The Open Meetings Act (OMA) (MCL 15.261 et seq.); Exclusion from a meeting for a “breach of the peace”; MCL 15.263(6); People v. Bartz; Davis v. Burgess; People v. Loveridge; Yerkes v. Smith; In re Gosnell; Dearborn Heights v. Bellock; City of Owosso v. Pouillon; Regents of Univ of MI v. Washtenaw Cnty. Coal. Against Apartheid

Concluding that “seriously disruptive conduct involving abusive, disorderly, dangerous, aggressive, or provocative speech and behaviors tending to threaten or incite violence” is necessary to constitute a “breach of the peace,” the court reversed summary disposition for defendant-township supervisor in this OMA case. It found that the record did not support the trial court’s conclusion that, as a matter of law, plaintiff breached the peace, justifying his expulsion from a township Board of Trustees meeting under MCL 15.263(6). Rather, there were genuine issues of material fact. After reading a letter into the record related to a quo warranto action plaintiff filed against another trustee, defendant “directly addressed plaintiff, who was sitting in the public seating area of the board meeting room: ‘So, thank you, Mr. Cusumano, you probably have cost us another few thousand dollars.’” While she did not ask him to respond, he contended that her comment was “an invitation to” do so. He also asserted that the record showed “he refrained from making an abusive, dangerous, aggressive, or provocative outburst.” Rather, he argued that he went to the lectern to address the Board about “the matter raised by defendant and calmly attempted to clarify what he considered incorrect in” her characterization of his lawsuit. She declined to recognize him “and admonished him to be seated. Plaintiff briefly continued speaking before acquiescing.” Defendant asked a deputy to remove him from the meeting, and plaintiff left with the deputy. He alleged that defendant violated MCL 15.263(6). After reviewing several cases, the court determined that, “under Michigan law a ‘breach of the peace’ goes well beyond behavior acceptable in a civil society.” It also found that “reasonable minds might differ on whether plaintiff committed a breach of the peace.” While defendant asserted that plaintiff violated Board policy or rules, the record revealed that “the Board never formally adopted rules governing the manner in which its meetings were to be conducted. No evidence indicates the Board ever established and recorded rules as permitted under MCL 15.263(5) to limit public comment. Defendant cannot rely upon unwritten rules or policy for her action. Further,” this provision “does not nullify MCL 15.263(6)’s prohibition against exclusion of any person from a public meeting except for a ‘breach of the peace’ at the meeting.” Remanded.