The Free Press Is Suing UMich For Routinely Violating Open Meetings Law

University of MichiganWikimedia Commons

Michigan law requires public officials to hold formal meetings out in the open and allow citizens to attend. Despite this requirement, the University of Michigan Board of Regents routinely conducts its affairs behind close doors, away from public scrutiny.

It is assumed that the regents and the president actually debate matters at these secret meetings. At the (sham) public meetings, the regents almost always vote unanimously in favor or against whatever proposals are on the table—with little debate—lending credibility to the charge that the real decisions are being made elsewhere.

In the last year, the regents voted on 116 public matters, and only 8 of those times were there any dissenting votes.

The Detroit Free Press has filed a lawsuit against the university:

According to the lawsuit: “These numbers establish clearly that the Regents do, in fact, routinely discuss the issues they must decide, and do routinely make their decisions about the University of Michigan’s governance, all behind closed doors, out of the public’s view, without public accountability, and in violation of OMA and its Constitutional obligations.”

“We don’t believe it’s acceptable that the public is essentially cut out of these meetings,” said Free Press Editor and Publisher Paul Anger, “considering the law and the bedrock idea that the public has a right to understand how such an important public institution conducts itself.”

U-M spokesman Rick Fitzgerald said Friday afternoon university officials have not seen a the lawsuit and declined comment.

The regents also held meetings out of state, another violation of the law:

The Free Press lawsuit also alleges that U-M regents — unlike any others in the state — violated the Open Meetings Act by holding sessions in California and New York in January for the past two school years.

“The Regents’ meetings in New York were pre-planned, quorum, organized meetings to gather information and deliberate toward decisions on the future of the University of Michigan,” the lawsuit argues. “The OMA ... requires that, ‘All meetings of a public body shall be open to the public and shall be held in a place available to the general public.’

“The Regents’ actions have denied the public the right to be present during the discussion of matters that are of great importance to the University of Michigan and to the taxpayers of the State of Michigan.”

U-M is the only university to hold board meetings out of state, and Free Press attorney Herschel Fink said that U-M is the most flagrant violator of the Open Meetings Act.

Earlier this year, Fink told a state House committee that U-M is a “serial abuser of access laws.”

If administrators want to run their universities in the manner that corporate boards run companies, perhaps they should wean themselves off the taxpayer dole first.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    Are there any like, you know, consequences and stuff for these government employees breaking the law?

  • MegaloMonocle||

    Probably a poshy 4-day seminar on governance at a resort somewhere.

  • Brett L||

    Doesn't matter where they hold it. A four day PowerPoint monologue is a human rights violation. Even for government employees.

  • Sevo||

    Shoot me! Please, I beg you, SHOOT ME!

  • Brandon||

    Bigger budgets for compliance testing?

  • ||

    Fuck Michigan.

    That is all.

  • mr lizard||

    Your sentiment is understandable. You're either frustrated by the lack of ivy growth on the walls of your Institution... Or your sports team was preoccupied with knee touching, or keeping their "broke" quarter back from driving around in a Lexus.... Did I miss anything?

  • ||

    Ann Arbor is a whore.

    You missed that.

  • ||

    Earlier this year, Fink told a state House committee that U-M is a “serial abuser of access laws.”

    I smell a rat.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Amateurs! Why go to another city when you can just shuffle people in an out of the room as needed. That is how the Vikings stadium deal got done.

    http://www.nickcolemanmn.com/?p=3218

    In the crucial committee that needed to OK the legislation, it would be open to the public if there was a quorum of the six members (4 of them). So they only allowed any three of them in the room at a time. There was an adjacent room that the others could hide in if necessary.

  • Dweebston||

    That is beautiful. Democracy inaction!

  • Sevo||

    "If administrators want to run their universities in the manner that corporate boards run companies, perhaps they should wean themselves off the taxpayer dole first."

    I think this is a wonderful idea! And, in fact, I think we taxpayers ought to initiate action to accomplish this; screw THEM.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    So start the land-revoke university movement?

  • Mr. Soul||

    YES. One thing college certainly no longer needs is subsidies. Hell, all classes are just what the prof surfed on the web yesterday.

  • Sevo||

    "So start the land-revoke university movement?"

    Sell the land to the highest bidder and see if the U will pay enough rent to keep the buildings from being demolished!

  • Dweebston||

    Demolished, hell. A lot of those brand new administrative buildings would serve well as premium offices. The dormitories could be converted to modern apartments, complete with communal spaces and open-air gardens. Imagine silicon valley-inspired office parks with on-site living, beaucoup recreations, gyms, tennis courts, stage and cinema, cafeterias... imagine all that and you might get the impression that universities are a tad overbuilt.

  • Sstocky||

    We tried when I was a U of M student back in the 60s to open up Regent's meetings, but never got much traction. Plus if they want to fight it out with the Free Press, the Regents can always assert that they are constitutionally established body and are immune to regulation by the legislature in such measures as the open meeting law. I doubt that would help their annual appropriation from the state, however.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement