blog, articles & publications

Cliff Bloom’s Water / Riparian Law Articles

Cliff Bloom is general legal counsel for the Michigan Lake & Stream Associations, Inc. and the Michigan Riparian Magazine.  Cliff authors a regular column for the Michigan Riparian Magazine and many of those columns can be read on our firm’s website at www.bloomsluggett.com.  In addition, many of his articles regarding water law and riparian issues can also be accessed at the Michigan Riparian Magazine website at www.mi-riparian.org  Read More

Email Warning/Disclosure Regarding the Michigan Open Meetings Act

Most municipal officials in Michigan know that under the OMA, members of a public body (such as a city commission, village council, township board, zoning board of appeals, board of review or planning commission) cannot deliberate toward any decision outside of a public meeting if a quorum is involved in those discussions or deliberations.  Furthermore, the Michigan courts have gone so far as to hold that even “one-on-one” deliberations between two members of a public body can constitute a prohibited deliberation (and a violation of OMA) where a “round robin” occurs.    Read More

Important Open Meetings Act Decisions

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently issued two unpublished opinions which may affect a public body’s obligations related to meeting in closed sessions under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.261 et seq. (“OMA”).  The cases, Andrich v. Delta College Board of Trustees and Estate of Timothy Ader v Delta College Board of Trustees decided on June 5, 2018, found that when a Michigan public body elects to go into a closed session to “consult with its attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy in connection with specific pending litigation” under MCL 15.268(e), the OMA requires the public body to identify beforehand on the record the specific litigation that it will be discussing.  Similarly, the decision further suggests that public bodies must be as transparent as possible when recording the minutes related to the content of the closed session meetings.  For instance, in Andrich, the closed session at issue resulted in the Board of Trustees’ acceptance of its legal counsel’s recommendation that the Board agree to a settlement within designated dollar parameters, which was subsequently formalized by resolution of the Board once back in open session.  However, the minutes of the open meeting reflected only that the Board accepted counsel’s unknown recommendation.  The Court found that, “to more fully comply” with the OMA, the Board should have informed the public in open session that it had authorized its counsel to settle the case “within certain parameters” without disclosing what those parameters were.  Read More