SB288 Guts Michigan Open Meetings Act

SB 288 creates a new exemption to the Michigan Open Meetings Act. Any communication from a lawyer will constitute grounds to go into closed session, for any Michigan unit of government. Any government entity can ask for a legal opinion on on any subject and they will be able to go into closed session.  This will become a weapon to thwart public comments, something the Democrats started with their Trifecta:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...t/84342968007/

Michigan Senate approves bill to give government boards more chances to meet in secret
By Craig Mauger - June 25, 2025

Lansing — The Democratic-controlled Michigan Senate approved a bill Wednesday that would expand the ability of government boards and commissions to meet behind closed doors.

One open government advocate said this week that the measure could permit secret meetings "on almost any controversial issue."

The bill, which passed in a vote of 22-14, aims to amend the state's Open Meetings Act, which generally requires government bodies, including school boards, city commissions and state panels, to hold their discussions and make their decisions in public.

However, there are exceptions. The current law provides exemptions for matters that are subject to attorney-client privilege and for conversations with a lawyer about strategy "in connection with specific pending litigation."

The new bill would expand those exclusions, allowing for private consultation with an attorney about "notice of potential litigation" and for discussing a lawyer's "oral or written legal opinion," even if the lawyer isn't present for the closed-door session, according to the proposal's text. The bill doesn't define what "notice of potential" litigation means, whether it's a written notice sent specifically to a board or a comment made in the media.

Sen. Veronica Klinefelt, D-Eastpointe, sponsored the measure. She said her focus in advancing the bill was another newly proposed exception that would allow boards to meet in closed session to discuss a "criminal investigation against a member or an employee."

During a committee hearing on June 3, Klinefelt said boards were already going into closed session "all of the time" to discuss sensitive matters.

“They have an attorney write a one-sentence piece of paper to get them into closed session to be able to have those discussions," Klinefelt said during the committee hearing.

The Senate passed a similar bill on the topic last term but it didn't make it through the House, which was then controlled by Democrats. It's unclear how the House, now led by Republicans, will view the new bill.

In a phone interview, Klinefelt said the Michigan Townships Association had requested the language on discussing a lawyer's opinion in private, even if the lawyer isn't present.

The senator, a former school board member, city council member and county commission member in Macomb County, said she personally can't stop boards and commissions from going into closed sessions in situations when they shouldn't.

“That’s going to happen anyways," Klinefelt said.

Judy Allen, government relations director for Michigan Townships Association, spoke in support of the bill during the June 3 committee hearing. Allen said she wanted to make clear that a public body can go into a closed session as long as they have a legal opinion to consider.

“They do not have to have the attorney present," Allen said during the committee meeting.

Open government advocates blasted the bill.

Steve Delie, the director of labor policy at the free-market nonprofit Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, said the measure goes too far in attempting to protect confidential legal advice.

"This bill would let the government shut the doors on almost any controversial issue, sidelining the very people they’re meant to serve," Delie said. "The public plays a vital role in shaping how elected officials respond to controversy and deserves transparency in decision-making, not exclusion."

Likewise, the Michigan Press Association, which represents Michigan's newspapers, like The Detroit News, said in a message to lawmakers Wednesday that the bill leaves big opportunities for boards to easily close a meeting and that its proposed changes were "concerning."

"We believe it should be incredibly hard to do that as the open meetings are established to give your constituents the right to know what is happening with their government at every level," wrote Lisa McGraw, public affairs manager for the Michigan Press Association.

McGraw also referenced a 2021 Michigan Supreme Court decision that required the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to release legal memos discussed in a closed-door session and a recording of the session. The News was a plaintiff in that case.

The redistricting commission had cited attorney-client privilege as a reason for holding the closed-door discussion about how to craft Michigan's legislative districts in secret. But the high court decided that the constitutional requirement that the commission conduct its business openly was superior.

"Indeed, allowing the simple prospect of litigation to shield the commission’s discussions on how to make a map would threaten to swallow the open-meeting requirement altogether," then-Justice David Viviano wrote.

All of the Senate's 19 Democrats voted in support of the bill Wednesday. Three Republicans, Sens. Mark Huizenga of Walker, Ed McBroom of Vulcan and Mike Webber of Rochester Hills, joined them.