Michigan Freedom of Information Act
From Sunshine Review
Contents |
The Michigan Freedom of Information Act is a series of laws designed to guarantee that the public has access to public records of government bodies at all levels in Michigan. The first version of the law was enacted by the Michigan state legislature in 1977. The provisions of the law are included in MCL (Michigan Compiled Laws) Sections 15.231 -15.246.
The Michigan Open Meetings Act (OMA) requires that governmental meetings be conducted in public, with certain exceptions. It governs the procedures by which the public must be notified of meetings. It is enacted in MCL 15.261, et seq.
Michigan's transparency report card
A 2008 study, BGA - Alper Integrity Index, conducted by the Better Government Association and sponsored by Alper Services, ranked Michigan #24 in the nation with an overall percentage of 52.20%. [1]
A 2007 study, Graded state responsiveness to FOI requests, conducted by BGA and the NFOIC, gave Michigan 75 points out of a possible 100, a letter grade of "C", and a ranking of 6 out of the 50 states.[2]
A 2002 study, Freedom of Information in the USA, conducted by IRE and BGA, ranked Michigan's law as the 13th best in the country, giving it a letter grade of "C".[3]
Goal of Michigan's FOIA law
The enacting legislation says, "It is the public policy of this state that all persons, except those persons incarcerated in state or local correctional facilities, are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and public employees, consistent with this act. The people shall be informed so that they may fully participate in the democratic process."[4]
History
Although the first official freedom of information legislation in Michigan was enacted in 1977, court rulings in the state going back as far as 1889 express the idea that the records of government belong to the public and not to the government officials who are their custodians. The 1889 ruling in Burton v. Tuite includes the comment, "I do not think that any common law ever obtained in this free government that would deny to the people thereof right of free access to, and public inspection of, public records."
Other court rulings that promote the access of citizens to the records of their government prior to 1977 include:
Features of the law
How is "record" defined?
The Michigan law defines "public record" to mean a writing which encompasses "handwriting, typewriting, printing, photographing, photocopying, and every other means of recording, and includes letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, or other means of recording or retaining meaningful content) prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by a public body in the performance of an official function, from the time it is created." MCL §15.232(e) & (h) (2001).
- Computer software is not included in the definition of what a public record is.
Who can request records?
Any person other than incarcerated felons may request public records in Michigan. "It is the public policy of this state that all persons, except those persons incarcerated in state or local correctional facilities, are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government". [5]
- MCL 15.232 defines a "person" as an "individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, firm, organization, association, governmental entity, or other legal entity."
- "Person", for the purposes of requesting access to public records, does not include "an individual serving a sentence of imprisonment in a state or county correctional facility in this state or any other state, or in a federal correctional facility."
- This law was challenged in Proctor v. White Lake Police Dept. in 2001 as being an unconstitutional deprivation of rights. The law was upheld.
For requester residency requirements in other states, see the list of who can make public record requests by state.
Are oral requests permitted?
No. However, oral requests were permitted up until 1996, when the law was altered to exclude them.
Must requestors state their purpose?
No. A person who asks for access to public records is not required to justify his or her request. The purpose of the request is irrelevant and the requestor is not required to reveal it.
- State Employees Association v. Dept. of Management and Budget, a 1987 ruling.
What uses can be made of the documents?
The use to which a person puts public information is not restricted by the law: "The initial as well as future uses of the requested information are irrelevant."
- Mullin v. Detroit Police Dept., a 1984 ruling.
What governmental bodies are subject to the law?
These agencies or government bodies are subject to the state's FOIA law:
- A state officer, employee, agency, department, division, bureau, board, commission, council, authority, or other body in the executive branch of the state government.
- A county, city, township, village, intercounty, intercity, or regional governing body, council, school district, special district, or municipal corporation, or a board, department, commission, council, or agency.
- Agencies, boards, commissions, or councils in the state legislature.
- "...any other body which is created by state or local authority or which is primarily funded by or through state or local authority."
- In Detroit News v. Policemen and Firemen Retirement System, a 2002 ruling, it was determined that a municipally chartered retirement system of a public body is subject to the state's FOIA.
- The President's Council of State Colleges and Universities, which is wholly funded by state universities and colleges, has been determined to be subject to the FOIA law.
- Any body that is "primarily funded" by or through state or local authority. Jackson v. Eastern Michigan University in 1996 is relevant to this.
Not subject to law
These agencies or officials are not subject to the law:
- The governor or lieutenant governor.
- The executive office of the governor or lieutenant governor, or employees thereof.
- State legislators.
- The judiciary, including "the office of the county clerk and employees thereof when acting in the capacity of clerk to the circuit court, is not included in the definition of public body".
- Private, non-profits that receive public monies in exchange for goods provided or services rendered. See Breighner v. Michigan High School Athletic Assoc., 2004, and State Defender Union Employees v. Legal Aid and Defender Assoc. of Detroit, 1998.
Legislative changes to the Michigan law
1996: No oral requests
The state legislature amended the law in 1996 to exclude oral requests for public records.
Court interpretations and rulings
2008: Exemptions are expanded
In July 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in an unanimous decision that the FOIA law does not cover "private or confidential information relating to a person." The case arose from an open records request made in 2004 by the Michigan Federation of Teachers (MFT). The MFT wanted, from the University of Michigan, the home addresses and telephone numbers of any employees who had not consented to a public listing in the school's faculty and staff directory.
In the ruling, written by Robert Young, the state's high court said that providing the addresses and phone numbers of these employees to the union "would not shed light on whether the University of Michigan and its officials are satisfactorily fulfilling their statutory and constitutional obligations and their duties to the public."[6]
In a second July 2008 ruling of the Michigan Supreme Court, also unanimous and also written by Justice Young, the court determined that events that intervene between the time a records request is denied and the time the denial is litigated should not affect the merits of the case.
The background here is that a campus newspaper at Michigan State University has requested, from MSU, a police incident report based on a 2006 incident involving an arrest on "suspicion of threatening a non-student with a gun, pouring gasoline on him and threatening to light him on fire." MSU declined the request and the campus newspaper sued. Later, some of the information the newspaper had request became public anyway. A trial court upheld MSU's denial, but an appeals court reversed, saying that the passage of time and the fact that much of the information had become public anyway meant that the request should be honored.
The Michigan Supreme Court overturned that appeals court analysis, saying that the FOIA decisions of governmental bodies must be judged based on the circumstances in effect when they denied a request, not later circumstances.
"Subsequent developments are irrelevant to that FOIA inquiry," according to the court's decision.
Open meetings
According to MCL 15.263, "All meetings of a public body shall be open to the public and shall be held in a place available to the general public. All persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided in this act. The right of a person to attend a meeting of a public body includes the right to tape-record, to videotape, to broadcast live on radio, and to telecast live on television the proceedings of a public body at a public meeting."[7]
See Also
External Links
- Michigan Complied Laws Act 442 of 1976 - Freedom of Information Act
- Michigan Compiled Laws Act 267 of 1976 - Open Meetings Act
- Open Government Guide to Michigan
- Michigan on WikiFOIA
References
- ↑ Integrity Index available for download here
- ↑ Graded state responsiveness to FOI requests, 2007
- ↑ Freedom of Information in the USA, 2002
- ↑ Michigan Compiled Laws Act 442, Section 15.231
- ↑ Michigan Code, 15.231
- ↑ Michigan Supreme Court rules in pair of FOIA cases
- ↑ Michigan Compiled Laws Act 267, Section 15.263
