City charter violation; Creation of an advisory committee; “Multiple member bodies” (MMBs); The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA); Alleged violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA); “Public body”; Davis v Detroit Fin Review Team; “Governing body”; Delegation; Pinebrook Warren, LLC v City of Warren

Holding that the advisory committee (the ARPA committee) at issue was an MMB under defendant-City of Flint’s charter, the court concluded plaintiffs stated a claim that the committee’s formation violated a provision of the charter. But it held that the ARPA committee was not a public body under the OMA. Thus, it found that the trial court erred in granting defendants summary disposition on the charter violation claim but correctly granted them summary disposition on the OMA claim. The committee was formed “to advise the city on funding allotments under the” federal ARPA. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiffs that “the ARPA committee meets the definition of an MMB” set forth in the charter “as it is an ‘advisory committee . . . composed of more than one person, and acting, or purporting to act, in the exercise of official duties.’” It concluded “that under a plain reading of the charter, and accepting the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint as true and construing them in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, ‘acting or purporting to act in the exercise of official duties’ encompasses the actions with which the committee was charged. . . . Taking the allegations of the complaint as true, [defendant-]Mayor Neeley formed the committee to play an official role in the exercise of a city function, i.e., the allocation of grants.” In addition, the committee “had all of the trappings of an official, city-sanctioned endeavor.” The court found that at “the very least, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the ARPA committee purported to carry out official duties at the city’s direction, which is enough to satisfy the definition of an MMB under Flint Charter, § 1-405.” It also agreed “with plaintiffs that, on the basis of the factual allegations in their complaint, the ARPA committee’s formation and operation appears to violate the city charter. As stated, it was not established by ordinance or resolution as required by Flint Charter, § 6-101(A). Nor were appointments to the committee approved by city council as required by Flint Charter, § 6-101(B)(3).” But the court concluded plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of “the OMA, given that the committee’s recommendations remained subject to review by Mayor Neeley and the city council such that the committee cannot be considered a public body.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.