Interplay between FOIA & the OMA; Whether a document was unprotected by the OMA & disclosable under FOIA; Distinguishing Titus v Shelby Charter Twp; Construing exemptions from MCL 15.243; Bradley v Saranac Cmty Sch Bd of Educ; Detroit Free Press, Inc v Detroit; MCL 15.263(3); Traverse City Area Public Schools Board of Education (TCAPS)

The court held that “documents otherwise discoverable under FOIA are not generally rendered exempt merely because they provide the basis for a closed meeting under the OMA or are included in the official record of the same.” Thus, it affirmed partial summary disposition for plaintiff-newspaper as it related to disclosure of a document referred to as the Kelly document. The court also affirmed partial summary disposition for defendants-TCAPS and Kelly (the board president) as it related to the alleged OMA violation concerning the hiring of an interim superintendent (P). Defendants failed “to persuasively show how the Kelly document, which contained complaints against” the former superintendent, fell “within the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘minutes.’” Bradley, Detroit Free Press, and Titus, “when read together, suggest that, although the minutes and transcripts of a closed session are exempt from disclosure, various documents that may be relevant to or relied upon in the same are not necessarily exempt. In other words, the exact discussions and deliberations of those involved within the closed session are exempt; however, documents, such as personnel files, settlement agreements, and performance evaluations, that are brought into the closed session are disclosable where no individualized exemption exists for the same.” The court held that the Kelly document was such a document. Although “there may be situations in which such documents are not disclosable; for purposes of this appeal,” the court held that the trial court correctly determined that “the Kelly document was disclosable under FOIA, and that defendants could not render the document exempt merely because it was a subject of the closed meeting.” As to plaintiff’s claim that “defendants violated the OMA by hiring [P] without adequately addressing the same in a public meeting[,]” the record evidence established that defendants properly met in an open meeting on 10/17/19, and made the decision to hire P. Kelly affirmed that, although she approached P “about the position, no decision was made, and no contractual terms were discussed; the meeting was merely to inquire about his interest in the position.” Kelly was by herself and thus, there was no quorum in place to trigger MCL 15.263(3). “Plaintiff provided no evidence to rebut Kelly’s affidavit or to show that there were improper deliberations made outside of the [10/17/19] meeting with a quorum of TCAPS.” Further, it offered no authority “to show that the quality or length of deliberations was deficient for purposes of the OMA.”