University of Michigan files response to Open Meetings Act lawsuit
In its response to a Michigan Open Meetings Act lawsuit, University of Michigan attorneys still won't say why the university called a special session the morning of Feb. 3. And U-M attorneys say the school doesn't have to.
U-M alumnus Robert Davis sued the U-M Board of Regents in Washtenaw County Circuit Court on Feb. 18, alleging violations of the state Open Meetings Act, the law that spells out circumstances under which public bodies can hold closed meetings.
Citing media reports, Davis claimed the meeting was called to discuss an NCAA probe into the school's football program. He argues in the lawsuit the meeting should have been public.
U-M attorneys filed a response March 22, acknowledging the meeting was held as a special informal session in U-M President Mary Sue Coleman's conference room. The session, the response to the suit says, was "an attorney-client privileged communication" and was not subject to public viewing or review.
U-M lawyers, from both its office of general counsel and the Butzel Long firm, go a step further, calling the Open Meetings Act an "unconstitutional infringement upon the Regents' autonomy and authority over the general supervision of the University of Michigan."
University of Michigan alumnus Robert Davis sued the U-M Board of Regents, alleging violations of the Michigan Open Meetings Act, the law that spells out circumstances under which public bodies can hold closed meetings.
Angela J. Cesere | AnnArbor.com
Michigan’s football program faces possible NCAA sanctions after an investigation revealed five potential major rules violations concerning in- and out-of-season practice time, U-M officials announced Feb. 23. The university is expected to go before the NCAA Committee on Infractions in August.
The U-M Board of Regents often hold closed-door meetings; the university, a $5.2 billion-dollar-a-year-operation, has defended the practice as legal.
Juliana Keeping covers higher education for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at julianakeeping@annarbor.com or 734-623-2528. Follow Juliana Keeping on Twitter
Comments
trespass
Tue, Apr 6, 2010 : 3:39 p.m.
What makes this worse is President Coleman's total disdain for sunshine laws like the Open Meetings Act and the Freedom of Information Act. Saying the Open Meetings Act is an "unconstitutional infringement upon the Regents' autonomy and authority over the general supervision of the University of Michigan" shows her disdain for transparency. Add to this President Coleman and VP Harper's attempt to get out of a speeding ticket by saying Dont you know who Im with, http://www.michigandaily.com/content/coleman-harper-stopped-speeding-way-north-campus Add to this the $3.5 million dollars the University paid last year to outside law firms to defend the misbehavior of administrators. (General Consel's office budget) Altogether, this is a culture of secrecy and cover up condoned and promoted by President Coleman. The NCAA report questioned the culture of non-compliance promoted by Coach Rodriguez, it seems that the apple does not fall far from the tree.
bedrog
Tue, Apr 6, 2010 : 10:35 a.m.
one of the posters here ( he depicts himself holding an offensive sign)is probably the single biggest reason local organizations try to skirt open meetings... he and his mate try to hijack every one they attend with a single issue that few others care about..or at least agree with the poster's postion abou, a point proved repeatedly.
trespass
Mon, Apr 5, 2010 : 12:24 p.m.
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" That is what the University administration wants, absolute power. Most of the University's budget comes from my tax dollars (including $1 billion in federal grants) and from tax exempt status. I want to know what the UM is doing with my money and that is the purpose of sunshine laws. If the University President thinks she is above the law, it is time for a new President.
thurber
Mon, Apr 5, 2010 : 11:24 a.m.
Sounds like they seek to be above the law and not accountable to anybody. Haven't we been warned about abuses that arise from that sort of unfettered power?
JSA
Mon, Apr 5, 2010 : 10:59 a.m.
It is my understanding that the State of Michigan owns this institution. It is time for the legislature to take back control from the Regents and send them and Coleman packing. Once again U of M demonstrates its arrogance.
Terry Star21
Mon, Apr 5, 2010 : 10:41 a.m.
Friend12, I agree mostly and thank you for posting the 'Open Meeting Freedom act'... this is pretty simple and clear cut - it is the law. Although, very disappointed in yet more controversy, it's pretty clear there is a violation that was set forth to keep the public informed. The fact that a UM alumni filed the law suit should be met with an open mind. Some may say how could you, don't you love your University? However, as much as I hate it - this alum is trying to hold the University accountable for their actions, and we were intitled to know. Bad example but, when the US impeached Nixon, the World was impressed, albeit still a wrong doing. Although the timing is never perfect, let's get this over and concentrate on UM FB.
ssAA
Mon, Apr 5, 2010 : 10:36 a.m.
What this tells me is that the University has some very good lawyers. If for some reason the attorney-client privilege exception to the open meetings act is found not to apply, then the University is prepared to fight the constitutionality of the act. This is probably a fight the university has wanted to start for a long time.
Bonsai
Mon, Apr 5, 2010 : 10:34 a.m.
OMA is unconstitutional? Disgraceful argument to make.
friend12
Mon, Apr 5, 2010 : 9:46 a.m.
" U-M lawyers, from both its office of general counsel and the Butzel Long firm, go a step further, calling the Open Meetings Act an "unconstitutional infringement upon the Regents' autonomy and authority over the general supervision of the University of Michigan." " What that tells us is the lawyers see merit in the accusations and are defending the act by challenging the law itself. You have to love President Coleman. How many thousand of dollars will the university waste on legal fees this time? Simple solution would have been to schedule the meeting and going into executive session. Although, that would have required discloser of the matter to be discussed in executive session. Link to law for those interested: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/Publications/OpenMtgsFreedom.pdf