occur and follow the OMA’s additional requirement of taking minutes.”
Taken literally, the conclusion was drawn that this is what had occurred on Jan. 22 at Marshall Town Hall.
If there in fact was written communication from labor counsel for the council to consider, the meeting, called during a legal, open meeting, appears to meet all required criteria for holding such a meeting.
Although the council could have received the information in written form and been able to legally withhold the documents, the legal avenue for meeting behind closed doors with labor counsel is more ideal because it allows council members to ask questions and gain clarity from the attorney.
Based on this additional clarity from both Dyer and the Michigan Press Association, and, assuming there indeed was written attorney-client privileged communication to consider, we are satisfied that the Marshall City Council did nothing illegal.
We rest our case.