CBA/NAC Session 3 by detroitjusticecenter

Communi t yBe ne ďŹ t s Agr e e me nt s Re s our c ePa c ke t Se s s i on3

EFFECTIVE MEETING MANAGEMENT JEN RUSK, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PROJECT COORDINATOR APRIL 26, 2016

CITY OF BEND |

OPENING

Introductions: •  Your name and Neighborhood Association •  Neighborhood Association role, •  One thing we wouldn’t know about you

Agenda Review Meeting Agreements

CITY OF BEND |

OPENING

•  What are your specific needs & questions around meeting management? •  What would you like to leave with?

CITY OF BEND |

Roles & Responsibilities

CITY OF BEND |

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Oregon Open Meeting Laws: High level look… •  Open Meetings (informed, accessible, interpreter if needed) •  Public Notice (24 hr. notice, time, place, topics, Executive Session, emergency) •  Written Minutes (public record) •  Executive Session (litigation, employment) •  Meeting by phone (ok because it is live) CITY OF BEND |

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Before the meeting … •  Set goals, purpose & outcomes •  Plan the agenda •  Determine who needs to attend •  Provide agenda & info in advance, bring copies to the meeting CITY OF BEND |

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

During the meeting … •  Start & end on time •  Introductions (and sign in sheet) •  Agree on purpose, outcomes & agenda •  Assign roles facilitator, recorder, timekeeper •  Set & agree to a few ground rules CITY OF BEND |

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

During the meeting … •  Clarify decision-making processes & the group’s authority •  Keep meeting on track / check in •  Provide for varied points of view/manage conflict •  Track info generated/minutes CITY OF BEND |

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

At the close … •  Review actions & responsibilities •  Ensure everyone has signed in •  Confirm next meeting (if appropriate) •  Provide closure & appreciation CITY OF BEND |

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Facilitator Role … •  Typically the Chair •  Neutrality and strong listening skills •  Stick to agenda & help discussion progress •  Ensure all views & voices heard •  Call group back to ground rules, if needed •  Re-cap key points, outcomes and decisions CITY OF BEND |

ROLES

Time Keeper Role … •  Manage time neutrally but proactively •  Signal ½ way point, and 5 minute warning •  If time is extended, manage the extension •  Be direct, interrupt firmly but respectfully

CITY OF BEND |

ROLES

Recorder Role … •  Minutes of meeting •  Who attended and their capacity •  Summarize items presented, discussed, & actions to be taken •  Record all decisions made and any votes •  Capture items which refer to further action or future meetings CITY OF BEND |

AGENDAS

Building an Agenda: •  Short meetings (90 min. or less) •  Keep agenda as short as possible •  State purpose, time, goals clearly •  Identify topics, who’s responsible, duration, action •  Don’t leave most important topics until last •  Send out in advance and bring copies to meeting * see pg. in handouts * CITY OF BEND |

MEETING DESIGN

Designing your Meeting •  What challenges do you face in setting agendas? •  What have you found successful? * see pg. in handouts * CITY OF BEND |

Running Effective Meetings

CITY OF BEND |

RUNNING EFFECTIVE MEETINGS

Big Picture: Maintain a Culture of Inquiry 1.  Maintain mutual respect, trust & inclusiveness. 2.  Capacity to explore divergent views in a respectful rather than an adversarial manner. 3.  Gather relevant info to inform decisions. 4.  Ensure equal access to information by all. 5.  Utilize active feedback mechanisms that encourage continuous improvement. 6.  Forge individual and collective commitment to decisions, plans of action, and accountability. CITY OF BEND |

RUNNING EFFECTIVE MEETINGS

Robert’s Rules: The Basics 1.  Motion 2.  Adopt or accept 3.  Postpone Indefinitely 4.  Amend 5.  Commit 6.  Question 7.  Vote 8.  Table * see pg. in handouts * 9.  Adjourn CITY OF BEND |

RUNNING EFFECTIVE MEETINGS

Robert’s Rules: for Small Groups •  Used when formality isn’t as necessary. •  For small board meetings (12 or less). •  Allows small boards to operate in a more relaxed way. •  A majority of board must ‘opt in’ to use these procedures, reflect this in minutes. CITY OF BEND |

RUNNING EFFECTIVE MEETINGS

Small Group Rules: Key Differences •  Can speak without being called upon. •  No second needed for a motion. •  Cannot motion to close/limit debate •  Discussion can take place without a motion. •  If proposal is clear to all, then vote. •  Chair participates in debate. CITY OF BEND |

RUNNING EFFECTIVE MEETINGS

Decision-Making Methods: •  Voting: -  Simple Majority -  Supermajority •  Consensus •  Advantages & disadvantages of both CITY OF BEND |

RUNNING EFFECTIVE MEETINGS

Tools to Facilitate Consensus To generate ideas use: 1.  Brainstorming 2.  Discussion in pairs & trios

To prioritize ideas: 3.  Prioritize by dot (or ‘ü’)

To check for agreement/get feedback: 4.  Vote by Thumb CITY OF BEND |

RUNNING EFFECTIVE MEETINGS

Speaking … •  Know what you want to say •  Keep it short and speak clearly •  Be concise, emphasize a few key points •  Make eye contact and avoid distractions •  Be honest and respectful CITY OF BEND |

RUNNING EFFECTIVE MEETINGS

Listening … •  •  •  •

Listen to understand, not defend Listen for the unfamiliar Don’t interrupt – hear a person out Pay attention to details, ask clarifying questions •  Be fair when you disagree •  Avoid endless discussion of unsolvable items CITY OF BEND |

RUNNING EFFECTIVE MEETINGS

Evaluate your meetings: Oral Evaluation: Go around the room and ask every one to comment. Written Questionnaire: Prepare a simple anonymous questionnaire that you pass out and collect at the conclusion of the meeting. Plus/Delta: Use a white board or flip chart and capture ‘what worked’ in one column, and ‘what we want to change’ in another column CITY OF BEND |

RUNNING EFFECTIVE MEETINGS

In Challenging Situations … •  Hold the role of facilitator at all times •  Be direct and maintain a neutral attitude •  Listen/watch, acknowledge and respond •  Bring group back to ground rules/consequences •  Have a few strategies to get ‘unstuck’ •  Maintain safety and respect for all CITY OF BEND |

RUNNING EFFECTIVE MEETINGS

Scenarios: What would you do? Talking off the subject: A member’s talking is irrelevant to the task or the agenda item. Dominating the discussion: A person talks too often or too long, blocking others’ participation. Attacking, criticizing or picking an argument: Someone going after others, speaker, facilitator Constant negativity, ‘nothing will work’ * see pg. in handouts * CITY OF BEND |

Additional Resources: •  City of Bend, 2007 Neighborhood Association Handbook •  City of Eugene, 2015 Neighborhood Handbook •  Indianapolis Neighborhood Resource Center Organizer’s Workbook

Thank you! Please take a few minutes to complete the anonymous evaluation CITY OF BEND |

MICHIGAN’S FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Current through January 2017

Dear Citizen: This pamphlet has been prepared to help you understand your rights under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act. The Freedom of Information Act gives citizens the right of access to most public records. If access is wrongfully denied, citizens are authorized to bring suit to compel disclosure and may be awarded damages and reasonable attorney fees. As the chief law enforcement officer for Michigan, I encourage you to know your rights by reading the enclosed information. If you have questions or concerns about your rights under the Freedom of Information Act, please feel free to contact my office. Sincerely yours, Bill Schuette Attorney General for the State of Michigan

Table of Contents I.

Summary of Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act ……………………page 2

II.

Freedom of Information Act, Act 442 of 1976 ……………………………..page 8

III.

Attorney General Opinions Relating to the Freedom of Information Act ……………………………………………………………………………………page 32

IV.

Court Opinions on the Freedom of Information Act ………………….....page 42 1

SUMMARY OF MICHIGAN’S FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

The following is a summary of the basic provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The text of the statute follows in Section II.

Basic Intent: The FOIA regulates and sets requirements for the disclosure of certain public records of certain public bodies in the state.

Key Definitions: “Public body” means a state officer, employee, agency, department, division, bureau, board, commission, council, authority, or other body in the executive branch of state government but does not include the governor or lieutenant governor, the executive office of the governor or lieutenant governor, or employees thereof. It also includes: •

an agency, board, commission, or council in the legislative branch of state government;

•

a county, city, township, village, inter-county, inter-city, or regional governing body, council, school district, special district, or municipal corporation, or a board, department, commission, council, or agency thereof; or

•

any other body which is created by state or local authority or which is primarily funded by or through state or local authority.

“Public record” means a writing 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.

Coverage: The FOIA sets requirements for the disclosure of public records by all state agencies, county governments, and other local governments, school boards, other boards, departments, commissions, councils, and public colleges and universities are covered.

Public Records Open to Disclosure: In general, all records except those specifically cited as exceptions are covered by the FOIA. The records covered include minutes of open meetings, officials’ voting records, staff manuals, final orders or decisions in contested cases and the records on which they were made, and promulgated rules. Other written statements which implement or interpret laws, rules, or policies, including, but not limited to, guidelines, manuals, and forms with instructions, adopted or used by the agency in the discharge of its functions, are also covered. It does not matter what form the record is in. The act applies to any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying and every other means of recording. It includes letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, as well as papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films or prints, microfilm, microfiche, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, or other means of recording or retaining meaningful content. It does not include computer software.

Public Records Exempt from Disclosure: The FOIA permits, but does not require, a public body to withhold from public disclosure the following categories of public records under the Act: •

Specific personal information about an individual if the release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of that individual’s privacy.

•

Investigating records compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that disclosure as a public record would do any of the following: o interfere with law enforcement proceedings; o deprive a person of the right to a fair trial or impartial administrative adjudication; o constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; o disclose the identity of a confidential source or, if the record is compiled by a criminal law enforcement agency in the course of a criminal investigation, disclose confidential information furnished only by a confidential source; 3

o disclose law enforcement investigative techniques or procedures; or o endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel. •

Public records which, if disclosed, would prejudice a public body’s ability to maintain the physical security of custodial or penal institutions occupied by persons arrested or convicted of a crime or admitted because of a mental disability, unless the public interest in disclosure under this Act outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure.

•

Records that may be exempted from disclosure by another statute. (Note: statutes that expressly prohibit public disclosure of records generally supersede the FOIA.)

•

A public record or information which is furnished by the public body originally compiling, preparing, or receiving the record or information to a public officer or public body in connection with the performance of the duties of that public officer or public body, if the consideration originally giving rise to the exempt nature of the public record remains applicable.

•

Trade secrets or commercial or financial information voluntarily provided to an agency for use in developing governmental policy.

•

Information subject to attorney-client privilege.

•

Information subject to such privileges as physician-patient, or other privilege recognized by statute or court rule.

•

Pending public bids to enter into contracts.

•

Appraisals of real property to be acquired by a public body.

•

Test questions and answers, scoring keys, and other examination instruments. 4

•

Medical, counseling, or psychological facts which would reveal an individual’s identity.

•

Communications and notes between and within public bodies of an advisory nature to the extent that they cover other than purely factual materials and are preliminary to a final agency determination of policy or action. This exemption does not apply unless the public body shows that in the particular instance the public interest in encouraging frank communication between officials and employees of public bodies clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

•

Law enforcement communication codes and deployment plans unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure.

•

Information that would reveal the location of archeological sites.

•

Product testing data developed by agencies buying products where only one bidder meets the agency’s specifications.

•

A student’s college academic transcript where the student is delinquent in paying financial obligations to the college or university.

•

Records of any campaign committee, including any committee that receives moneys from a state campaign fund. (These records are open to the public under the Michigan Campaign Finance Act.)

•

Public records of a law enforcement agency where disclosure would identify an informer or undercover agent, reveal the home address or telephone number of an officer or agent, disclose personnel records of law enforcement agencies, reveal the contents of staff manuals, endanger the safety of law enforcement officers or their families, or identify residences that law enforcement officers are requested to check in the absence of their owners.

•

Records pertaining to an investigation of a health care professional conducted by the Department of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs under the Public Health Code before a complaint is issued. 5

•

Records of a public body’s security measures.

•

Records relating to a civil action in which the requesting person and the public body are parties.

•

Records that would disclose the social security number of an individual.

•

Applications, including letters of recommendation and references, for president of an institution of higher learning if the records could be used to identify the candidate. However, records pertaining to persons identified as finalists, except letters of recommendation and references, are not exempt.

•

Records of measures designed to protect the security and safety of persons or property in the event of a terrorist threat.

Availability of Public Records: A request must be made in writing and provided to the FOIA coordinator of the public body. A FOIA coordinator may designate another individual to act on his or her behalf to accept requests for processing. A person may ask to inspect, copy, or receive a copy of a public record. There are no qualifications such as residency or age that must be met in order to make a request. However, prisoners in state, county, or federal correctional facilities are not entitled to make requests. Not more than five business days after receiving a request, the public body must respond to a request for a public record. The public agency can notify the requester in writing and extend the time for an additional 10 business days. A person also has the right to subscribe to future issuances of public records, which are created, issued, or disseminated on a regular basis. A subscription is valid for up to six months, at the request of the subscriber, and is renewable. The public body has a responsibility to provide reasonable facilities so that persons making a request may examine and take notes from public records. The facilities must be available during the normal business hours of the public body.

Fees for Public Records: A public body may charge a fee for the necessary copying of a public record for inspection or providing a copy of a public record to a requester. A public body may also charge for search, examination, and review and the separation of exempt information in those instances where failure to charge a fee would result in unreasonably high costs to the public body. The fee must be limited to actual duplication, mailing, and labor costs. The first $20 of a fee must be waived for a person who is receiving public assistance or presents facts showing inability to pay because of indigency and for certain nonprofit organizations as identified in the Act.

Enforcement as to Fee Dispute: If a public body requires a fee that exceeds the amount permitted under its publicly available procedures and guidelines or section 4 of the Act, the requesting person may appeal to the head of the public body if the public body provides for fee appeals. A person also has the right to commence an action in court for a fee reduction. The action must be filed within 45 days after receiving the notice of the required fee or a determination of an appeal to the head of a public body. An action against a local public body is properly brought in the circuit court. An action against a department or agency of the State of Michigan must be filed in the Court of Claims.

Denial of a Record: If a request for a record is denied, written notice of the denial must be provided to the requester within five business days, or within 15 business days if an extension is taken. A failure to respond at all constitutes a denial. When a request is denied, the public body must provide the requester with a full explanation of the reasons for the denial and the requesterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s right to submit a written appeal to the head of the public body or to seek judicial review. Notification of the right to judicial review must include notification of the right to receive attorney fees and to collect costs and possible damages.

Enforcement as to Record Denial: A person may appeal a final decision to deny a request to the head of the public body. The head of the public body has 10 business days to respond to the appeal. Under unusual circumstances, an additional 10 business days may be taken. A person also has the right to commence an action in court to compel disclosure of public records. The suit must be filed within 180 days after the public bodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s final determination to deny a request. 7

An action against a local public body is properly brought in the circuit court for the county in which the public record or an office of the public body is located. An action against a department or agency of the State of Michigan must be filed in the Court of Claims.

Penalties for Violation of the Act: If the trial court finds that the public body has arbitrarily and capriciously violated the FOIA by refusal or delay in disclosing or providing copies of a public record, it may, in addition to any actual or compensatory damages, order punitive damages of $1,000. The court also shall order civil fines if the court determines that a public body willfully and intentionally failed to comply with the Act.

Effective Date: April 13, 1977.

II.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT P.A. 1976, No. 442, Eff. April 13, 1977

AN ACT to provide for public access to certain public records of public bodies; to permit certain fees; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain public officers and public bodies; to provide remedies and penalties; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts. The People of the State of Michigan enact:

15.231 Short title; public policy. Sec. 1. (1) This act shall be known and may be cited as the â&#x20AC;&#x153;freedom of information actâ&#x20AC;?. (2) 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. 8

15.232 Definitions. Sec. 2. As used in this act: (a) “Field name” means the label or identification of an element of a computer data base that contains a specific item of information, and includes but is not limited to a subject heading such as a column header, data dictionary, or record layout. (b) “FOIA coordinator” means either of the following: (i) An individual who is a public body. (ii) An individual designated by a public body in accordance with section 6 to accept and process requests for public records under this act. (c) “Person” means an individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, firm, organization, association, governmental entity, or other legal entity. Person 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. (d) “Public body” means any of the following: (i) A state officer, employee, agency, department, division, bureau, board, commission, council, authority, or other body in the executive branch of the state government, but does not include the governor or lieutenant governor, the executive office of the governor or lieutenant governor, or employees thereof. (ii) An agency, board, commission, or council in the legislative branch of the state government. (iii) 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 thereof. (iv) Any other body which is created by state or local authority or which is primarily funded by or through state or local authority. (v) 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. (e) “Public record” means a writing 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. Public record does not include computer software. This act separates public records into the following 2 classes: 9

(i) Those that are exempt from disclosure under section 13. (ii) All public records that are not exempt from disclosure under section 13 and which are subject to disclosure under this act. (f) “Software” means a set of statements or instructions that when incorporated in a machine usable medium is capable of causing a machine or device having information processing capabilities to indicate, perform, or achieve a particular function, task, or result. Software does not include computer-stored information or data, or a field name if disclosure of that field name does not violate a software license. (g) “Unusual circumstances” means any 1 or a combination of the following, but only to the extent necessary for the proper processing of a request: (i) The need to search for, collect, or appropriately examine or review a voluminous amount of separate and distinct public records pursuant to a single request. (ii) The need to collect the requested public records from numerous field offices, facilities, or other establishments which are located apart from the particular office receiving or processing the request. (h) “Writing” means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, and every other means of recording, and includes letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films or prints, microfilm, microfiche, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, or other means of recording or retaining meaningful content. (i) “Written request” means a writing that asks for information, and includes a writing transmitted by facsimile, electronic mail, or other electronic means.

15.233 Public records; right to inspect, copy, or receive; subscriptions; forwarding requests; file; inspection and examination; memoranda or abstracts; rules; compilation, summary, or report of information; creation of new public record; certified copies. Sec. 3. (1) Except as expressly provided in section 13, upon providing a public body’s FOIA coordinator with a written request that describes a public record sufficiently to enable the public body to find the public record, a person has a right to inspect, copy, or receive copies of the requested public record of the public body. A person has a right to subscribe to future issuances of public records that are created, issued, or disseminated on a regular basis. A subscription shall be valid for up to 6 10

months, at the request of the subscriber, and shall be renewable. An employee of a public body who receives a request for a public record shall promptly forward that request to the freedom of information act coordinator. (2) A freedom of information act coordinator shall keep a copy of all written requests for public records on file for no less than 1 year. (3) A public body shall furnish a requesting person a reasonable opportunity for inspection and examination of its public records, and shall furnish reasonable facilities for making memoranda or abstracts from its public records during the usual business hours. A public body may make reasonable rules necessary to protect its public records and to prevent excessive and unreasonable interference with the discharge of its functions. A public body shall protect public records from loss, unauthorized alteration, mutilation, or destruction. (4) This act does not require a public body to make a compilation, summary, or report of information, except as required in section 11. (5) This act does not require a public body to create a new public record, except as required in section 11, and to the extent required by this act for the furnishing of copies, or edited copies pursuant to section 14(1), of an already existing public record. (6) The custodian of a public record shall, upon written request, furnish a requesting person a certified copy of a public record.

15.234 Fee; limitation on total fee; labor costs; establishment of procedures and guidelines; creation of written public summary; detailed itemization; availability of information on website; notification to requester; deposit; failure to respond in timely manner; increased estimated fee deposit; deposit as fee. Sec. 4. (1) A public body may charge a fee for a public record search, for the necessary copying of a public record for inspection, or for providing a copy of a public record if it has established, makes publicly available, and follows procedures and guidelines to implement this section as described in subsection (4). Subject to subsections (2), (3), (4), (5), and (9), the fee shall be limited to actual mailing costs, and to the actual incremental cost of duplication or publication including labor, the cost of search, examination, review, and the deletion and separation of exempt from nonexempt information as provided in section 14. Except as otherwise provided in this act, if the public body estimates or charges a fee in accordance with this act, the total fee shall not exceed the sum of the following components: (a) That portion of labor costs directly associated with the necessary searching for, locating, and examining of public records in conjunction with receiving and 11

fulfilling a granted written request. The public body shall not charge more than the hourly wage of its lowest-paid employee capable of searching for, locating, and examining the public records in the particular instance regardless of whether that person is available or who actually performs the labor. Labor costs under this subdivision shall be estimated and charged in increments of 15 minutes or more, with all partial time increments rounded down. (b) That portion of labor costs, including necessary review, if any, directly associated with the separating and deleting of exempt information from nonexempt information as provided in section 14. For services performed by an employee of the public body, the public body shall not charge more than the hourly wage of its lowest-paid employee capable of separating and deleting exempt information from nonexempt information in the particular instance as provided in section 14, regardless of whether that person is available or who actually performs the labor. If a public body does not employ a person capable of separating and deleting exempt information from nonexempt information in the particular instance as provided in section 14 as determined by the public bodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s FOIA coordinator on a case-by-case basis, it may treat necessary contracted labor costs used for the separating and deleting of exempt information from nonexempt information in the same manner as employee labor costs when calculating charges under this subdivision if it clearly notes the name of the contracted person or firm on the detailed itemization described under subsection (4). Total labor costs calculated under this subdivision for contracted labor costs shall not exceed an amount equal to 6 times the state minimum hourly wage rate determined under section 4 of the workforce opportunity wage act, 2014 PA 138, MCL 408.411 to 408.424. Labor costs under this subdivision shall be estimated and charged in increments of 15 minutes or more, with all partial time increments rounded down. A public body shall not charge for labor directly associated with redaction under section 14 if it knows or has reason to know that it previously redacted the public record in question and the redacted version is still in the public bodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s possession. (c) For public records provided to the requester on nonpaper physical media, the actual and most reasonably economical cost of the computer discs, computer tapes, or other digital or similar media. The requester may stipulate that the public records be provided on nonpaper physical media, electronically mailed, or otherwise electronically provided to him or her in lieu of paper copies. This subdivision does not apply if a public body lacks the technological capability necessary to provide records on the particular nonpaper physical media stipulated in the particular instance. (d) For paper copies of public records provided to the requester, the actual total incremental cost of necessary duplication or publication, not including labor. The cost of paper copies shall be calculated as a total cost per sheet of paper and shall be itemized and noted in a manner that expresses both the cost per sheet and the 12

number of sheets provided. The fee shall not exceed 10 cents per sheet of paper for copies of public records made on 8-1/2- by 11-inch paper or 8-1/2- by 14-inch paper. A public body shall utilize the most economical means available for making copies of public records, including using double-sided printing, if cost saving and available. (e) The cost of labor directly associated with duplication or publication, including making paper copies, making digital copies, or transferring digital public records to be given to the requester on nonpaper physical media or through the internet or other electronic means as stipulated by the requester. The public body shall not charge more than the hourly wage of its lowest-paid employee capable of necessary duplication or publication in the particular instance, regardless of whether that person is available or who actually performs the labor. Labor costs under this subdivision may be estimated and charged in time increments of the public bodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s choosing; however, all partial time increments shall be rounded down. (f) The actual cost of mailing, if any, for sending the public records in a reasonably economical and justifiable manner. The public body shall not charge more for expedited shipping or insurance unless specifically stipulated by the requester, but may otherwise charge for the least expensive form of postal delivery confirmation when mailing public records. (2) When calculating labor costs under subsection (1)(a), (b), or (e), fee components shall be itemized in a manner that expresses both the hourly wage and the number of hours charged. The public body may also add up to 50% to the applicable labor charge amount to cover or partially cover the cost of fringe benefits if it clearly notes the percentage multiplier used to account for benefits in the detailed itemization described in subsection (4). Subject to the 50% limitation, the public body shall not charge more than the actual cost of fringe benefits, and overtime wages shall not be used in calculating the cost of fringe benefits. Overtime wages shall not be included in the calculation of labor costs unless overtime is specifically stipulated by the requester and clearly noted on the detailed itemization described in subsection (4). A search for a public record may be conducted or copies of public records may be furnished without charge or at a reduced charge if the public body determines that a waiver or reduction of the fee is in the public interest because searching for or furnishing copies of the public record can be considered as primarily benefiting the general public. A public record search shall be made and a copy of a public record shall be furnished without charge for the first $20.00 of the fee for each request by either of the following: (a) An individual who is entitled to information under this act and who submits an affidavit stating that the individual is indigent and receiving specific public assistance or, if not receiving public assistance, stating facts showing inability to pay the cost because of indigency. If the requester is eligible for a requested 13

discount, the public body shall fully note the discount on the detailed itemization described under subsection (4). If a requester is ineligible for the discount, the public body shall inform the requester specifically of the reason for ineligibility in the public bodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s written response. An individual is ineligible for this fee reduction if any of the following apply: (i) The individual has previously received discounted copies of public records under this subsection from the same public body twice during that calendar year. (ii) The individual requests the information in conjunction with outside parties who are offering or providing payment or other remuneration to the individual to make the request. A public body may require a statement by the requester in the affidavit that the request is not being made in conjunction with outside parties in exchange for payment or other remuneration. (b) A nonprofit organization formally designated by the state to carry out activities under subtitle C of the developmental disabilities assistance and bill of rights act of 2000, Public Law 106-402, and the protection and advocacy for individuals with mental illness act, Public Law 99-319, or their successors, if the request meets all of the following requirements: (i) Is made directly on behalf of the organization or its clients. (ii) Is made for a reason wholly consistent with the mission and provisions of those laws under section 931 of the mental health code, 1974 PA 258, MCL 330.1931. (iii) Is accompanied by documentation of its designation by the state, if requested by the public body. (3) A fee as described in subsection (1) shall not be charged for the cost of search, examination, review, and the deletion and separation of exempt from nonexempt information as provided in section 14 unless failure to charge a fee would result in unreasonably high costs to the public body because of the nature of the request in the particular instance, and the public body specifically identifies the nature of these unreasonably high costs. (4) A public body shall establish procedures and guidelines to implement this act and shall create a written public summary of the specific procedures and guidelines relevant to the general public regarding how to submit written requests to the public body and explaining how to understand a public bodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s written responses, deposit requirements, fee calculations, and avenues for challenge and appeal. The written public summary shall be written in a manner so as to be easily understood by the general public. If the public body directly or indirectly administers or maintains an official internet presence, it shall post and maintain the procedures 14

and guidelines and its written public summary on its website. A public body shall make the procedures and guidelines publicly available by providing free copies of the procedures and guidelines and its written public summary both in the public body’s response to a written request and upon request by visitors at the public body’s office. A public body that posts and maintains procedures and guidelines and its written public summary on its website may include the website link to the documents in lieu of providing paper copies in its response to a written request. A public body’s procedures and guidelines shall include the use of a standard form for detailed itemization of any fee amount in its responses to written requests under this act. The detailed itemization shall clearly list and explain the allowable charges for each of the 6 fee components listed under subsection (1) that compose the total fee used for estimating or charging purposes. Other public bodies may use a form created by the department of technology, management, and budget or create a form of their own that complies with this subsection. A public body that has not established procedures and guidelines, has not created a written public summary, or has not made those items publicly available without charge as required in this subsection is not relieved of its duty to comply with any requirement of this act and shall not require deposits or charge fees otherwise permitted under this act until it is in compliance with this subsection. Notwithstanding this subsection and despite any law to the contrary, a public body’s procedures and guidelines under this act are not exempt public records under section 13. (5) If the public body directly or indirectly administers or maintains an official internet presence, any public records available to the general public on that internet site at the time the request is made are exempt from any charges under subsection (1)(b). If the FOIA coordinator knows or has reason to know that all or a portion of the requested information is available on its website, the public body shall notify the requester in its written response that all or a portion of the requested information is available on its website. The written response, to the degree practicable in the specific instance, shall include a specific webpage address where the requested information is available. On the detailed itemization described in subsection (4), the public body shall separate the requested public records that are available on its website from those that are not available on the website and shall inform the requester of the additional charge to receive copies of the public records that are available on its website. If the public body has included the website address for a record in its written response to the requester and the requester thereafter stipulates that the public record be provided to him or her in a paper format or other form as described under subsection (1)(c), the public body shall provide the public records in the specified format but may use a fringe benefit multiplier greater than the 50% limitation in subsection (2), not to exceed the actual costs of providing the information in the specified format. (6) A public body may provide requested information available in public records without receipt of a written request. 15

(7) If a verbal request for information is for information that a public body believes is available on the public body’s website, the public employee shall, where practicable and to the best of the public employee’s knowledge, inform the requester about the public body’s pertinent website address. (8) In either the public body’s initial response or subsequent response as described under section 5(2)(d), the public body may require a good-faith deposit from the person requesting information before providing the public records to the requester if the entire fee estimate or charge authorized under this section exceeds $50.00, based on a good-faith calculation of the total fee described in subsection (4). Subject to subsection (10), the deposit shall not exceed 1/2 of the total estimated fee, and a public body’s request for a deposit shall include a detailed itemization as required under subsection (4). The response shall also contain a best efforts estimate by the public body regarding the time frame it will take the public body to comply with the law in providing the public records to the requester. The time frame estimate is nonbinding upon the public body, but the public body shall provide the estimate in good faith and strive to be reasonably accurate and to provide the public records in a manner based on this state’s public policy under section 1 and the nature of the request in the particular instance. If a public body does not respond in a timely manner as described under section 5(2), it is not relieved from its requirements to provide proper fee calculations and time frame estimates in any tardy responses. Providing an estimated time frame does not relieve a public body from any of the other requirements of this act. (9) If a public body does not respond to a written request in a timely manner as required under section 5(2), the public body shall do the following: (a) Reduce the charges for labor costs otherwise permitted under this section by 5% for each day the public body exceeds the time permitted under section 5(2) for a response to the request, with a maximum 50% reduction, if either of the following applies: (i) The late response was willful and intentional. (ii) The written request included language that conveyed a request for information within the first 250 words of the body of a letter, facsimile, electronic mail, or electronic mail attachment, or specifically included the words, characters, or abbreviations for “freedom of information”, “information”, “FOIA”, “copy”, or a recognizable misspelling of such, or appropriate legal code reference for this act, on the front of an envelope, or in the subject line of an electronic mail, letter, or facsimile cover page. (b) If a charge reduction is required under subdivision (a), fully note the charge reduction on the detailed itemization described under subsection (4).

(10) This section does not apply to public records prepared under an act or statute specifically authorizing the sale of those public records to the public, or if the amount of the fee for providing a copy of the public record is otherwise specifically provided by an act or statute. (11) Subject to subsection (12), after a public body has granted and fulfilled a written request from an individual under this act, if the public body has not been paid in full the total amount under subsection (1) for the copies of public records that the public body made available to the individual as a result of that written request, the public body may require a deposit of up to 100% of the estimated fee before it begins a full public record search for any subsequent written request from that individual if all of the following apply: (a) The final fee for the prior written request was not more than 105% of the estimated fee. (b) The public records made available contained the information being sought in the prior written request and are still in the public bodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s possession. (c) The public records were made available to the individual, subject to payment, within the time frame estimate described under subsection (7). (d) Ninety days have passed since the public body notified the individual in writing that the public records were available for pickup or mailing. (e) The individual is unable to show proof of prior payment to the public body. (f) The public body calculates a detailed itemization, as required under subsection (4), which is the basis for the current written requestâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s increased estimated fee deposit. (12) A public body shall no longer require an increased estimated fee deposit from an individual as described under subsection (11) if any of the following apply: (a) The individual is able to show proof of prior payment in full to the public body. (b) The public body is subsequently paid in full for the applicable prior written request. (c) Three hundred sixty-five days have passed since the individual made the written request for which full payment was not remitted to the public body. (13) A deposit required by a public body under this act is a fee.

15.235 Request to inspect or receive copy of public record; response to request; failure to respond; damages; contents of notice denying request; signing notice of denial; notice extending period of response; action by requesting person. Sec. 5. (1) Except as provided in section 3, a person desiring to inspect or receive a copy of a public record shall make a written request for the public record to the FOIA coordinator of a public body. A written request made by facsimile, electronic mail, or other electronic transmission is not received by a public body’s FOIA coordinator until 1 business day after the electronic transmission is made. However, if a written request is sent by electronic mail and delivered to the public body’s spam or junk-mail folder, the request is not received until 1 day after the public body first becomes aware of the written request. The public body shall note in its records both the time a written request is delivered to its spam or junk-mail folder and the time the public body first becomes aware of that request. (2) Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the person making the request, a public body shall respond to a request for a public record within 5 business days after the public body receives the request by doing 1 of the following: (a) Granting the request. (b) Issuing a written notice to the requesting person denying the request. (c) Granting the request in part and issuing a written notice to the requesting person denying the request in part. (d) Issuing a notice extending for not more than 10 business days the period during which the public body shall respond to the request. A public body shall not issue more than 1 notice of extension for a particular request. (3) Failure to respond to a request pursuant to subsection (2) constitutes a public body's final determination to deny the request if either of the following applies: (a) The failure was willful and intentional. (b) The written request included language that conveyed a request for information within the first 250 words of the body of a letter, facsimile, electronic mail, or electronic mail attachment, or specifically included the words, characters, or abbreviations for “freedom of information”, “information”, “FOIA”, “copy”, or a recognizable misspelling of such, or appropriate legal code reference to this act, on the front of an envelope or in the subject line of an electronic mail, letter, or facsimile cover page.

(4) In a civil action to compel a public body’s disclosure of a public record under section 10, the court shall assess damages against the public body pursuant to section 10(7) if the court has done both of the following: (a) Determined that the public body has not complied with subsection (2). (b) Ordered the public body to disclose or provide copies of all or a portion of the public record. (5) A written notice denying a request for a public record in whole or in part is a public body’s final determination to deny the request or portion of that request. The written notice shall contain: (a) An explanation of the basis under this act or other statute for the determination that the public record, or portion of that public record, is exempt from disclosure, if that is the reason for denying all or a portion of the request. (b) A certificate that the public record does not exist under the name given by the requester or by another name reasonably known to the public body, if that is the reason for denying the request or a portion of the request. (c) A description of a public record or information on a public record that is separated or deleted pursuant to section 14, if a separation or deletion is made. (d) A full explanation of the requesting person’s right to do either of the following: (i) Submit to the head of the public body a written appeal that specifically states the word "appeal" and identifies the reason or reasons for reversal of the disclosure denial. (ii) Seek judicial review of the denial under section 10. (e) Notice of the right to receive attorneys’ fees and damages as provided in section 10 if, after judicial review, the court determines that the public body has not complied with this section and orders disclosure of all or a portion of a public record. (6) The individual designated in section 6 as responsible for the denial of the request shall sign the written notice of denial. (7) If a public body issues a notice extending the period for a response to the request, the notice shall specify the reasons for the extension and the date by which the public body will do 1 of the following: 19

(a) Grant the request. (b) Issue a written notice to the requesting person denying the request. (c) Grant the request in part and issue a written notice to the requesting person denying the request in part. (8) If a public body makes a final determination to deny in whole or in part a request to inspect or receive a copy of a public record or portion of that public record, the requesting person may do either of the following: (a) Appeal the denial to the head of the public body pursuant to section 10. (b) Commence a civil action, pursuant to section 10.

15.236 FOIA coordinator. Sec. 6. (1) A public body that is a city, village, township, county, or state department, or under the control of a city, village, township, county, or state department, shall designate an individual as the public body’s FOIA coordinator. The FOIA coordinator shall be responsible for accepting and processing requests for the public body’s public records under this act and shall be responsible for approving a denial under section 5(4) and (5). In a county not having an executive form of government, the chairperson of the county board of commissioners is designated the FOIA coordinator for that county. (2) For all other public bodies, the chief administrative officer of the respective public body is designated the public body’s FOIA coordinator. (3) An FOIA coordinator may designate another individual to act on his or her behalf in accepting and processing requests for the public body’s public records, and in approving a denial under section 5(4) and (5).

15.240 Options by requesting person; appeal; actions by public body; receipt of written appeal; judicial review; civil action; venue; de novo proceeding; burden of proof; private view of public record; contempt; assignment of action or appeal for hearing, trial, or argument; attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements; assessment of award; damages. Sec. 10. (1) If a public body makes a final determination to deny all or a portion of a request, the requesting person may do 1 of the following at his or her option:

(a) Submit to the head of the public body a written appeal that specifically states the word "appeal" and identifies the reason or reasons for reversal of the denial. (b) Commence a civil action in the circuit court, or if the decision of a state public body is at issue, the court of claims, to compel the public bodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s disclosure of the public records within 180 days after a public bodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s final determination to deny a request. (2) Within 10 business days after receiving a written appeal pursuant to subsection (1)(a), the head of a public body shall do 1 of the following: (a) Reverse the disclosure denial. (b) Issue a written notice to the requesting person upholding the disclosure denial. (c) Reverse the disclosure denial in part and issue a written notice to the requesting person upholding the disclosure denial in part. (d) Under unusual circumstances, issue a notice extending for not more than 10 business days the period during which the head of the public body shall respond to the written appeal. The head of a public body shall not issue more than 1 notice of extension for a particular written appeal. (3) A board or commission that is the head of a public body is not considered to have received a written appeal under subsection (2) until the first regularly scheduled meeting of that board or commission following submission of the written appeal under subsection (1)(a). If the head of the public body fails to respond to a written appeal pursuant to subsection (2), or if the head of the public body upholds all or a portion of the disclosure denial that is the subject of the written appeal, the requesting person may seek judicial review of the nondisclosure by commencing a civil action under subsection (1)(b). (4) In an action commenced under subsection (1)(b), a court that determines a public record is not exempt from disclosure shall order the public body to cease withholding or to produce all or a portion of a public record wrongfully withheld, regardless of the location of the public record. Venue for an action against a local public body is proper in the circuit court for the county in which the public record or an office of the public body is located has venue over the action. The court shall determine the matter de novo and the burden is on the public body to sustain its denial. The court, on its own motion, may view the public record in controversy in private before reaching a decision. Failure to comply with an order of the court may be punished as contempt of court.

(5) An action commenced under this section and an appeal from an action commenced under this section shall be assigned for hearing and trial or for argument at the earliest practicable date and expedited in every way. (6) If a person asserting the right to inspect, copy, or receive a copy of all or a portion of a public record prevails in an action commenced under this section, the court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements. If the person or public body prevails in part, the court may, in its discretion, award all or an appropriate portion of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements. The award shall be assessed against the public body liable for damages under subsection (7). (7) If the court determines in an action commenced under this section that the public body has arbitrarily and capriciously violated this act by refusal or delay in disclosing or providing copies of a public record, the court shall order the public body to pay a civil fine of $1,000.00, which shall be deposited into the general fund of the state treasury. The court shall award, in addition to any actual or compensatory damages, punitive damages in the amount of $1,000.00 to the person seeking the right to inspect or receive a copy of a public record. The damages shall not be assessed against an individual, but shall be assessed against the next succeeding public body that is not an individual and that kept or maintained the public record as part of its public function.

15.240a Fee in excess of amount permitted under procedures and guidelines or MCL 15.234. Sec. 10a. (1) If a public body requires a fee that exceeds the amount permitted under its publicly available procedures and guidelines or section 4, the requesting person may do any of the following: (a) If the public body provides for fee appeals to the head of the public body in its publicly available procedures and guidelines, submit to the head of the public body a written appeal for a fee reduction that specifically states the word “appeal” and identifies how the required fee exceeds the amount permitted under the public body’s available procedures and guidelines or section 4. (b) Commence a civil action in the circuit court, or if the decision of a state public body is at issue, in the court of claims, for a fee reduction. The action must be filed within 45 days after receiving the notice of the required fee or a determination of an appeal to the head of a public body. If a civil action is commenced against the public body under this subdivision, the public body is not obligated to complete the processing of the written request for the public record at issue until the court resolves the fee dispute. An action shall not be filed under this subdivision unless 1 of the following applies: 22

(i) The public body does not provide for appeals under subdivision (a). (ii) The head of the public body failed to respond to a written appeal as required under subsection (2). (iii) The head of the public body issued a determination to a written appeal as required under subsection (2). (2) Within 10 business days after receiving a written appeal under subsection (1)(a), the head of a public body shall do 1 of the following: (a) Waive the fee. (b) Reduce the fee and issue a written determination to the requesting person indicating the specific basis under section 4 that supports the remaining fee. The determination shall include a certification from the head of the public body that the statements in the determination are accurate and that the reduced fee amount complies with its publicly available procedures and guidelines and section 4. (c) Uphold the fee and issue a written determination to the requesting person indicating the specific basis under section 4 that supports the required fee. The determination shall include a certification from the head of the public body that the statements in the determination are accurate and that the fee amount complies with the public bodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s publicly available procedures and guidelines and section 4. (d) Issue a notice extending for not more than 10 business days the period during which the head of the public body must respond to the written appeal. The notice of extension shall include a detailed reason or reasons why the extension is necessary. The head of a public body shall not issue more than 1 notice of extension for a particular written appeal. (3) A board or commission that is the head of a public body is not considered to have received a written appeal under subsection (2) until the first regularly scheduled meeting of that board or commission following submission of the written appeal under subsection (1)(a). (4) In an action commenced under subsection (1)(b), a court that determines the public body required a fee that exceeds the amount permitted under its publicly available procedures and guidelines or section 4 shall reduce the fee to a permissible amount. Venue for an action against a local public body is proper in the circuit court for the county in which the public record or an office of the public body is located. The court shall determine the matter de novo, and the burden is on the public body to establish that the required fee complies with its publicly available 23

procedures and guidelines and section 4. Failure to comply with an order of the court may be punished as contempt of court. (5) An action commenced under this section and an appeal from an action commenced under this section shall be assigned for hearing and trial or for argument at the earliest practicable date and expedited in every way. (6) If the requesting person prevails in an action commenced under this section by receiving a reduction of 50% or more of the total fee, the court may, in its discretion, award all or an appropriate portion of reasonable attorneysâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; fees, costs, and disbursements. The award shall be assessed against the public body liable for damages under subsection (7). (7) If the court determines in an action commenced under this section that the public body has arbitrarily and capriciously violated this act by charging an excessive fee, the court shall order the public body to pay a civil fine of $500.00, which shall be deposited in the general fund of the state treasury. The court may also award, in addition to any actual or compensatory damages, punitive damages in the amount of $500.00 to the person seeking the fee reduction. The fine and any damages shall not be assessed against an individual, but shall be assessed against the next succeeding public body that is not an individual and that kept or maintained the public record as part of its public function. (8) As used in this section, â&#x20AC;&#x153;feeâ&#x20AC;? means the total fee or any component of the total fee calculated under section 4, including any deposit.

15.240b Failure to comply with act; civil fine. Sec. 10b. If the court determines, in an action commenced under this act, that a public body willfully and intentionally failed to comply with this act or otherwise acted in bad faith, the court shall order the public body to pay, in addition to any other award or sanction, a civil fine of not less than $2,500.00 or more than $7,500.00 for each occurrence. In determining the amount of the civil fine, the court shall consider the budget of the public body and whether the public body has previously been assessed penalties for violations of this act. The civil fine shall be deposited in the general fund of the state treasury.

15.241 Matters required to be published and made available by state agency; form of publications; effect of matter not published and made available; exception; action to compel compliance by state agency; order; attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements; jurisdiction; definitions. Sec. 11. (1) A state agency shall publish and make available to the public all of the following: (a) Final orders or decisions in contested cases and the records on which they were made. (b) Promulgated rules. (c) Other written statements that implement or interpret laws, rules, or policy, including but not limited to guidelines, manuals, and forms with instructions, adopted or used by the agency in the discharge of its functions. (2) Publications may be in pamphlet, loose-leaf, or other appropriate form in printed, mimeographed, or other written matter. (3) Except to the extent that a person has actual and timely notice of the terms thereof, a person is not required to resort to, and shall not be adversely affected by, a matter required to be published and made available, if the matter is not so published and made available. (4) This section does not apply to public records that are exempt from disclosure under section 13. (5) A person may commence an action in the court of claims to compel a state agency to comply with this section. If the court determines that the state agency has failed to comply, the court shall order the state agency to comply and shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements to the person commencing the action. The court of claims has exclusive jurisdiction to issue the order. (6) As used in this section, “state agency”, “contested case”, and “rule” mean “agency”, “contested case”, and “rule” as those terms are defined in the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328.

15.243 Exemptions from disclosure; public body as school district or public school academy; withholding of information required by law or in possession of executive office. Sec. 13. (1) A public body may exempt from disclosure as a public record under this act any of the following: 25

(a) Information of a personal nature if public disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s privacy. (b) Investigating records compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that disclosure as a public record would do any of the following: (i) Interfere with law enforcement proceedings. (ii) Deprive a person of the right to a fair trial or impartial administrative adjudication. (iii) Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (iv) Disclose the identity of a confidential source, or if the record is compiled by a law enforcement agency in the course of a criminal investigation, disclose confidential information furnished only by a confidential source. (v) Disclose law enforcement investigative techniques or procedures. (vi) Endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel. (c) A public record that if disclosed would prejudice a public bodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to maintain the physical security of custodial or penal institutions occupied by persons arrested or convicted of a crime or admitted because of a mental disability, unless the public interest in disclosure under this act outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure. (d) Records or information specifically described and exempted from disclosure by statute. (e) A public record or information described in this section that is furnished by the public body originally compiling, preparing, or receiving the record or information to a public officer or public body in connection with the performance of the duties of that public officer or public body, if the considerations originally giving rise to the exempt nature of the public record remain applicable. (f) Trade secrets or commercial or financial information voluntarily provided to an agency for use in developing governmental policy if: (i) The information is submitted upon a promise of confidentiality by the public body.

(ii) The promise of confidentiality is authorized by the chief administrative officer of the public body or by an elected official at the time the promise is made. (iii) A description of the information is recorded by the public body within a reasonable time after it has been submitted, maintained in a central place within the public body, and made available to a person upon request. This subdivision does not apply to information submitted as required by law or as a condition of receiving a governmental contract, license, or other benefit. (g) Information or records subject to the attorney-client privilege. (h) Information or records subject to the physician-patient privilege, the psychologist-patient privilege, the minister, priest, or Christian Science practitioner privilege, or other privilege recognized by statute or court rule. (i) A bid or proposal by a person to enter into a contract or agreement, until the time for the public opening of bids or proposals, or if a public opening is not to be conducted, until the deadline for submission of bids or proposals has expired. (j) Appraisals of real property to be acquired by the public body until either of the following occurs: (i) An agreement is entered into. (ii) Three years have elapsed since the making of the appraisal, unless litigation relative to the acquisition has not yet terminated. (k) Test questions and answers, scoring keys, and other examination instruments or data used to administer a license, public employment, or academic examination, unless the public interest in disclosure under this act outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure. (l) Medical, counseling, or psychological facts or evaluations concerning an individual if the individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s identity would be revealed by a disclosure of those facts or evaluation, including protected health information, as defined in 45 CFR 160.103. (m) Communications and notes within a public body or between public bodies of an advisory nature to the extent that they cover other than purely factual materials and are preliminary to a final agency determination of policy or action. This exemption does not apply unless the public body shows that in the particular instance the public interest in encouraging frank communication between officials and employees of public bodies clearly 27

outweighs the public interest in disclosure. This exemption does not constitute an exemption under state law for purposes of section 8(h) of the open meetings act, 1976 PA 267, MCL 15.268. As used in this subdivision, “determination of policy or action” includes a determination relating to collective bargaining, unless the public record is otherwise required to be made available under 1947 PA 336, MCL 423.201 to 423.217. (n) Records of law enforcement communication codes, or plans for deployment of law enforcement personnel, that if disclosed would prejudice a public body’s ability to protect the public safety unless the public interest in disclosure under this act outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure in the particular instance. (o) Information that would reveal the exact location of archaeological sites. The department of history, arts, and libraries may promulgate rules in accordance with the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, to provide for the disclosure of the location of archaeological sites for purposes relating to the preservation or scientific examination of sites. (p) Testing data developed by a public body in determining whether bidders’ products meet the specifications for purchase of those products by the public body, if disclosure of the data would reveal that only 1 bidder has met the specifications. This subdivision does not apply after 1 year has elapsed from the time the public body completes the testing. (q) Academic transcripts of an institution of higher education established under section 5, 6, or 7 of article VIII of the state constitution of 1963, if the transcript pertains to a student who is delinquent in the payment of financial obligations to the institution. (r) Records of a campaign committee including a committee that receives money from a state campaign fund. (s) Unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure in the particular instance, public records of a law enforcement agency, the release of which would do any of the following: (i) Identify or provide a means of identifying an informant. (ii) Identify or provide a means of identifying a law enforcement undercover officer or agent or a plain clothes officer as a law enforcement officer or agent.

(iii) Disclose the personal address or telephone number of active or retired law enforcement officers or agents or a special skill that they may have. (iv) Disclose the name, address, or telephone numbers of family members, relatives, children, or parents of active or retired law enforcement officers or agents. (v) Disclose operational instructions for law enforcement officers or agents. (vi) Reveal the contents of staff manuals provided for law enforcement officers or agents. (vii) Endanger the life or safety of law enforcement officers or agents or their families, relatives, children, parents, or those who furnish information to law enforcement departments or agencies. (viii) Identify or provide a means of identifying a person as a law enforcement officer, agent, or informant. (ix) Disclose personnel records of law enforcement agencies. (x) Identify or provide a means of identifying residences that law enforcement agencies are requested to check in the absence of their owners or tenants. (t) Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, records and information pertaining to an investigation or a compliance conference conducted by the department under article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838, before a complaint is issued. This subdivision does not apply to records or information pertaining to 1 or more of the following: (i) The fact that an allegation has been received and an investigation is being conducted, and the date the allegation was received. (ii) The fact that an allegation was received by the department; the fact that the department did not issue a complaint for the allegation; and the fact that the allegation was dismissed. (u) Records of a public bodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s security measures, including security plans, security codes and combinations, passwords, passes, keys, and security procedures, to the extent that the records relate to the ongoing security of the public body.

(v) Records or information relating to a civil action in which the requesting party and the public body are parties. (w) Information or records that would disclose the social security number of an individual. (x) Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, an application for the position of president of an institution of higher education established under section 4, 5, or 6 of article VIII of the state constitution of 1963, materials submitted with such an application, letters of recommendation or references concerning an applicant, and records or information relating to the process of searching for and selecting an individual for a position described in this subdivision, if the records or information could be used to identify a candidate for the position. However, after 1 or more individuals have been identified as finalists for a position described in this subdivision, this subdivision does not apply to a public record described in this subdivision, except a letter of recommendation or reference, to the extent that the public record relates to an individual identified as a finalist for the position. (y) Records or information of measures designed to protect the security or safety of persons or property, whether public or private, including, but not limited to, building, public works, and public water supply designs to the extent that those designs relate to the ongoing security measures of a public body, capabilities and plans for responding to a violation of the Michigan anti-terrorism act, chapter LXXXIII-A of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.543a to 750.543z, emergency response plans, risk planning documents, threat assessments, and domestic preparedness strategies, unless disclosure would not impair a public bodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to protect the security or safety of persons or property or unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure in the particular instance. (2) A public body shall exempt from disclosure information that, if released, would prevent the public body from complying with 20 USC 1232g, commonly referred to as the family educational rights and privacy act of 1974. A public body that is a local or intermediate school district or a public school academy shall exempt from disclosure directory information, as defined by 20 USC 1232g, commonly referred to as the family educational rights and privacy act of 1974, requested for the purpose of surveys, marketing, or solicitation, unless that public body determines that the use is consistent with the educational mission of the public body and beneficial to the affected students. A public body that is a local or intermediate school district or a public school academy may take steps to ensure that directory information disclosed under this subsection shall not be used, rented, or sold for the purpose of surveys, marketing, or solicitation. Before disclosing the directory information, a public body that is a local or intermediate school district or a public school academy may require the requester to execute an affidavit stating that directory information 30

provided under this subsection shall not be used, rented, or sold for the purpose of surveys, marketing, or solicitation. (3) This act does not authorize the withholding of information otherwise required by law to be made available to the public or to a party in a contested case under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328. (4) Except as otherwise exempt under subsection (1), this act does not authorize the withholding of a public record in the possession of the executive office of the governor or lieutenant governor, or an employee of either executive office, if the public record is transferred to the executive office of the governor or lieutenant governor, or an employee of either executive office, after a request for the public record has been received by a state officer, employee, agency, department, division, bureau, board, commission, council, authority, or other body in the executive branch of government that is subject to this act.

15.243a Salary records of employee or other official of institution of higher education, school district, intermediate school district, or community college available to public on request. Sec. 13a. Notwithstanding section 13, an institution of higher education established under section 5, 6, or 7 of article 8 of the state constitution of 1963; a school district as defined in section 6 of Act No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1976, being section 380.6 of the Michigan Compiled Laws; an intermediate school district as defined in section 4 of Act No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1976, being section 380.4 of the Michigan Compiled Laws; or a community college established under Act No. 331 of the Public Acts of 1966, as amended, being sections 389.1 to 389.195 of the Michigan Compiled Laws shall upon request make available to the public the salary records of an employee or other official of the institution of higher education, school district, intermediate school district, or community college.

15.244 Separation of exempt and nonexempt material; design of public record; description of material exempted. Sec. 14. (1) If a public record contains material which is not exempt under section 13, as well as material which is exempt from disclosure under section 13, the public body shall separate the exempt and nonexempt material and make the nonexempt material available for examination and copying. (2) When designing a public record, a public body shall, to the extent practicable, facilitate a separation of exempt from nonexempt information. If the separation is readily apparent to a person requesting to inspect or receive copies of the form, the public body shall generally describe the material exempted unless that description 31

would reveal the contents of the exempt information and thus defeat the purpose of the exemption.

15.245 Repeal of MCL 24.221, 24.222, and 24.223. Sec. 15. Sections 21, 22 and 23 of Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969, as amended, being sections 24.221, 24.222 and 24.223 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, are repealed.

15.246 Effective date. Sec. 16. This act shall take effect 90 days after being signed by the governor.

III.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS RELATING TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

There are numerous Opinions of the Attorney General (OAG) that explain various applications of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). While these opinions are binding on state agencies they are not binding on the courts or on local units of government. Copies of OAGâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s may be obtained by visiting www.mi.gov/ag, or by writing me at: Attorney General 525 West Ottawa St. Williams Building, 7th Floor P.O. Box 30212 Lansing, Michigan 48909

Attorney General Opinion No. 7247, p. 134, May 13, 2010. Voted ballots, which are not traceable to the individual voter, are public records subject to disclosure under the FOIA. The Secretary of State, in the role as the Chief Elections Officer, or the Director of Elections through the authority vested in that office, may exercise supervisory authority over local elections officials responding to a FOIA request for voted ballots by issuing directions for the review of the ballots in order to protect their physical integrity and the security of the voted ballots. 32

A person must be allowed to inspect or examine voted ballots, which are not traceable to the individual voter, and to receive copies of the ballots subject to reasonable restrictions prescribed by the Secretary of State. The public body may charge a fee for the copying of the voted ballots as provided for in section 4 of the FOIA. A person requesting access to voted ballots, which are not traceable to the individual voter is entitled to a response from a public body granting or denying the request within 5 to 10 business days. However, the public body in possession of the ballots may not provide access to the ballots for inspection or copying until 30 days after certification of the election by the relevant board of canvassers.

Attorney General Opinion No. 7244, p. 125, March 29, 2010. Photographs or video recordings of students participating in school activities will qualify as education records for purposes of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 USC 1232g, and that Act’s prohibition on the release of such records, if they contain information directly related to a student, and are maintained by the school district. A school or district may designate photographs and video recordings of students engaged in school activities as a category of “directory information” that may be disclosed without written consent under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 USC 1232g, as long as the school or district provides the required notice to parents that such media will be considered directory information, and further provides parents with a reasonable opportunity to opt out or deny consent to the release of such information. A school or district has no legal responsibility under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 USC 1232g, with respect to photographs or video recordings of students participating in school activities taken by a person not acting on behalf of the school or district, unless the photographs and video recordings are “maintained” by the school or district under 20 USC 1232g(a)(4)(A)(ii).

Attorney General Opinion No. 7244, p. 122, March 3, 2010. In complying with its obligations under the OMA to provide the public access to meeting minutes, the public body must also discharge its other public functions and duties. To that end, a rule of reasonableness is applicable in providing a public body an adequate opportunity to meet the request to inspect minutes. A public body must make at least a copy of its minutes available for inspection as provided in MCL 15.269(1) of OMA. A public body must also avoid undue delay in meeting a request, and is obligated to comply with the response periods of the FOIA, and the specific provisions of the 33

OMA, such as section 9(3) for the proposed and approved minutes. But to protect the integrity of its official records, and to allow sufficient time to retrieve such records, if necessary, it may be reasonable for a public body to require advance notice of, and supervision of, the inspection of a record copy of meeting minutes.

Attorney General Opinion No. 7172, p. 20, March 17, 2005. Under section 5 of the FOIA, the five business days within which a public body must respond to a request for a public record means five consecutive weekdays, other than Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays, regardless of when the particular public body is open for public business.

Attorney General Opinion No. 7095, p. 64, December 6, 2001. Under the FOIA, a public body may not impose a more restrictive schedule for access to its public records for certain persons than it does for the public generally, based solely upon the purpose for which the records are sought.

Attorney General Opinion No. 7087, p. 45, August 21, 2001. The board of trustees of a retirement system established and administered by a home rule city charter is a public body subject to the Open Meetings Act and the FOIA.

Attorney General Opinion No. 7083, p. 32, June 7, 2001. The FOIA permits a public body to charge a fee for the actual incremental cost of duplicating or publishing a record, including labor directly attributable to those tasks, even when the labor is performed by a public employee during business hours and does not add extra costs to the public body’s normal budget. Under section 4(3) of the FOIA, a public body may not charge a fee for the cost of its search, examination, review, and the deletion and separation of exempt from nonexempt information, unless failure to charge a fee would result in unreasonably high costs to the public body. This fee limitation, however, does not apply to a public body’s costs incurred in the necessary copying or publication of a public record for inspection, or for providing a copy of a public record and mailing the copy. The phrase “unreasonably high costs,” as used in section 4(3) of the FOIA, prohibits a public body from charging a fee for the costs of search, examination, review, and deletion and separation of exempt from nonexempt information unless the costs incurred by a public body for those activities in the particular instance would be excessive and beyond the normal or usual amount for those services.

Attorney General Opinion No. 7066, p. 156, November 7, 2000. An urban redevelopment corporation organized under the Urban Redevelopment Corporations Law is a public body subject to the Open Meetings Act and the FOIA.

Attorney General Opinion No. 7017, p. 27, May 13, 1999. When establishing fees chargeable under the FOIA, a public body may include in the calculation of labor costs fringe benefits paid to employees.

Attorney General Opinion No. 6977, p. 131, April 1, 1998. A public body may require that its fees be paid in full prior to actual delivery of the copies. However, a public body may not refuse to process a subsequent FOIA request on the ground that the requester failed to pay fees charged for a prior FOIA request. A public body may refuse to process a FOIA request if the requester fails to pay a good faith deposit properly requested by the public body pursuant to section 4(2) of the FOIA. Although the FOIA does not specify a limitations period within which a public body must commence a lawsuit to collect fees charged for complying with a records request, the 6-year limitations period applicable to contract claims governs such a cause of action.

Attorney General Opinion No. 6970, p. 106, January 28, 1998. Under the FOIA, the Auditor General may, in the discharge of his duties to audit the state and its departments, access nonexempt public records of local units of government under the FOIA.

Attorney General Opinion No. 6965, p. 93, January 16, 1998. The state Insurance Bureau, in response to a request made under the FOIA, must provide copies of copyrighted manuals of rules and rates which are in its possession and are required by law to be filed by insurers with the bureau, without first obtaining the permission of the copyright holder.

Attorney General Opinion No. 6942, p. 40, July 3, 1997. A private, voluntary, unincorporated association of lake property owners is not a public body subject to the FOIA. A corporation formed under the Summer Resort Owners Corporation Act, 1929 PA 137, MCL 455.201 et seq, is a public body subject to the provisions of the FOIA. 35

Attorney General Opinion No. 6923, p. 224, October 23, 1996. Section 4(2) of the FOIA permits a public body to charge a deposit of not more than one-half of the projected total fee if that fee exceeds $50.00. A public body may establish a fee in advance of compiling the records responsive to a request under the FOIA, so long as, the fee represents the actual cost of responding to the request based on prior experience, and it is calculated in accordance with section 4 of the FOIA.

Attorney General Opinion No. 6820, p. 196, October 11, 1994. The records maintained by the Department of State Police on the STATIS computer system meet the definition of a “public record” set forth in section 2(c) of the FOIA. Therefore, that department must search the STATIS computer system when it responds to a FOIA request. It must also allow the examination of or produce copies of all documents it finds, unless the records sought fall within one or more of the specific exemptions set forth in section 13 of the FOIA. Although participating law enforcement agencies other than the Department of State Police have remote computer terminals, which allow them access to the STATIS computer, those records are not writings in the possession of those agencies within the meaning of the FOIA, sections 2(c) and (e), unless those records are saved to a computer storage device or printed by the participating agency. Thus, law enforcement agencies other than the Department of State Police are not obligated under the FOIA to search the STATIS system for records except for those records which they contributed to that system.

Attorney General Opinion No. 6766, p. 52, August 19, 1993. A public body may not deny a FOIA request simply because the requester has previously obtained the identical records under the Act. A public body need not provide a waiver of fees to an indigent person requesting additional copies of identical documents previously provided with a waiver of fees pursuant to a prior request under the FOIA.

Attorney General Opinion No. 6668, p. 409, November 28, 1990. A public officer’s or employee’s routine performance evaluation is not exempt from disclosure, even when the evaluation is discussed in a closed meeting held pursuant to the Open Meetings Act.

Attorney General Opinion No. 6613, p. 299, March 14, 1990. While the personal files of the Auditor General are exempt from disclosure, the general files, records, and final audit reports prepared by the Auditor General’s 36

staff are subject to FOIA disclosure, except where a portion is specifically exempted by statute.

Attorney General Opinion No. 6563, p. 27, January 26, 1989. The FOIA does not apply to a private nonprofit corporation.

Attorney General Opinion No. 6504, p. 295, March 4, 1988. Surveys, comments, and other information received by the Qualifications Advisory Committee in its performance evaluation of workerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s compensation magistrates are confidential by statute, MCL 418.212(1)(g), and, therefore, are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.

Attorney General Opinion No. 6390, p. 375, September 26, 1986. State legislators are exempt from the FOIA.

Attorney General Opinion No. 6389, p. 374, September 24, 1986. The FOIA does not require a sheriff to furnish jail booking records to a private security firm if the sheriff determines disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Attorney General Opinion No. 6087, p. 698, July 28, 1982. Records of a public body showing the number of days a public employee is absent from work are not exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.

Attorney General Opinion No. 6064, p. 641, April 30, 1982. A school district must furnish the records of a student upon request of another school district in which the student is enrolled as an incident to the operation of free public elementary and secondary schools required by the Michigan Constitution 1963, art. 8, section 2, and is precluded from withholding the records because the student or his or her parents is indebted to the school district possessing the records for fees or other charges.

Attorney General Opinion No. 6042, p. 584, February 25, 1982. A township is not required to enact its own FOIA in order to comply with the state FOIA.

Attorney General Opinion No. 6023, p. 518, January 8, 1982. Copies of receipts maintained by a register of deeds for amounts paid as real estate transfer taxes fall within the mandatory exemption from disclosure established by the Real Estate Transfer Tax Act, 1966 P.A. 134, section 11b, and are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.

Attorney General Opinion No. 6019, p. 507, December 29, 1981. Employment records disclosing salary history and employment dates are subject to disclosure under the FOIA.

Attorney General Opinion No. 5832, p. 1125, December 18, 1980. A public body is not required to disclose both the questions and answers of a sheriffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s promotional test unless the public body finds it in the public interest to disclose both the test questions and answers.

Attorney General Opinion No. 5797, p. 1038, October 14, 1980. Since the Law Enforcement Information Network Policy Council does not receive and maintain records in the LEIN system, it does not possess copies of records and as a result has no material to furnish persons seeking such records under the FOIA.

Attorney General Opinion No. 5760, p. 935, August 26, 1980. Rules promulgated by the Ethics Board require that records and files concerning dismissed complaints or terminated investigations be suppressed or expunged. This rule is consistent with the privacy exemption of the FOIA since records would be suppressed only if a determination was made that the complaints were unfounded.

Attorney General Opinion No. 5725, p. 842, June 23, 1980. The confidentiality mandated by the Banking Code of 1969 is not limited to facts and information furnished by state chartered banks but applies to all facts and information received by the Financial Institutions Bureau. Such facts and information are not subject to disclosure pursuant to the FOIA.

Attorney General Opinion No. 5632, p. 563, January 24, 1980. The meetings of a board of education expelling a student from school must list a studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s name. Unedited minutes must be furnished to the public on request in accordance with law.

Attorney General Opinion No. 5608, p. 496, December 17, 1979. The exemption contained in section 13(1)(m) of the FOIA for communications and notes within a public body or between public bodies of an advisory nature does not constitute an exemption for the purposes of the Open Meetings Act in view of a specific statutory provision which states that this exemption does not constitute an exemption for the purposes of section 8(h) of the Open Meetings Act.

Attorney General Opinion No. 5593, p. 468, November 14, 1979. File photographs routinely taken of criminal suspects by law enforcement agencies are public records as defined by the FOIA. To the extent that the release of a photograph of a person would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, a public body may refuse to permit a person to inspect or make copies of the photograph.

Attorney General Opinion No. 5500, p. 255, July 23, 1979. The following responses to specific inquiries are found in the above opinion: a.

A summary of the FOIA. p. 255

b. A government agency does not fall within the meaning of “person” for purposes of obtaining information under the FOIA. p. 261 c. The Civil Service Commission is subject to the provisions of the FOIA. p. 261 d. Since the President’s Council of State Colleges and Universities is wholly funded by state universities and colleges, it is a public body as defined by the FOIA. p. 262 e. A board of trustees of a county hospital may refuse to make available records of its proceedings or reports received and records compiled, which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy under section 13(1)(a) of the FOIA, involve disclosure of medical, counseling or psychological facts or evaluations concerning a named individual under section 13(1)(m) of the FOIA [now 13(1)(l)]; or involve disclosure that would violate physician-patient or psychologist-patient privilege under section 13(1)(i) [now 13(1)(h)]. p. 263 f. Transcripts of depositions taken in the course of an administrative hearing are subject to disclosure to a person who was not a party to the proceeding, as there is no specific exemption in section 13(1) of the FOIA or any other statute which exempts a deposition or a document referring to the 39

deposition from disclosure. These documents may, however, contain statements, which are exempt from disclosure and therefore, pursuant to section 14, where a person who is not a party to the proceeding requests a copy, it will be necessary to separate the exempt material and make only the nonexempt records available. p.263 g. Stenographerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s notes or the tape recordings or dictaphone records of a municipal meeting used to prepare minutes are public records under the Act and must be made available to the public. p. 264 h. Computer software developed by and in the possession of a public body is not a public record. p. 264 i. Although a state university must release a report of the performance of its official functions in its files, regardless of who prepared it, if a report prepared by an outside agency is retained only by the private agency, it is not subject to public disclosure. p. 265 j. Copyrighted materials are not subject to the Act. p. 266 [But see Blue Cross/Blue Shield v Insurance Bureau, 104 Mich App 113 (1981).] k. A request for data which refers only to an extensive period of time and contains no other reference by which the public record may be found does not comply with the requirement of section 3 that the request describe the public record sufficiently to enable the public body to find it. p. 268 l. If a public body maintains a file of the names of employees which it has fired or suspended over a certain designated period of time, it must disclose the list if requested. p. 268 m. A public body may charge a fee for providing a copy of a public record. p. 268 n. The five business day response provision begins the day after the public body has received the request sufficiently describing the public record. If the request does not contain sufficient information describing the public record, it may be denied on that ground. Subsequently, if additional information is provided that sufficiently describes the public record, the period within which the response must be made dates from the time that the additional information is received. p. 269 o. A school board may meet in closed session pursuant to the Open Meetings Act to consider matters which are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. p. 270

p. The names and addresses of students may be released unless the parent of the student or the student has informed the institution in writing that such information should not be released. p. 282 q. A law enforcement agency may refuse to release the name of a person who has been arrested, but not charged, in a complaint or information, with the commission of a crime. p. 282 r. Since motor vehicle registration lists have not been declared to be confidential, they are required to be open to public inspection. p. 300

Attorney General Opinion No. 5465, p. 104, March 26, 1979. The Insurance Commissioner is required to charge a rate for making copies of public records requested in accordance with the FOIA.

Attorney General Opinion No. 5436, p. 31, February 1, 1979. Since certain records are protected from disclosure by the Social Welfare Act, they are exempt from disclosure under section 13(1)(d) of the FOIA, which exempts records that are exempt from disclosure by statute.

Attorney General Opinion No. 5419, p. 758, December 29, 1978. The office of county sheriff is subject to the provisions of the FOIA.

Attorney General Opinion No. 5297, p. 430, April 28, 1978. Records subject to the confidentiality provisions of the Child Protection Law, MCL 722.621 et seq, are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA, sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d).

Attorney General Opinion No. 5183-A, p. 97, April 18, 1977. The FOIAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s definition of public body includes single member bodies.

Attorney General Opinion No. 5156, p. 66, March 24, 1977. Unless exempt from disclosure by law, records of the Brown-McNeeley Insurance Fund are public records.

IV.

COURT OPINIONS ON THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Michigan courts have rendered decisions which, when “reported,” become precedent and are the law of the state until changed by a higher court or by the Legislature. The following list contains decisions of Michigan’s appellate courts regarding FOIA. Court opinions may be obtained from law libraries or from the courts of record at a nominal fee. NOTE: In May 2000, the Michigan Legislature re-lettered subsection 13(1) of the FOIA. Changes are made below.

Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault v Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass’n, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2016) (Decided August 25, 2016, Docket No 314310)

The Court of Appeals determined that the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA) is a public body under the FOIA, but the MCCA’s records are exempt from disclosure under MCL 500.134(4) and (6)(c), and, thus, recognized as exempt under section 13(1)(d) of the FOIA.

Cramer v Village of Oakley, 316 Mich App 60; ___ NW2d ___ (2016), part III of the opinion vacated as moot by Supreme Court April 5, 2017 order. A public body must respond to a request for public records within the statutory timeframe contained in the FOIA by granting or denying the request. The public body, however, is not required to produce the requested documents within that time frame. The words “granted” and “fulfilled” with regard to a FOIA request are not synonymous. Nothing precludes a plaintiff from filing suit “if faced with an inordinate delay in the production of the requested records.”

ESPN, Inc v Michigan State Univ, 311 Mich App 662; 876 NW2d 593 (2015). The privacy exemption of FOIA has two prongs that the information sought to be withheld from disclosure must satisfy. First, the information must be of personal nature. Second, it must be the case that the public disclosure of that information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy. With respect to the second prong, a court must balance the public interest in disclosure against the interest the Legislature intended the exemption to protect. The relevant public interest to be weighed in this balance is the extent to which disclosure would serve the core purpose of the FOIA, which is contributing 42

significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government.

Arabo v Michigan Gaming Control Bd, 310 Mich App 370; 872 NW2d 223 (2015). There is no requirement under the FOIA that a public body, in responding to a request, must restate the request or specify the information sought by the requester. A public body may not simply choose how much it will charge for records requested. Further, FOIA does not provide for money damages or confer a remedy based on a violation of provisions allowing a government body to charge a fee for records. In response to a FOIA request, the public body is not required to make a compilation, summary, or report of information, or create a new public record. In camera inspection of Gaming Control Board records was not warranted in requester’s FOIA action against Board because allowing counsel to view responsive documents in camera would have required Board to effectively process request. Because requester failed to pay deposit regarding the FOIA request, the Board was not obligated to make a final determination regarding the request. Furthermore, retrieving and examining the information, without receipt of the required fee assessed by Board, would have resulted in undue burden and expense for the Board and would either cause exempt materials to be divulged or cause the Board to incur the additional expense of ascertaining and redacting exempt materials without required payment.

Bitterman v Village of Oakley, 309 Mich App 53; 88 NW2d 642 (2015). Under the FOIA’s privacy exemption, information is of a personal nature if it is intimate, embarrassing, private, or confidential. In the absence of special circumstances, an individual’s name is not information of a personal nature for purposes of FOIA’s privacy exemption. If private information is included in the records of a public body, the court must determine whether the information is exempt because it relates to an individual’s private life according to the community standards, customs, and views. Courts must ask whether the requested information would shed light on the governmental agency’s conduct or further the core purpose of FOIA, and in all but a limited number of circumstances, the public’s interest in governmental accountability prevails over an individual’s expectation of privacy.

Names of donors to defendant’s police fund were not information of a personal nature. The fact that the donors used private assets to contribute to the police fund did not necessarily make the information of a personal nature. Plaintiff did not seek disclosure of the amount of each donor’s contribution, only the names of the donors. The private funds were donated for public use and donations to the police fund were not used solely to fund the police department. Village council meeting minutes reflected that large amounts were transferred from the police fund to cover other governmental operating expenses, and disclosure of the names of donors would serve a core FOIA purpose by facilitating the public’s access to information regarding the affairs of its local government.

Amberg v City of Dearborn 497 Mich 28; 859 NW2d 674 (2014). The court determined that video surveillance recordings created by a private entity that came into possession of the public body in the performance of an official function supported a finding that the recordings were public records, where the public body received copies as relevant evidence in a pending misdemeanor criminal matter. For a plaintiff in a FOIA action to prevail entitling plaintiff to fees and costs, the action must be reasonably necessary to compel the disclosure and the action must have a substantial causative effect on the delivery of the information.

Rataj v City of Romulus, 306 Mich App 735; 858 NW2d 116 (2014). Plaintiff sought to compel a release of a video recording, unredacted incident report, and police department internal investigation reports and personnel records pertaining to police officer’s alleged assault of an individual who had been arrested and handcuffed. The Court determined that disclosure of the video recording would serve the core purpose of the FOIA, and that the recording did not fall within the privacy provisions of section 13(1)(a) of the FOIA. As for the incident report, while the names of the citizen and officer were subject to disclosure, home addresses, dates of birth, and telephone numbers may be withheld from disclosure under the privacy exemption. The internal investigation reports and personnel records pertaining to the incident were exempt under section 13(1)(s)(ix) of the FOIA, which permits the nondisclosure of such law enforcement agency records.

King v Oakland County Prosecutor, 303 Mich App 222; 842 NW2d 403 (2013). When analyzing a public body’s assertion of an exemption under section 13(1) of the FOIA, a trial court may make complete and particularized findings of fact justifying use of the exemption; it may conduct an in camera review of the disputed records; or 44

it may allow plaintiff’s counsel to conduct an in camera review of the disputed records whenever possible. A trial court, however, need not use all three procedures and should strictly limit use of an in camera review by counsel. The Court also found that the exemption in section 13(1)(b)(i) is narrower than its counterpart in the federal FOIA, since the State exemption only applies to records that “would” interfere with law enforcement proceedings, and not to all records that “could” interfere with law enforcement proceedings. The Court also determined that there was no need to take the depositions of department heads and other high-ranking officials, when their depositions are not essential to prevent prejudice to the party seeking the discovery.

King v Michigan State Police, 303 Mich App 162; 841 NW2d 914 (2013). Polygraph report was exempt from public disclosure by statute. The trial court’s decision to reduce fees charged by a public body for processing the request was reversed as clearly erroneous. A public body’s decision to grant a request “as to existing, non-exempt records” in its possession did not present an unripe controversy in light of the parties’ stipulation to treat the plaintiff’s response to the public body’s motion for summary disposition as an appeal from the public body’s denial of part of the request. The Court also determined that the public body’s production of some, but not all, of the requested records did not render the case moot.

Prins v Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 299 Mich App 634; 831 NW2d 867 (2013). A public body has not satisfied FOIA’s notice requirement until it sends out or officially circulates its denial of a public record request which prevents a public body’s inadvertent failure to timely mail a denial letter from unduly shortening the 180-day period of limitations on a FOIA case.

Hopkins v Twp of Duncan, 294 Mich App 401; 812 NW2d 27 (2011). Handwritten notes taken by a township board member at the township board meeting for his personal use, not circulated among other board members, not used in the creation of the minutes of any board meetings, and retained or destroyed at the member’s sole discretion are not “public records,” under the FOIA.

Truel v City of Dearborn, 291 Mich App 125; 804 NW2d 744 (2010). Transcripts of statements given by four police officers during an investigation conducted pursuant to investigative subpoenas issued by the State Police and County Prosecutor’s office were exempt from disclosure by statute. Michigan also recognizes the deliberative process privilege, which applies to pre-decision deliberative materials. Although this privilege can be overcome by a showing of sufficient need, the privilege was not overcome in this case.

Practical Political Consulting, Inc v Terry Lynn Land, 287 Mich App 434; 789 NW2d 178 (2010). A copy of all voting history of the January 15, 2008 presidential primary including which ballots each voter selected was not exempt by statute and was not information of a personal nature, nor would the disclosure of it constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Howell Ed Ass’n MEA/NEA v Howell Bd of Ed, 287 Mich App 228; 789 NW2d 495 (2010). A public school employee’s email that involves an entirely private or personal matter unrelated to the public body’s official function does not constitute a “public record” under the FOIA solely because it is held in a public body’s email system’s digital memory. The mere violation of an acceptable use policy that bars personal use of the email system but does not expressly provide that emails are subject to the FOIA, does not render personal emails “public records” subject to FOIA.

State News v Michigan State Univ, 481 Mich 692; 753 NW2d 20 (2008). Unless an exemption to disclosure provides otherwise, the application of an exemption is determined when the public body asserts the exemption. The passage of time and subsequent events do not affect whether a public record was exempt from disclosure at the time the public body responded to the request.

Michigan Federation of Teachers and Sch Related Personnel, AFT, AFL-CIO v Univ of Michigan, 481 Mich 657; 753 NW2d 28 (2008). The Court held that employees’ home addresses and telephone numbers meet both prongs of FOIA’s privacy exemption because that information is “of a personal

nature” and its disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy. The Court reexamined the definition of “information of a personal nature” set forth in Bradley v Saranac Community Schools Bd of Ed, 455 Mich 285; 565 NW2d 650 (1997), and concluded that it unnecessarily limited the intended scope of that phrase. The Court cured the deficiency and revised the definition to encompass information of an embarrassing, intimate, private, or confidential nature. Accordingly, the University of Michigan employees’ home addresses and telephone numbers were exempt from disclosure.

Bukowski v City of Detroit, 248 Mich 268; 732 NW2d 75 (2007). Exemption for frank communications in section 13(1)(m) of the FOIA applies to notes or communications that were preliminary to a final agency determination at the time they were created, even if they were no longer preliminary at the time of the FOIA request.

Taylor v Lansing Bd of Water and Light, 272 Mich App 200; 725 NW2d 84 (2006). Personnel files, e-mails, correspondence, and expense reimbursement information were non-exempt public records subject to the FOIA. Section 13(1)(v) of the FOIA did not exempt the records because plaintiff was not a party to a civil action against defendant when she requested the records. The Court acknowledged that the plaintiff was the admitted best friend of a party involved in a separate civil action against the defendant and that it could be inferred that the plaintiff was merely an instrument through which the plaintiff in the other action sought to gain information. Although the Court described the literal application of the exemption in section 13(1)(v) as absurd in this case, it held the statute must be enforced as written because the statute was unambiguous.

Detroit Free Press, Inc v Dep’t of Attorney General, 271 Mich App 418; 722 NW2d 277 (2006). Plaintiff was not a “prevailing party” as that term is defined under the FOIA where the trial court did not order the disclosure of any public records and the dispute centered entirely on the FOIA processing fee charged for copies of records. Therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to the attorney fees and costs awarded by the trial court under section 10 of the FOIA.

Coblentz v City of Novi, 475 Mich 558; 719 NW2d 73 (2006). Defendant was not required to produce certain records described in plaintiff’s FOIA request where defendant’s uncontroverted affidavit stated that the records did not exist. Plaintiff was entitled to the non-disclosed exhibits that accompanied a settlement agreement between defendant and a third party, where plaintiff’s FOIA request described the records sufficiently to enable defendant to find the records and where no exemption from disclosure applied. Plaintiff also was entitled to records exempted by defendant under section 13(1)(f) of the FOIA where defendant did not record a description of the records in a central place within a reasonable time after the records came into defendant’s possession. Fees to recoup the labor costs incurred in processing FOIA requests do not include the cost of independent contractors.

Herald Co, Inc v Eastern Michigan Univ Bd of Regents, 475 Mich 463; 719 NW2d 19 (2006). The advisory, non-factual portions of a letter written by defendant’s vice president of finance to a member of the Board of Regents were exempt as frank communications under section 13(1)(m) of the FOIA, where the balance of competing interests favored nondisclosure.

Detroit Free Press v City of Southfield, 269 Mich App 275; 713 NW2d 28 (2005). The pension income amounts of police and firefighter pension recipients reflect specific governmental decisions regarding retirees’ continuing compensation for public service. Therefore, the pension amounts are more comparable to public salaries than to private assets and do not constitute private information exempt from disclosure under the FOIA, and the public interest in disclosure outweighs a public interest in nondisclosure.

Lapeer County Abstract & Title Co v Lapeer County Register of Deeds, 264 Mich App 167; 691 NW2d 11 (2004). While the FOIA grants a general right to receive copies of public records, nothing in the FOIA requires a public body to provide copies in a microfilm format rather than in the form of a paper copy. Furthermore, the Inspection of Records Act specifically provides that, in response to a request for a reproduction of a record of a register of deeds, the register of deeds may select the medium used to reproduce the record.

Krug v Ingham County Sheriff’s Office, 264 Mich App 475; 691 NW2d 50 (2004). Defendant was not entitled to issue blanket denials of all FOIA requests relating to open case files without actually reviewing the case first to determine what information is exempt. A defendant should treat a lawsuit objecting to a FOIA request denial as a continuing request for information and release the records if the defendant determines that the information has become nonexempt during the course of the FOIA litigation.

Stone Street Capital, Inc v Michigan Bureau of State Lottery, 263 Mich App 683; 689 NW2d 541 (2004). The names, addresses, and other personal information of persons who have received lottery winnings directly, by assignment, or by other judgment are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA as the information is entirely unrelated to any inquiry regarding the inner working of government and would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy. Public disclosure of such personal information has the potential to endanger individuals.

Breighner v Michigan High School Athletic Ass’n, Inc, 471 Mich 217;683 NW2d 639 (2004). The Michigan High School Athletic Association, Inc. (MHSAA), is not a “public body” within the meaning of the FOIA that is funded “by or through” a governmental authority, rather it is an independent, nonprofit corporation primarily funded through its own activities. Therefore, the MHSAA is not subject to the FOIA’s provisions.

Local Area Watch v City of Grand Rapids, 262 Mich App 136; 683 NW2d 745 (2004). Under the Open Meetings Act, minutes of closed session meetings may only be disclosed by court order under that Act. Further, under the FOIA, a public body is not required to disclose records protected from disclosure to the public by other statutes. Where the plaintiff sought disclosure of closed meeting minutes, the defendant did not violate the FOIA for withholding them where there was not a judicial determination that the minutes were subject to disclosure under the Open Meetings Act. There is no basis for the imposition of sanctions under the FOIA for the destruction of executive session minutes that are exempt from disclosure under another statute.

Plaintiff only partially prevailed where during the litigation defendant disclosed some documents that were withheld before litigation, and thus, it was within the trial court’s discretion to award attorney fees and costs.

City of Warren v City of Detroit, 261 Mich App 165; 680 NW2d 57 (2004). The computer software formula used to set water rates is merely computer-stored information or data and, thus, is a public record under the FOIA. The FOIA’s exception of “software” would allow for nondisclosure of the set of computer statements or instructions that are used to utilize the formula and data; however, the formula itself is distinct information separate from the software.

Title Office, Inc v Van Buren Co Treasurer, 469 Mich 516; 676 NW2d 207 (2004). Fees for electronic copies of property tax records requested from a country treasurer are computed according to the Transcripts and Abstracts of Records Act (TARA), as an exception under the FOIA, section 4(1). “Transcripts,” as used in the TARA, is intended to apply to any reproduction of a record on file in the treasurer’s office, including electronic copies.

Landry v City of Dearborn, 259 Mich App 416; 674 NW2d 697 (2003). Section 13(1)(s)(ix) of the FOIA permits nondisclosure of law enforcement personnel records. The meaning of the term “personnel records” in that section includes all records used by law enforcement agencies in the selection or hiring of officers, as well as the applications received by the city from unsuccessful applicants. The public interest in disclosing the information did not outweigh the public interest in not disclosing the information.

Meredith Corp v City of Flint, 256 Mich App 703; 671 NW2d 101 (2003). Where an action for disclosure of public records is initiated pursuant to the FOIA, the prevailing party’s entitlement to an award of reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements includes all such fees, costs, and disbursements related to achieving production of the public records.

Sclafani v Domestic Violence Escape, 255 Mich App 260; 660 NW2d 97 (2003). Section 2(d)(iv) of the FOIA states that a public body is “any other body which is created by state or local authority or which is primarily funded by or through state or local authority.” The court found that Domestic Violence Escape (DOVE), a nonprofit group that educates citizens about domestic violence and provides several services to victims, was a public body and therefore was subject to FOIA because a state or local government authority provided 50% or more of its funding. “Primary funding,” as required under the statute, can be provided by multiple sources.

Key v Twp of Paw Paw, 254 Mich App 508; 657 NW2d 546 (2002). The public body complied with the FOIA when the FOIA coordinator denied a request for information because the information sought could not be located. When a public body claims the additional 10 business days for a response as provided in section 5(2)(d) of the FOIA, the new response deadline is 15 business days after the receipt of the request, regardless of when the notice of extension is issued within the initial five business day response period.

Thomas v City of New Baltimore, 254 Mich App 196; 657 NW2d 530 (2002). Where a person sues under the FOIA and prevails in an action to compel disclosure, the person must be awarded costs and fees, “even though the action has been rendered moot by acts of the public body in disposing of the documents.”

Detroit News, Inc v Policemen and Firemen Retirement Sys of the City of Detroit, 252 Mich App 59; 651 NW2d 127 (2002). The words of the FOIA state “a public body means any of the following.” Thus, any of the entities listed in the statute are included as public bodies under the Act. The Policemen and Firemen Retirement System is a public body because it is a body which is “created by state or local authority or which is primarily funded by or through state or local authority.”

Sutton v City of Oak Park, 251 Mich App 345; 650 NW2d 404 (2002). Internal investigation records may be exempt as personnel records of a law enforcement agency if the public interest favors nondisclosure over disclosure.

An exemption not addressed by the trial court may be addressed by the appellate court if the issue on appeal is a question of law, and the facts necessary for its resolution are presented.

Detroit Free Press v City of Warren, 250 Mich App 164; 645 NW2d 71 (2002). The names of public officials and employees associated with information concerning grand jury proceedings constitute information concerning matters of legitimate public concern. It is not information of a personal nature that is exempt from disclosure under section 13 of the FOIA.

Scharret v City of Berkley, 249 Mich App 405; 642 NW2d 685 (2002). According to section 5 of the FOIA, a public body is required to respond to a request for information within five business days after receiving the request, and its failure to timely respond constitutes its final determination to deny the request and is a violation of the FOIA. In addition, nothing in the FOIA states that the resubmission of a request denied by virtue of the public bodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s failure to respond divests the requesting person of the ability to exercise the options granted under section 10 of the FOIA. To get an award of attorney fees and costs under the FOIA, the action must be reasonably necessary to compel disclosure, and the action must have substantial causative effect on the delivery of the information to the requester.

Proctor v White Lake Twp Police, 248 Mich App 457; 639 NW2d 332 (2001). The FOIA is not unconstitutional simply because it excludes prisoners from obtaining information. Application of the FOIA exclusion does not deprive prisoners of their fundamental right to access the courts or their First Amendment rights. The principles involving access to the courts do not support a right to inspect police department records.

MacKenzie v Wales Twp, 246 Mich App 311; 631 NW2d 769 (2001). A township must grant access to computer tapes used to prepare property tax notices for the township even though the tapes were created by, and in the possession of, another entity. Because the township used the tapes, albeit indirectly, in performing an official function, the tapes fall within the statutory definition of public records. 52

Detroit Free Press v Dep’t of Consumer & Industry Services, 246 Mich App 311; 631 NW2d 769 (2001). Consumer complaints filed with the Department of Consumer and Industry Services against property insurers and health insurers contain information of a personal nature. Disclosure of the names and addresses of the complainants may be withheld, when requested pursuant to FOIA, because disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the individuals’ privacy. Other information in the complaints should, however, be disclosed because it could further the public’s knowledge of how the agency is complying with its statutory function.

Oakland County Treasurer v Title Office, Inc, 245 Mich App 196; 627 NW2d 317 (2001). Electronic records are writings as defined by the FOIA. Public bodies are required to provide public records in the format requested. If there is no explicit statutory language that provides fees for electronic records, the records must be provided using the FOIA fee requirements.

Baker, P.C. v City of Westland, 245 Mich App 90; 627 NW2d 27 (2001). Accident reports containing the names, addresses, injury codes, and accident dates for injured and deceased accident victims do not have to be released when requested under the FOIA. Involvement in an automobile accident is an intimate detail of a person’s private life. Disclosure of the information would not contribute significantly to the public’s understanding of the operations or activities of the government and, therefore, would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. The FOIA’s privacy exemption may be applied to deceased private citizens and their families where there is no public interest in disclosure.

Kent County Sheriff’s Ass’n v Sheriff, 463 Mich 353; 616 NW2d 677 (2000). The FOIA provides citizens with broad rights to obtain public records limited only by the coverage of the statute and its exemptions. The fact that another body of law potentially gives an additional basis for access to records, in this case the Public Employment Relations Act, does not limit the applicability of the FOIA or the jurisdiction of the circuit court to consider relief under the FOIA.

Internal investigation records of a law enforcement agency may be exempt as personnel records under section 13(1)(s)(ix) of the FOIA where it is sufficiently established that public interest favors nondisclosure over disclosure.

Herald Co v City of Bay City, 463 Mich 111; 614 NW2d 873 (2000). The FOIA does not establish detailed requirements for a valid request. If a citizen submits a request for the names, current job titles, and cities of residence for job candidates, and the city possesses records containing the information, the city is obligated to provide the records even though they were not specifically described in the request. The fact of application for a public job, or the typical background information that may be contained in an application, is not information of a personal nature protected under section 13(1)(a) of the FOIA. If embarrassing or intimate personal information is contained in an application, the public body is under a duty to separate the exempt material and make the nonexempt material available to the public. Disclosure of information concerning the final candidates for a public position would serve the purpose of the FOIA because disclosure would facilitate the public’s access to information regarding the affairs of government.

Detroit Free Press v Dep’t of State Police, 243 Mich App 218; 622 NW2d 313 (2000). The State Police is not required to disclose information regarding state legislators who applied for concealed weapons permits. Legislators who apply for a concealed weapons permit are exercising a right guaranteed to all. The fact that a person has requested or secured permission to carry a concealed weapon is an intimate and potentially embarrassing detail of one’s private life. Disclosure of the information would not contribute significantly to the public’s understanding of the operations or activities of the government and, therefore, would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. With regard to counties, information about concealed weapons permits could conceivably assist the public in understanding the operations, activities, and affairs of local gun boards. Whether public officials are treated more favorably than others by gun boards is a legitimate concern. This concern, however, can be addressed without identifying the individuals who sought the permits.

Kocher v Dep’t of Treasury, 241 Mich App 378; 615 NW2d 767 (2000). The addresses of unclaimed property holders maintained by the Michigan Department of Treasury fall within the definition of personal information, and their release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. Disclosure of the information would not enhance the public’s understanding of the operations or activities of the government.

Messenger v Dep’t of Consumer & Industry Services, 238 Mich App 524; 606 NW2d 38 (1999). Investigation undertaken by the state public body did not fit the definition of investigation found in the Public Health Code as referenced in section 13(1)(t) of the FOIA.

Mager v Dep’t of State Police, 460 Mich 134; 595 NW2d 142 (1999). State Police is not required to provide the names and addresses of registered handgun owners. Gun ownership is information that meets both elements of the FOIA privacy exemption, section (13)(1)(a). Gun registration information is of a “personal nature,” and the disclosure of such information would constitute a “clearly unwarranted” invasion of the individual’s privacy.

Manning v City of East Tawas, 234 Mich App 244; 593 NW2d 649 (1999). When making an in camera determination whether to compel disclosure under the FOIA, a trial court may order disclosure of nonexempt information and may provide for the redaction of exempt information.

Messenger v Ingham County Prosecutor, 232 Mich App 633; 591NW2d 393 (1998). The privilege for attorney work product is recognized by court rule, MCR 2.302(B)(3)(a), and incorporated into the FOIA through section 13(1)(h). When information sought pursuant to the FOIA is identified as attorney work product, it is not subject to disclosure.

McCartney v Attorney General, 231 Mich App 722; 587 NW2d 824 (1998). Letters forwarded by the Governor to the Attorney General for the purpose of seeking legal advice were protected by the attorney-client privilege, and thus, by section 13(1)(g) of the FOIA. Internal memoranda within the Attorney General’s office containing recommendations, opinions, and strategies with regard to legal advice requested by the Governor are exempt from disclosure by section 13(1)(m) of the FOIA to the extent that they are preliminary, nonfactual, and part of the deliberative process.

Connoisseur Communication of Flint v Univ of Michigan, 230 Mich App 732; 584 NW2d 647 (1998). The University of Michigan properly denied a FOIA request for the vehicle records of a student athlete. The information was protected pursuant to the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and, therefore, exempt from disclosure under the FOIA, section 13(2).

State Defender Union Employees v Legal Aid & Defender Ass’n of Detroit, 230 Mich App 426; 584 NW2d 359 (1998). An organization “primarily funded by or through state or local authority” is a public body pursuant to the FOIA. Primarily funded means the receipt of government grants or subsidies. An otherwise private organization is not a public body merely because public monies paid in exchange for goods or services comprise a majority of the organization’s revenues.

Herald Co v Kalamazoo, 229 Mich App 376; 581 NW2d 295 (1998). Law enforcement exemptions of the Michigan FOIA are more restrictive than parallel provisions of the federal FOIA. The correct standard under the Michigan FOIA is whether a document “would” interfere with law enforcement proceedings or disclose investigative techniques or procedures. An investigation will not be considered “on-going” for the purposes of the FOIA without an active, on-going, law enforcement investigation. In the absence of such activities, the investigation cannot be considered open although the period of limitations may still be running.

Bradley v Saranac Community Schs Bd of Ed, Lansing Ass’n of Sch Administrators v Lansing Sch Dist, 455 Mich 285; 565 NW2d 650 (1997). The FOIA does not have a specific exemption for personnel records. Thus, the personnel records of non-law enforcement public employees generally are available 56

to the public. Information that falls within one of the exemptions of the FOIA may be redacted. The privacy exemption under section 13(1)(a) of the FOIA consists of two elements, both of which must be met in order for an exemption to apply. First, the information must be of a “personal nature.” Second, the disclosure must be a “clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Performance appraisals, disciplinary actions, and complaints relating to employees’ accomplishments in their public jobs do not reveal intimate or embarrassing details of their private lives and, therefore, they are not records of a “personal nature.” Performance evaluations of public employees are not counseling evaluations protected from disclosure by the FOIA, section 13(1)(l). Section 13(1)(m) of the FOIA provides an exemption for communications passing within or between public bodies. Documents in the possession of a school district prepared by parents are not within the scope of this exemption. The exemption must be asserted by a public body rather than by a private individual.

Herald Co v Ann Arbor Pub Schs, 224 Mich App 266; 568 NW2d 411 (1997). Once a document that is the subject of a FOIA lawsuit has been disclosed, the subject of the controversy disappears and becomes moot. The privacy exemption of the FOIA allows a public body to withhold from disclosure public records of a personal nature where the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy. Information is considered personal if it concerns a particular person and his or her intimate affairs, interests, or activities. While the records sought in this case were personal in nature in that they contained information about a teacher’s family and observations about his or her conduct, the disclosure did not constitute a “clearly unwarranted” invasion of privacy because the records discussed the professional performance of a teacher in the classroom that is an issue of legitimate concern to the public. A public body may exempt from disclosure, pursuant to section 13(1)(m) of the FOIA, advisory communications within a public body or between public bodies to the extent that they are nonfactual and are preliminary to a final agency determination. However, if records meet these substantive tests, the public body must also establish that the public interest in encouraging frank communications within the public body or between public bodies clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In this case the public interest in disclosing records that contain public observations of a teacher who has been convicted of carrying a 57

concealed weapon is not clearly outweighed by the public interest in encouraging frank communications within the public body. A class of documents may be exempt from the FOIA, so long as, the exempt categories are clearly described and drawn with precision so that all documents within a category are similar in nature. Exempt material must be segregated from nonexempt material to the extent practicable. The FOIA exempts, in section 13(1)(h), information subject to the physician-patient privilege. The purpose of the privilege is to protect the physician-patient relationship and ensure that communications between the two are confidential. Attendance records that do not contain any information that a physician acquired while treating an employee are not covered by this exemption. The fact that an employee waives the physician-patient privilege by submitting to his or her employer attendance records that contain medical records does not mean that the privilege was waived with regard to third parties who request disclosure of the records under the FOIA. The FOIA excludes from disclosure information protected by the attorney-client privilege. The scope of the privilege is narrow, including only those communications by the client to its advisor that are made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. A tape recording of an interview of the teacher by the school district is not within the attorney-client privilege.

CMU Supervisory-Technical Ass’n MEA/NEA v CMU Bd of Trustees, 223 Mich App 727; 567 NW2d 696 (1997). A party to a lawsuit does not lose his or her right under the FOIA simply because the party may be able to obtain the records from a public body through the discovery phase of pending civil litigation. [But see section 13(1)(v) of the FOIA, which now exempts records or information relating to a civil action in which the requesting party and the public body are parties.]

Oakland County Prosecutor v Dep’t of Corrections, 222 Mich App 654; 564 NW2d 922 (1997). A prisoner’s mental health records submitted to the parole board when seeking parole must be provided to a county prosecutor when requested pursuant to FOIA so that the prosecutor may determine whether the board’s decision to grant parole should be appealed.

Schroeder v Detroit, 221 Mich App 364; 561 NW2d 497 (1997). A person denied employment by a police department was not entitled to receive a copy of his or her psychological evaluation under the FOIA. In cases involving 58

testing instruments as defined by section 13(1)(k) of the FOIA, release of the information is not required unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure. Here, the public interest ensuring the integrity of the hiring process outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information to a candidate attempting to investigate the fairness of the test.

Grebner v Oakland County Clerk, 220 Mich App 513; 560 NW2d 351 (1996). Section 10(1) of the FOIA is a combined jurisdiction and venue provision. This provision makes it clear that circuit courts have jurisdiction to hear FOIA cases and specifies the counties in which the action may be brought. Venue for FOIA actions properly lies in the county where the complainant resides. [But see section 10(1) as amended, which provides for the commencement of civil actions against county and local public bodies in the circuit court, and against state public bodies in the court of claims.]

Nicita v Detroit, 216 Mich App 746; 550 NW2d 269 (1996). Business records pertaining to a real estate development company are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 13(1)(a) of the FOIA where there is no indication that the records contain information of a personal nature. This section does not protect information that could conceivably lead to the revelation of personal information. Section 13(1)(m) of the FOIA protects communications within or between a public body that are other than purely factual and are preliminary to a final agency determination of policy or action. A public agency must also show that the need for nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Grebner v Clinton Charter Twp, 216 Mich App 736; 550 NW2d 265 (1996). Section 522(1) of the Michigan Election Law which provides for the making, certifying, and delivery of a computer tape to any person upon the payment to the clerk of the court of the cost of making, certifying, and delivering the tape, disk, or listing is not a statute â&#x20AC;&#x153;specifically authorizing the saleâ&#x20AC;? of the computer tape. Therefore, the determination of the fee to be charged for obtaining the computer tape is made pursuant to section 4 of the FOIA.

Jackson v Eastern Michigan Univ, 215 Mich App 240; 544 NW2d 737 (1996). Eastern Michigan University Foundation is primarily funded by Eastern Michigan University and, therefore, is a public body subject to the FOIA.

Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited v Michigan Depâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t of Military Affairs, 213 Mich App 203; 539 NW2d 745 (1995). Notwithstanding the unique relationship between the Michigan National Guard and the federal government, which is explicitly recognized by Michigan statutes, the court had jurisdiction to consider plaintiffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s actions under the Michigan FOIA seeking to obtain documents in possession of the Michigan National Guard. While the state courts have jurisdiction, application of section 13(1)(d) of the Michigan FOIA encompasses federal regulations and the federal FOIA, both of which prohibit the release of the documents sought by plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff could not obtain the documents at issue.

Thomas v State Bd of Law Examiners, 210 Mich App 279; 533 NW2d 3 (1995). The State Board of Law Examiners is an agent of the judiciary, and, therefore, not a public body subject to the FOIA.

Farrell v Detroit, 209 Mich App 7; 530 NW2d 105 (1995). Computer records are public records that are subject to disclosure pursuant to the FOIA. A public body is required to provide public records in the form requested, not just the information they contain. The providing of a computer printout of the information contained on a computer tape does not satisfy a request for the computer tape itself.

Local 312 of the AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Detroit, 207 Mich App 472; 525 NW2d 487 (1994). The Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) and the FOIA are not conflicting statutes such that the PERA would prevail over the FOIA with the result that a person involved in a labor dispute would be precluded from obtaining public records under the FOIA. The Legislature has clearly defined the class of persons entitled to seek disclosure of public records pursuant to the FOIA. There is no sound policy reason for distinguishing between persons who are involved in litigation-type proceedings and 60

those who are not. [But see section 13(1)(v) of the FOIA, which now exempts records or information relating to a civil action in which the requesting party and the public body are parties.] The court is required to award plaintiff attorney fees and costs where the plaintiff prevails in a FOIA action.

In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, 205 Mich App 700; 518 NW2d 522 (1994). Section 13(1)(m) of the FOIA protects from disclosure communications within or between public bodies of an advisory nature that are other than purely factual and are preliminary to a final agency determination of policy or action. The burden is on the public body to show, in each particular instance, that the public interest in encouraging frank communications between officials and employees of the public body clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. It is not adequate to show that the requested document falls within a general category of documents that may be protected.

Hyson v Dep’t of Corrections, 205 Mich App 422; 521 NW2d 841 (1994). Statements made by confidential witnesses relating to a major misconduct charge against a prison inmate may be withheld when requested pursuant to the FOIA because disclosure of the documents, even with the names of the witnesses deleted, would reveal their identities and jeopardize their personal safety within the prison. In addition, the release would prejudice the public body’s ability to maintain the physical security of the penal institution.

Mackey v Dep’t of Corrections, 205 Mich App 330; 517 NW2d 303 (1994). A prison record about a prison inmate is exempt from disclosure under the prison security exemption of the FOIA, where the record is requested by an inmate other than the one to whom the record pertains. [But see sections 1(2) and 2(c) of the FOIA, which now exclude incarcerated persons from making FOIA requests.]

The Detroit News, Inc v Detroit, 204 Mich App 720; 516 NW2d 151 (1994). Telephone bills paid by a public body constitute expense records of public officials and employees and are “public records” under the FOIA.

Quatrine v Mackinaw City Pub Schs, 204 Mich App 342; 514 NW2d 254 (1994). Public schools were not required to release records under the FOIA where written parental consent for release of records was not provided.

Newark Morning Ledger Co v Saginaw County Sheriff, 204 Mich App 215; 514 NW2d 213 (1994). Internal affairs investigation records of a law enforcement agency constitute personnel records, which are exempt from disclosure unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure. The mere location of a public record in a personnel file is not determinative as to its status in a personnel record. In determining what constitutes a “personnel record” under the FOIA, the court looked to the definition of that term in the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act (ERKA). While the purpose of the FOIA and the ERKA are different, the Legislature’s clearly expressed intent in the ERKA to prohibit access by an employee to any internal investigations relating to that employee indicates an intent to not allow public access to such records.

Densmore v Dep’t of Corrections, 203 Mich App 363; 512 NW2d 72 (1994). A public body does not need to provide additional copies of records it already has provided, unless the requester can demonstrate why the copy already provided was not sufficient.

Booth Newspapers, Inc v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents, 444 Mich 211; 507 NW2d 422 (1993). To exempt information under section 13(1)(a) of the FOIA, information must be of a “personal nature,” and disclosure of that information must constitute “clearly unwarranted” invasion of privacy. Travel expense records of members of a public body do not constitute “records of a personal nature.” The privacy exemption does not permit the withholding of information that conceivably could lead to the revelation of personal information. Therefore, a public body may not withhold travel expense records because their disclosure might lead to information concerning the candidates interviewed by board members.

Walen v Dep’t of Corrections, 443 Mich 240; 505 NW2d 519 (1993). A prison disciplinary hearing falls within the definition of “contested case” and, therefore, pursuant to the FOIA, section 11(1), it must be published and made available to the public. The Department of Corrections satisfied the publication requirement by retaining the final orders and decisions from disciplinary hearings in prisoners’ files.

Patterson v Allegan County Sheriff, 199 Mich App 638; 502 NW2d 368 (1993). A booking photograph of a county jail inmate kept in the files of a county sheriff is a public record under the FOIA; such photographs may not be withheld from disclosure on the basis of the privacy exemption found in 13(1)(a).

Yarbrough v Dep’t of Corrections, 199 Mich App 180; 501 NW2d 207 (1993). Records compiled in the course of an internal investigation into a sexual harassment are “investigating records compiled for law enforcement purposes” within the meaning of said terms at section 13(1)(b) of the FOIA.

Hubka v Pennfield Twp, 197 Mich App 117; 494 NW2d 800 (1992). Letters sent by a township attorney to a township board that contain information obtained by the attorney from township employees under compulsion and promises of confidentiality are protected from disclosure under the FOIA by the attorneyclient privilege. Likewise, the opinions, conclusions, and recommendations of the attorney, based on the information, are protected.

Wilson v Eaton Rapids, 196 Mich App 671; 493 NW2d 433 (1992). A public body’s attempt to reconcile a contractual obligation to maintain the confidentiality of a resignation agreement with its statutory obligation under the FOIA does not constitute arbitrary and capricious behavior. A party prevails under the FOIA, and is therefore, entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney fees, only if the action was necessary to and had a substantial causative effect on delivery or access to the documents.

Swickard v Wayne County Medical Examiner, 196 Mich App 98; 492 NW2d 497 (1992). A party who prevails completely in an action asserting the right to inspect or receive a copy of a public record under the FOIA is entitled to reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements. No time limit is imposed upon a prevailing party for requesting attorney fees.

Nicita v Detroit, 194 Mich App 657; 487 NW2d 814 (1992). Section 13(1)(i) of the FOIA does not exempt bids with respect to development projects from disclosure once a developer has been chosen.

Shellum v MESC, 194 Mich App 474; 487 NW2d 490 (1992). Information held by the MESC concerning the calculated unemployment insurance tax contribution rate of an employer is exempt from disclosure under section 13(1)(d) of the FOIA because it utilizes information obtained from the employer, which is protected by statute and administrative rule.

Swickard v Wayne County Medical Examiner, 438 Mich 536; 475 NW2d 304 (1991). In making a determination whether a disclosure of requested information would constitute an invasion of privacy under section 13(1)(a) of the FOIA constitutional law and common-law as well as customs, mores, or ordinary views of the community can be considered. The release of autopsy reports and toxicology test results are not unwarranted infringements on the right to privacy of either the deceased or the deceased’s family. The autopsy reports and toxicology test results are not within the doctor-patient privilege.

Michigan Tax Management Services Co v City of Warren, 437 Mich 506; 473 NW2d 263 (1991). When a prevailing party in a FOIA action is awarded “reasonable” attorney fees, the trial court is obligated to make an independent determination with regard to the amount of the fees. The standard utilized by an appellate court to review such a determination is abuse of discretion.

Favors v Depâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t of Corrections, 192 Mich App 131; 480 NW2d 604 (1991). The form used in determining whether a prisoner should be awarded disciplinary credits was exempt from disclosure under section 13(1)(m) of the FOIA in that it covered other than purely factual materials, was advisory in nature and preliminary to final agency determination of policy or action. The public interest in encouraging frank communications within the Department of Corrections (DOC) clearly outweighed the public interest in disclosure of worksheet forms. The trial court failed to comply with the technical requirements of the FOIA because it did not require the DOC to bear the burden of proving that a public record was exempt. However, that failure did not require reversal of a grant of summary disposition for the DOC in inmateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s action where the DOC clearly reached the correct result. [But see sections 1(2) and 2(c) of the FOIA, which now exclude incarcerated persons from making FOIA requests.]

Lepp v Cheboygan Area Schs, 190 Mich App 726; 476 NW2d 506 (1991). Where the requested information pertains to the party making the request, it is unreasonable to refuse disclosure on the grounds of invasion of privacy.

Clerical-Technical Union of MSU v MSU Bd of Trustees, 190 Mich App 300; 475 NW2d 373 (1991). The home addresses of donors to Michigan State University are information of a personal nature, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.

The Detroit News, Inc v Detroit, 185 Mich App 296; 460 NW2d 312 (1990). The minutes of a closed city council meeting, held in violation of the Open Meetings Act, are public records and are available upon request under the FOIA. The oral opinions of an attorney are not public records subject to the FOIA and, therefore, cannot be used to justify a closed meeting of a public body.

Wayne County Prosecutor v Detroit, 185 Mich App 265; 460 NW2d 298 (1990). For purposes of the FOIA, a county prosecutor is a person as defined in the Act. This allows him or her, in his or her official capacity, to request documents from public bodies under the FOIA. 65

Traverse City Record Eagle v Traverse City Area Pub Schs, 184 Mich App 609; 459 NW2d 28 (1990). A tentative bargaining agreement between a school district and the union which represents its employees was held to be exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 13(1)(m) of the FOIA, which exempts communication and notes within a public body or between public bodies which are advisory, nonfactual, and preliminary to a final decision. The public interest in encouraging frank communications between the employer and its employees, which leads to effective negotiations, in this case outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Hartzell v Mayville Community Sch Dist, 183 Mich App 782; 455 NW2d 411 (1990). The FOIA requires disclosure of the fact that a requested document does not exist. A plaintiff in a FOIA action that is forced to file a lawsuit to ascertain that a document does not exist is a prevailing party entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney fees.

Tallman v Cheboygan Area Schs, 183 Mich App 123; 454 NW2d 171 (1990). A public body may charge a fee for providing a copy of a public record. Section 4 of the Act provides a method for determining the charge for records, and a public body is obligated to arrive at its fees pursuant to that section.

Booth Newspapers, Inc v Kalamazoo Sch Dist, 181 Mich App 752; 450 NW2d 286 (1989). The trial court appropriately ordered the release of tenure charges and a settlement agreement concerning allegations of sexual misconduct against an unmarried teacher in redacted form. The records were redacted to prevent the identity of the teacher and the students involved from being disclosed in order to protect their privacy. The FOIA confers discretion upon a court to award an appropriate portion of the reasonable attorney fees incurred by a party that has prevailed in part. When a plaintiff prevails only as to a portion of the request, the award of fees should be fairly allocable to that portion.

Kincaid v Depâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t of Corrections, 180 Mich App 176; 446 NW2d 604 (1989). A public body bears the burden of proof in demonstrating a proper justification for the denial of a FOIA request. A request for disclosure of information under the FOIA must describe the requested records sufficiently to enable the public body to find them; when a request is denied because of an insufficient description, the requesting person may (1) rewrite the request with additional information, or (2) file suit where the sole issue would be the sufficiency of information to describe the records desired. A FOIA request, which erroneously states the date of a guilty determination on a misconduct or the hearing date with respect to which records are sought, reasonably and sufficiently describes the records sought. A public body acts in an arbitrary and capricious manner by repeatedly refusing to look for a record so described.

Post-Newsweek Stations, Michigan, Inc v Detroit, 179 Mich App 331; 445 NW2d 529 (1989). In claiming an exemption under the FOIA, for interference with law enforcement proceedings, the burden of proof is on the public body claiming the exemption. The exemption must be interpreted narrowly and the public body must separate exempt material from nonexempt and make nonexempt information available. Exempt information must be described with particularity indicating how the information would interfere with law enforcement proceedings. When analyzing claims of exemption under the FOIA, a trial court must make sure it receives a complete particularized justification for a denial of a request, or hold in camera hearings to determine whether this justification exists. The court may allow counsel for the requesting party to examine, in camera, under special agreement, the contested material.

Easley v Univ of Michigan, 178 Mich App 723; 444 NW2d 820 (1989). A public body must have in its possession or control a copy of the requested document before it can be produced or before a court can order its production.

Payne v Grand Rapids Police Chief, 178 Mich App 193; 443 NW2d 481 (1989). A record of a law enforcement investigation may be exempt from disclosure under the FOIA, where disclosure would interfere with law enforcement proceedings. However, the agency must demonstrate how disclosure of particular records or 67

kinds of records would amount to interference on the basis of facts and not merely conclusory statements that recite the language of the FOIA. A court can consider allowing plaintiff’s counsel to have access to contested records in camera under special agreement as a means to resolve a FOIA lawsuit.

Booth Newspapers, Inc v Kent County Treasurer, 175 Mich App 523; 438 NW2d 317 (1989). Tax records indicating the monthly or quarterly tax payments made by individual hotels and motels under a county hotel/motel tax do not fall within the FOIA’s privacy exemption.

Hagen v Dep’t of Education, 431 Mich 118; 427 NW2d 879 (1988). The decisions of the State Tenure Commission are matters of public record. When a private hearing is requested by a teacher as provided under the Teacher Tenure Act, the decision may be withheld during the administrative stage of the teacher’s appeal. Once a final administrative decision is reached, the decision may not be withheld from disclosure.

Oakland Press v Pontiac Stadium Bldg Auth, 173 Mich App 41; 433 NW2d 317 (1988). The release of names and addresses of licensees doing business with a public body is not an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Haskins v Oronoko Twp Supervisor, 172 Mich App 73; 431 NW2d 210 (1988). A trial court complies with the holding in The Evening News Ass’n v City of Troy, 417 Mich 481; 339 NW2d 421 (1983), where it conducts an in camera inspection of the records sought and determines that certain records are exempt from disclosure under narrowly drawn statutory exemptions designed to protect the identity of confidential informants.

Kubick v Child & Family Services of Michigan, 171 Mich App 304; 429 NW2d 881 (1988). While there is no bright-line rule to determine what constitutes “primarily funded” to determine if a body is a “public body” as defined at section 2(d) of the FOIA, a private nonprofit corporation which receives less than half of its funding from government sources is not a public body which is primarily funded by or through 68

state or local authority. Accordingly, such corporation is not subject to the requirements of the FOIA regarding the disclosure of information by public bodies.

Kearney v Dep’t of Mental Health, 168 Mich App 406; 425 NW2d 161 (1988). The FOIA exempts from disclosure records exempted from disclosure by other statutory authority. Mental Health treatment records are exempt under the Mental Health Code. However, treatment records may be disclosed, where the holder of the record and the patient consent. Persons requesting records under the FOIA are not entitled to free copies of the records. The holder of a public record may charge a fee for providing copies. There is, however, a waiver of the first $20.00 for those who, by affidavit, can show an inability to pay because of indigency.

State Employees Ass’n v Dep’t of Management & Budget, 428 Mich 104; 404 NW2d 606 (1987). The disclosure of the home addresses of state employees to a recognized employee organization does not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Residential Ratepayer Consortium v Public Service Commission, 168 Mich App 476; 425 NW2d 98 (1987). An administrative agency does not waive its defenses in a trial court action to compel disclosure of documents under the FOIA because they were not raised at the administrative level.

Detroit Free Press, Inc v Oakland County Sheriff, 164 Mich App 656; 418 NW2d 124 (1987). Booking photographs of persons arrested, charged with felonies, and awaiting trial are not protected from release as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Mithrandir v Dep’t of Corrections, 164 Mich App 143; 416 NW2d 352 (1987). Because of the special circumstances surrounding prison security and the confinement of prisoners, the Department of Corrections may set limits on a prisoner’s right to examine nonexempt records. [But see sections 1(2) and 2(c) of the FOIA, which now exclude incarcerated persons from making FOIA requests.]

Walloon Lake Water System, Inc v Melrose Twp, 163 Mich App 726; 415 NW2d 292 (1987). A public body does not escape liability under the FOIA merely because a capricious act on its part rendered the lawsuit moot. This is particularly true when actions of the public body include direct violation of the FOIA; i.e., not giving a written explanation of the refusal as required and willfully disposing of the material knowing that a suit is pending under the FOIA for disclosure.

Laracey v Financial Institutions Bureau, 163 Mich App 437; 414 NW2d 909 (1987). Attorney who filed pro se action was not entitled to recover attorney fees in a FOIA lawsuit.

DeMaria Building Co, Inc v Dep’t of Management & Budget, 159 Mich App 729; 407 NW2d 72 (1987). The exemption found in section 13(1)(m) of the FOIA for communications and notes within a public body or between public bodies, does not apply to an outside consultant’s report to a public body.

In re Buchanan, 152 Mich App 706; 394 NW2d 78 (1986). The common-law right of access to court records is not without limitation.

Health Central v Comm’r of Insurance, 152 Mich App 336; 393 NW2d 625 (1986). HMOs have no standing to raise common-law right of privacy claims. Such claims can only be asserted by individuals whose privacy has been invaded. The right of privacy does not protect artificial entities.

Curry v Jackson Circuit Court, 151 Mich App 754; 391 NW2d 476 (1986). The term “resides” as used in the FOIA, when applied to a prisoner, refers to the prisoner’s intended domicile. Such a place may be the county where the prisoner last lived before being sent to prison or the county where the prison is located. Factors such as the possibility of parole and how the prisoner has ordered his or her personal business transactions will be considered relevant to corroboration of a prisoner’s stated intention relative to domicile. [But see sections 1(2) and 2(c) of the FOIA, which now exclude incarcerated persons from making FOIA requests.] 70

Milford v Gilb, 148 Mich App 778; 384 NW2d 786 (1985). Under the FOIA, a public body may exempt from disclosure communications and notes within a public body or between public bodies of an advisory nature to the extent that they cover other than purely factual materials. The public body bears the burden of proof that a statutory exception applies to the item requested.

Paprocki v Jackson County Clerk, 142 Mich App 785; 371 NW2d 450 (1985). Under section 10(1) of the FOIA, the term “resides,” when applied to a prisoner, refers to the place where the prisoner last lived before being sent to prison; “resides” must be interpreted to mean a person’s legal residence or domicile at the time of his or her incarceration. [But see sections 1(2) and 2(c) of the FOIA, which now exclude incarcerated persons from making FOIA requests.]

Cashel v Regents of the Univ of Michigan, 141 Mich App 541; 367 NW2d 841 (1985). Where a person seeking to inspect records will take more than two weeks to complete inspection, he or she may be assessed labor costs incurred by a public body to supervise his or her inspection.

Soave v Michigan Dep’t of Education, 139 Mich App 99; 360 NW2d 194 (1984). Because federal agency regulations have the force and effect of federal statutory law, a state agency may properly withhold a record under section 13(1)(d) of the FOIA if the record is exempt from disclosure under a federal agency regulation.

Capitol Information Ass’n v Ann Arbor Police Dep’t, 138 Mich App 655; 360 NW2d 262 (1984). Plaintiff’s request seeking “all correspondence” between local police department and “all federal law enforcement/investigative” agencies, was “absurdly overbroad” and failed to sufficiently identify specific records as required by the section 3(1) of the FOIA.

Hoffman v Bay City Sch Dist, 137 Mich App 333; 357 NW2d 686 (1984). Where an attorney conducted an investigation into the business and finance practices of a school district and orally reported his or her opinion regarding the 71

investigation to the school board but did not share the actual documents, the investigative file itself is not a public record of the board.

Mullin v Detroit Police Dep’t, 133 Mich App 46; 348 NW2d 708 (1984). Defendant properly exempted a computer tape containing personal information on persons involved in traffic accidents. Disclosure of the tape would have been a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Evening News Ass’n v City of Troy; 417 Mich 481; 339 NW2d 421 (1983). A general claim that records are involved in an ongoing criminal investigation and that their disclosure would “interfere with law enforcement proceedings” is not sufficient to sustain an exemption under section 13(1)(b) of the FOIA. A public body must indicate factually and in detail how a particular document or category of documents satisfies the exemption; mere conclusory allegations are not sufficient.

Dawkins v Dep’t of Civil Service, 130 Mich App 669; 344 NW2d 43 (1983). If a plaintiff in a FOIA case prevails only in part, plaintiff may be awarded either all court costs and attorney fees or only that portion fairly allocable to the successful portion of the case. The fact that defendant’s refusal to disclose the records was made in good faith and was not arbitrary or capricious, has no bearing whatever on the plaintiff’s right to recover these costs.

Bechtel Power Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 128 Mich App 324; 340 NW2d 297 (1983). Tax information is protected from disclosure under 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of the FOIA, where it is composed of facts or information obtained in connection with the administration of a tax as set forth under the Revenue Act, MCL 205.28(1)(f).

Pennington v Washtenaw County Sheriff, 125 Mich App 556; 336 NW2d 828 (1983). Failure to respond to a request is treated as a final decision to deny the request. A plaintiff need only make a showing in court that the request was made and denied. The burden is on the defendant to show a viable defense. Nondisclosure based upon the privacy exemption of 13(1)(b)(iii) of the FOIA is limited to intimate details of a highly personal nature. 72

Perlongo v Iron River Cooperative TV, 122 Mich App 433; 332 NW2d 502 (1983). A private non-stock, non-profit cable television corporation is not a “public body” for purposes of either the Open Meetings Act or the FOIA, even though it is licensed, franchised, or otherwise regulated by the government.

Tobin v Michigan Civil Service Comm, 416 Mich 661; 331 NW2d 184 (1982). The FOIA does not compel a public body to conceal information at the insistence of one who opposes its release.

Kestenbaum v Michigan State Univ, 414 Mich 510; 327 NW2d 783 (1982). An equally divided Supreme Court affirmed the lower court in holding that a list of names and addresses of students on a computer tape would appear to be a public record, but the nature of the information is personal and falls within an enumerated exception. Public disclosure of the tape would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of a person’s privacy.

Ballard v Dep’t of Corrections, 122 Mich App 123; 332 NW2d 435 (1982). A film made by the Department of Corrections (DOC) showing a prisoner being forcibly removed from his or her prison cell is a public record and must be disclosed. Exemption asserted by the DOC did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.

International Union, UPGWA v Dep’t of State Police, 118 Mich App 292; 324 NW2d 611 (1982), aff’d by equally divided court, 422 Mich 432 (1985). The exemption of a list of names and home addresses of private security guards from disclosure to a union seeking that list for collective bargaining purposes is not justified. The public purpose of collective bargaining outweighs the employees’ interest in the privacy of this information. However, the union was ordered not to engage in further disclosure of the list for other unrelated purposes.

Cashel v Smith, 117 Mich App 405; 324 NW2d 336 (1982). Depositions may sometimes be appropriate in FOIA cases, but they must be justified. The Legislature intended that the flow of information from public bodies and persons should not be impeded by long court process.

Palladium Publishing Co v River Valley Sch Dist, 115 Mich App 490; 321 NW2d 705 (1982). The name of a student suspended by the action of a board of education will appear in the meeting minutes and is not information exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.

Ridenour v Dearborn Bd of Ed, 111 Mich App 798; 314 NW2d 760 (1981). Public disclosure of performance evaluation of school administrators is not an intrusion of privacy as defined by the FOIA because people have a strong interest in public education and because taxpayers are increasingly holding administrators accountable for expenditures of tax money.

Local 79, Service Employees Intâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;l Union v Lapeer County General Hospital, 111 Mich App 441; 314 NW2d 648 (1981). The proper forum in which to seek relief from a violation of the FOIA is in the trial court and not the Michigan Employment Relations Commission, notwithstanding labor-related issues.

Schinzel v Wilkerson, 110 Mich App 600; 313 NW2d 167 (1981). A plaintiff appearing in propria persona who prevails in an action commenced pursuant to the FOIA is entitled to an award of his or her actual expenditures but is not entitled to an award of attorney fees.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield v Ins Bureau, 104 Mich App 113; 304 NW2d 499 (1981). Information may be revealed under the FOIA despite claim of exemption. A decision to deny disclosure of exempt records is committed to discretion of agency and should not be disturbed unless abuse of discretion is found. Trade secret exemption does not apply to information required by law or as a condition of receiving a government contract, license, or benefit. 74

Jordan v Martimucci, 101 Mich App 212; 300 NW2d 325 (1980). A plaintiff who brings an action under the FOIA for punitive damages for delay in disclosure of requested information must demonstrate that he or she has received the requested information as a result of a court-ordered disclosure and that the defendant acted arbitrarily and capriciously in failing to comply with the disclosure request in a timely manner.

Nabkey v Kent Community Action Program, Inc, 99 Mich App 480; 298 NW2d 11 (1980). No award of attorney fees is possible where a prevailing plaintiff under the FOIA is not represented by an attorney.

Bredemeier v Kentwood Bd of Ed, 95 Mich App 767; 291 NW2d 199 (1980). The FOIA does not require that information be recorded by a public body, but if it is, it must be disclosed. Attorney fees, costs, and disbursements are awarded to prevailing party under the FOIA. To prevail, however, a party must show at a minimum that bringing a court action was necessary and had a causative effect on delivery of the information. Lack of court-ordered disclosure precludes an award of punitive damages under the FOIA.

Penokie v Michigan Technological Univ, 93 Mich App 650; 287 NW2d 304 (1979). Disclosure of the names and salaries of employees of the defendant university is not a “clearly unwarranted” invasion of personal privacy under the FOIA.

Booth Newspapers, Inc v Regents of Univ of Michigan, 93 Mich App 100; 286 NW2d 55 (1979). The written opinion of a public body’s attorney is exempt from disclosure under the FOIA and may serve as a basis for closing a meeting under the Open Meetings Act.

Williams v Martimucci, 88 Mich App 198; 276 NW2d 876 (1979). Action of the manager of general office services at a state prison in denying inmate’s request for copies of certain documents in inmate’s file because inmate did not pay the $3 fee for the cost of processing the request was not arbitrary and capricious, since the manager checked the institutional indigency list for the month and found 75

that the inmateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s name was not on it. [But see sections 1(2) and 2(c) of the FOIA, which now exclude incarcerated persons from making FOIA requests.]

Alpena Title, Inc v Alpena County, 84 Mich App 308; 269 NW2d 578 (1978). A county board of commissioners may charge a reasonable fee for access to and the copying of county tract index information in accordance with the statute regarding fees for the inspection of such records. Department of Attorney General Seventh Floor G. Mennen Williams Building 525 W. Ottawa Street P.O. Box 30212 Lansing, MI 48909

OPEN MEETINGS ACT Act 267 of 1976 AN ACT to require certain meetings of certain public bodies to be open to the public; to require notice and the keeping of minutes of meetings; to provide for enforcement; to provide for invalidation of governmental decisions under certain circumstances; to provide penalties; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts. History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977.

The People of the State of Michigan enact: 15.261 Short title; effect of act on certain charter provisions, ordinances, or resolutions. Sec. 1. (1) This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Open meetings act”. (2) This act shall supersede all local charter provisions, ordinances, or resolutions which relate to requirements for meetings of local public bodies to be open to the public. (3) After the effective date of this act, nothing in this act shall prohibit a public body from adopting an ordinance, resolution, rule, or charter provision which would require a greater degree of openness relative to meetings of public bodies than the standards provided for in this act. History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977.

15.262 Definitions. Sec. 2. As used in this act: (a) “Public body” means any state or local legislative or governing body, including a board, commission, committee, subcommittee, authority, or council, that is empowered by state constitution, statute, charter, ordinance, resolution, or rule to exercise governmental or proprietary authority or perform a governmental or proprietary function; a lessee of such a body performing an essential public purpose and function pursuant to the lease agreement; or the board of a nonprofit corporation formed by a city under section 4o of the home rule city act, 1909 PA 279, MCL 117.4o. (b) “Meeting” means the convening of a public body at which a quorum is present for the purpose of deliberating toward or rendering a decision on a public policy, or any meeting of the board of a nonprofit corporation formed by a city under section 4o of the home rule city act, 1909 PA 279, MCL 117.4o. (c) “Closed session” means a meeting or part of a meeting of a public body that is closed to the public. (d) “Decision” means a determination, action, vote, or disposition upon a motion, proposal, recommendation, resolution, order, ordinance, bill, or measure on which a vote by members of a public body is required and by which a public body effectuates or formulates public policy. History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977;Am. 2001, Act 38, Imd. Eff. July 11, 2001.

15.263 Meetings, decisions, and deliberations of public body; requirements; attending or addressing meeting of public body; tape-recording, videotaping, broadcasting, and telecasting proceedings; rules and regulations; exclusion from meeting; exemptions. Sec. 3. (1) 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. The exercise of this right shall not be dependent upon the prior approval of the public body. However, a public body may establish reasonable rules and regulations in order to minimize the possibility of disrupting the meeting. (2) All decisions of a public body shall be made at a meeting open to the public. (3) All deliberations of a public body constituting a quorum of its members shall take place at a meeting open to the public except as provided in this section and sections 7 and 8. (4) A person shall not be required as a condition of attendance at a meeting of a public body to register or otherwise provide his or her name or other information or otherwise to fulfill a condition precedent to attendance. (5) A person shall be permitted to address a meeting of a public body under rules established and recorded by the public body. The legislature or a house of the legislature may provide by rule that the right to address may be limited to prescribed times at hearings and committee meetings only. (6) A person shall not be excluded from a meeting otherwise open to the public except for a breach of the peace actually committed at the meeting. Rendered Wednesday, May 10, 2006

 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

Page 1

Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 132 of 2006

Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov

(7) This act does not apply to the following public bodies only when deliberating the merits of a case: (a) The worker's compensation appeal board created under the worker's disability compensation act of 1969, Act No. 317 of the Public Acts of 1969, as amended, being sections 418.101 to 418.941 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. (b) The employment security board of review created under the Michigan employment security act, Act No. 1 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1936, as amended, being sections 421.1 to 421.73 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. (c) The state tenure commission created under Act No. 4 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1937, as amended, being sections 38.71 to 38.191 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, when acting as a board of review from the decision of a controlling board. (d) An arbitrator or arbitration panel appointed by the employment relations commission under the authority given the commission by Act No. 176 of the Public Acts of 1939, as amended, being sections 423.1 to 423.30 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. (e) An arbitration panel selected under chapter 50A of the revised judicature act of 1961, Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, being sections 600.5040 to 600.5065 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. (f) The Michigan public service commission created under Act No. 3 of the Public Acts of 1939, being sections 460.1 to 460.8 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. (8) This act does not apply to an association of insurers created under the insurance code of 1956, Act No. 218 of the Public Acts of 1956, being sections 500.100 to 500.8302 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, or other association or facility formed under Act No. 218 of the Public Acts of 1956 as a nonprofit organization of insurer members. (9) This act does not apply to a committee of a public body which adopts a nonpolicymaking resolution of tribute or memorial which resolution is not adopted at a meeting. (10) This act does not apply to a meeting which is a social or chance gathering or conference not designed to avoid this act. (11) This act shall not apply to the Michigan veterans' trust fund board of trustees or a county or district committee created under Act No. 9 of the Public Acts of the first extra session of 1946, being sections 35.601 to 35.610 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, when the board of trustees or county or district committee is deliberating the merits of an emergent need. A decision of the board of trustees or county or district committee made under this subsection shall be reconsidered by the board or committee at its next regular or special meeting consistent with the requirements of this act. “Emergent need” means a situation which the board of trustees, by rules promulgated under the administrative procedures act of 1969, Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969, as amended, being sections 24.201 to 24.328 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, determines requires immediate action. History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977;Am. 1981, Act 161, Imd. Eff. Nov. 30, 1981;Am. 1986, Act 269, Imd. Eff. Dec. 19, 1986;Am. 1988, Act 158, Imd. Eff. June 14, 1988;Am. 1988, Act 278, Imd. Eff. July 27, 1988. Administrative rules: R 35.621 of the Michigan Administrative Code.

15.264 Public notice of meetings generally; contents; places of posting. Sec. 4. The following provisions shall apply with respect to public notice of meetings: (a) A public notice shall always contain the name of the public body to which the notice applies, its telephone number if one exists, and its address. (b) A public notice for a public body shall always be posted at its principal office and any other locations considered appropriate by the public body. Cable television may also be utilized for purposes of posting public notice. (c) If a public body is a part of a state department, part of the legislative or judicial branch of state government, part of an institution of higher education, or part of a political subdivision or school district, a public notice shall also be posted in the respective principal office of the state department, the institution of higher education, clerk of the house of representatives, secretary of the state senate, clerk of the supreme court, or political subdivision or school district. (d) If a public body does not have a principal office, the required public notice for a local public body shall be posted in the office of the county clerk in which the public body serves and the required public notice for a state public body shall be posted in the office of the secretary of state. History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977;Am. 1984, Act 87, Imd. Eff. Apr. 19, 1984.

15.265 Public notice of regular meetings, change in schedule of regular meetings, rescheduled regular meetings, or special meetings; time for posting; statement of date, time, and place; applicability of subsection (4); recess or adjournment; emergency Rendered Wednesday, May 10, 2006

 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

Page 2

Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 132 of 2006

Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov

sessions; meeting in residential dwelling; notice. Sec. 5. (1) A meeting of a public body shall not be held unless public notice is given as provided in this section by a person designated by the public body. (2) For regular meetings of a public body, there shall be posted within 10 days after the first meeting of the public body in each calendar or fiscal year a public notice stating the dates, times, and places of its regular meetings. (3) If there is a change in the schedule of regular meetings of a public body, there shall be posted within 3 days after the meeting at which the change is made, a public notice stating the new dates, times, and places of its regular meetings. (4) Except as provided in this subsection or in subsection (6), for a rescheduled regular or a special meeting of a public body, a public notice stating the date, time, and place of the meeting shall be posted at least 18 hours before the meeting. The requirement of 18-hour notice shall not apply to special meetings of subcommittees of a public body or conference committees of the state legislature. A conference committee shall give a 6-hour notice. A second conference committee shall give a 1-hour notice. Notice of a conference committee meeting shall include written notice to each member of the conference committee and the majority and minority leader of each house indicating time and place of the meeting. This subsection does not apply to a public meeting held pursuant to section 4(2) to (5) of Act No. 239 of the Public Acts of 1955, as amended, being section 200.304 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. (5) A meeting of a public body which is recessed for more than 36 hours shall be reconvened only after public notice, which is equivalent to that required under subsection (4), has been posted. If either house of the state legislature is adjourned or recessed for less than 18 hours, the notice provisions of subsection (4) are not applicable. Nothing in this section shall bar a public body from meeting in emergency session in the event of a severe and imminent threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the public when 2/3 of the members serving on the body decide that delay would be detrimental to efforts to lessen or respond to the threat. (6) A meeting of a public body may only take place in a residential dwelling if a nonresidential building within the boundary of the local governmental unit or school system is not available without cost to the public body. For a meeting of a public body which is held in a residential dwelling, notice of the meeting shall be published as a display advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or township in which the meeting is to be held. The notice shall be published not less than 2 days before the day on which the meeting is held, and shall state the date, time, and place of the meeting. The notice, which shall be at the bottom of the display advertisement and which shall be set off in a conspicuous manner, shall include the following language: “This meeting is open to all members of the public under Michigan's open meetings act”. History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977;Am. 1978, Act 256, Imd. Eff. June 21, 1978;Am. 1982, Act 134, Imd. Eff. Apr. 22, 1982;Am. 1984, Act 167, Imd. Eff. June 29, 1984.

15.266 Providing copies of public notice on written request; fee. Sec. 6. (1) Upon the written request of an individual, organization, firm, or corporation, and upon the requesting party's payment of a yearly fee of not more than the reasonable estimated cost for printing and postage of such notices, a public body shall send to the requesting party by first class mail a copy of any notice required to be posted pursuant to section 5(2) to (5). (2) Upon written request, a public body, at the same time a public notice of a meeting is posted pursuant to section 5, shall provide a copy of the public notice of that meeting to any newspaper published in the state and to any radio and television station located in the state, free of charge. History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977.

15.267 Closed sessions; roll call vote; separate set of minutes. Sec. 7. (1) A 2/3 roll call vote of members elected or appointed and serving is required to call a closed session, except for the closed sessions permitted under section 8(a), (b), (c), (g), (i), and (j). The roll call vote and the purpose or purposes for calling the closed session shall be entered into the minutes of the meeting at which the vote is taken. (2) A separate set of minutes shall be taken by the clerk or the designated secretary of the public body at the closed session. These minutes shall be retained by the clerk of the public body, are not available to the public, and shall only be disclosed if required by a civil action filed under section 10, 11, or 13. These minutes may be destroyed 1 year and 1 day after approval of the minutes of the regular meeting at which the closed session was approved. History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977;Am. 1993, Act 81, Eff. Apr. 1, 1994;Am. 1996, Act 464, Imd. Eff. Dec. 26, 1996.

Rendered Wednesday, May 10, 2006

 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

Page 3

Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 132 of 2006

Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov

15.268 Closed sessions; permissible purposes. Sec. 8. A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes: (a) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, or to consider a periodic personnel evaluation of, a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual agent, if the named person requests a closed hearing. A person requesting a closed hearing may rescind the request at any time, in which case the matter at issue shall be considered after the rescission only in open sessions. (b) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of a student if the public body is part of the school district, intermediate school district, or institution of higher education that the student is attending, and if the student or the student's parent or guardian requests a closed hearing. (c) For strategy and negotiation sessions connected with the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement if either negotiating party requests a closed hearing. (d) To consider the purchase or lease of real property up to the time an option to purchase or lease that real property is obtained. (e) To consult with its attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy in connection with specific pending litigation, but only if an open meeting would have a detrimental financial effect on the litigating or settlement position of the public body. (f) To review and consider the contents of an application for employment or appointment to a public office if the candidate requests that the application remain confidential. However, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, all interviews by a public body for employment or appointment to a public office shall be held in an open meeting pursuant to this act. This subdivision does not apply to a public office described in subdivision (j). (g) Partisan caucuses of members of the state legislature. (h) To consider material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal statute. (i) For a compliance conference conducted by the department of commerce under section 16231 of the public health code, Act No. 368 of the Public Acts of 1978, being section 333.16231 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, before a complaint is issued. (j) In the process of searching for and selecting a president of an institution of higher education established under section 4, 5, or 6 of article VIII of the state constitution of 1963, to review the specific contents of an application, to conduct an interview with a candidate, or to discuss the specific qualifications of a candidate if the particular process of searching for and selecting a president of an institution of higher education meets all of the following requirements: (i) The search committee in the process, appointed by the governing board, consists of at least 1 student of the institution, 1 faculty member of the institution, 1 administrator of the institution, 1 alumnus of the institution, and 1 representative of the general public. The search committee also may include 1 or more members of the governing board of the institution, but the number shall not constitute a quorum of the governing board. However, the search committee shall not be constituted in such a way that any 1 of the groups described in this subparagraph constitutes a majority of the search committee. (ii) After the search committee recommends the 5 final candidates, the governing board does not take a vote on a final selection for the president until at least 30 days after the 5 final candidates have been publicly identified by the search committee. (iii) The deliberations and vote of the governing board of the institution on selecting the president take place in an open session of the governing board. History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977;Am. 1984, Act 202, Imd. Eff. July 3, 1984;Am. 1993, Act 81, Eff. Apr. 1, 1994; Am. 1996, Act 464, Imd. Eff. Dec. 26, 1996.

15.269 Minutes. Sec. 9. (1) Each public body shall keep minutes of each meeting showing the date, time, place, members present, members absent, any decisions made at a meeting open to the public, and the purpose or purposes for which a closed session is held. The minutes shall include all roll call votes taken at the meeting. The public body shall make any corrections in the minutes at the next meeting after the meeting to which the minutes refer. The public body shall make corrected minutes available at or before the next subsequent meeting after correction. The corrected minutes shall show both the original entry and the correction. (2) Minutes are public records open to public inspection, and a public body shall make the minutes available at the address designated on posted public notices pursuant to section 4. The public body shall make copies of the minutes available to the public at the reasonable estimated cost for printing and copying. (3) A public body shall make proposed minutes available for public inspection within 8 business days after the meeting to which the minutes refer. The public body shall make approved minutes available for public Rendered Wednesday, May 10, 2006

 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

Page 4

Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 132 of 2006

Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov

inspection within 5 business days after the meeting at which the minutes are approved by the public body. (4) A public body shall not include in or with its minutes any personally identifiable information that, if released, would prevent the public body from complying with section 444 of subpart 4 of part C of the general education provisions act, 20 USC 1232g, commonly referred to as the family educational rights and privacy act of 1974. History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977;Am. 1982, Act 130, Imd. Eff. Apr. 20, 1982;Am. 2004, Act 305, Imd. Eff. Aug. 11, 2004.

15.270 Decisions of public body; presumption; civil action to invalidate; jurisdiction; venue; reenactment of disputed decision. Sec. 10. (1) Decisions of a public body shall be presumed to have been adopted in compliance with the requirements of this act. The attorney general, the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the public body serves, or any person may commence a civil action in the circuit court to challenge the validity of a decision of a public body made in violation of this act. (2) A decision made by a public body may be invalidated if the public body has not complied with the requirements of section 3(1), (2), and (3) in making the decision or if failure to give notice in accordance with section 5 has interfered with substantial compliance with section 3(1), (2), and (3) and the court finds that the noncompliance or failure has impaired the rights of the public under this act. (3) The circuit court shall not have jurisdiction to invalidate a decision of a public body for a violation of this act unless an action is commenced pursuant to this section within the following specified period of time: (a) Within 60 days after the approved minutes are made available to the public by the public body except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b). (b) If the decision involves the approval of contracts, the receipt or acceptance of bids, the making of assessments, the procedures pertaining to the issuance of bonds or other evidences of indebtedness, or the submission of a borrowing proposal to the electors, within 30 days after the approved minutes are made available to the public pursuant to that decision. (4) Venue for an action under this section shall be any county in which a local public body serves or, if the decision of a state public body is at issue, in Ingham county. (5) In any case where an action has been initiated to invalidate a decision of a public body on the ground that it was not taken in conformity with the requirements of this act, the public body may, without being deemed to make any admission contrary to its interest, reenact the disputed decision in conformity with this act. A decision reenacted in this manner shall be effective from the date of reenactment and shall not be declared invalid by reason of a deficiency in the procedure used for its initial enactment. History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977.

15.271 Civil action to compel compliance or enjoin noncompliance; commencement; venue; security not required; commencement of action for mandamus; court costs and attorney fees. Sec. 11. (1) If a public body is not complying with this act, the attorney general, prosecuting attorney of the county in which the public body serves, or a person may commence a civil action to compel compliance or to enjoin further noncompliance with this act. (2) An action for injunctive relief against a local public body shall be commenced in the circuit court, and venue is proper in any county in which the public body serves. An action for an injunction against a state public body shall be commenced in the circuit court and venue is proper in any county in which the public body has its principal office, or in Ingham county. If a person commences an action for injunctive relief, that person shall not be required to post security as a condition for obtaining a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order. (3) An action for mandamus against a public body under this act shall be commenced in the court of appeals. (4) If a public body is not complying with this act, and a person commences a civil action against the public body for injunctive relief to compel compliance or to enjoin further noncompliance with the act and succeeds in obtaining relief in the action, the person shall recover court costs and actual attorney fees for the action. History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977.

15.272 Violation as misdemeanor; penalty. Sec. 12. (1) A public official who intentionally violates this act is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00. Rendered Wednesday, May 10, 2006

 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

Page 5

Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 132 of 2006

Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov

(2) A public official who is convicted of intentionally violating a provision of this act for a second time within the same term shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $2,000.00, or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both. History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977.

15.273 Violation; liability. Sec. 13. (1) A public official who intentionally violates this act shall be personally liable in a civil action for actual and exemplary damages of not more than $500.00 total, plus court costs and actual attorney fees to a person or group of persons bringing the action. (2) Not more than 1 action under this section shall be brought against a public official for a single meeting. An action under this section shall be commenced within 180 days after the date of the violation which gives rise to the cause of action. (3) An action for damages under this section may be joined with an action for injunctive or exemplary relief under section 11. History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977.

15.273a Selection of president by governing board of higher education institution; violation; civil fine. Sec. 13a. If the governing board of an institution of higher education established under section 4, 5, or 6 of article VIII of the state constitution of 1963 violates this act with respect to the process of selecting a president of the institution at any time after the recommendation of final candidates to the governing board, as described in section 8(j), the institution is responsible for the payment of a civil fine of not more than $500,000.00. This civil fine is in addition to any other remedy or penalty under this act. To the extent possible, any payment of fines imposed under this section shall be paid from funds allocated by the institution of higher education to pay for the travel and expenses of the members of the governing board. History: Add. 1996, Act 464, Imd. Eff. Dec. 26, 1996.

15.274 Repeal of §§ 15.251 to 15.253. Sec. 14. Act No. 261 of the Public Acts of 1968, being sections 15.251 to 15.253 of the Compiled Laws of 1970, is repealed. History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977.

15.275 Effective date. Sec. 15. This act shall take effect January 1, 1977. History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977.

Rendered Wednesday, May 10, 2006

 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

Page 6

Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 132 of 2006

Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov

ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER This is a summary of the essential elements of Robert’s Rules of Order. full version can Rules be found online, but is adequate most organizations AThe full copy of Robert’s of Orders can bethis ordered online orfor checked out of the library. But these are the basic elements of Robert’s Rules: I.

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

Make a Motion. To introduce a new piece of business or propose a decision or action, a motion must be made by a group member (“I move that...”). A second motion must then also be made (raise your hand and say, “I second it.”). After limited discussion the group then votes on the motion. A majority vote is required for the motion to pass (or quorum as specified in your bylaws). To Postpone an Item Indefinitely. This tactic is used to kill a motion. When passed the motion cannot be reintroduced at that meeting. It may be brought up again at a later date. This is made as a motion (“I move to postpone indefinitely...”). A second is required. A majority vote is required to postpone the motion under consideration. To Amend a Motion. This is the process used to change a motion under consideration. Perhaps you like the idea proposed but not exactly as offered. Raise your hand and make the following motion: “I move to amend the motion on the floor.” This also requires a second. After the motion to amend is seconded, a majority vote is needed to decide whether the amendment is accepted. Then a vote is taken on the amended motion. In some organizations, a “friendly amendment” is made. If the person who made the original motion agrees with the suggested changes, the amended motion may be voted on without a separate vote to approve the amendment. To Commit a Motion. This action is used to place a motion in committee. It requires a second. A majority vote must rule to carry it. At the next meeting the committee is required to prepare a report on the motion committed. If an appropriate committee exists, the motion goes to that committee. If not, a new committee is established. To Call for the Question. To end a debate immediately, the question is called (say “I call for the question”) and the action needs a second. A vote is held immediately (no further questioning is allowed). A two-thirds vote is required for passage. If it is passed, the motion on the floor is voted on immediately. To Table a Discussion. To table a discussion is to lay aside the business at hand in such a manner that it will be considered later in the meeting or at another time (“I make a motion to table this discussion until the next meeting. In the meantime, we will get more information so we can better discuss the issue.”) A second is needed and a majority vote required to table the item under discussion. To Adjourn a Meeting. A motion is made to end the meeting. A second motion is required. A majority vote is then required for the meeting to be adjourned (ended)

NOTE: If more than one motion is proposed, the most recent motion takes precedence over the ones preceding it. For example, if #6, a motion to table the discussion, is proposed, it must be voted on before #3, a motion to amend, can be decided. In smaller meetings, like a committee or board meeting, often only four motions are used: ● To Introduce (Motion) ● To Change a Motion (Amend) ● To Adopt (Accept a Report Without Discussion) ● To Adjourn (End the Meeting) Remember, these procedures are designed to ensure that everyone has a chance to participate and to share ideas in an orderly manner. Parliamentary procedure should not be used to prevent discussion of important issues. Board and committee chairpersons and other leaders may want to acquire training in meeting facilitation and in using parliamentary procedure. Additional information on meeting processes, working with many types of people, and using Robert’s Rules is available from community resources such as the League of Women Voters, United Way, Lions Club, etc. Parliamentary Procedure at a Glance, by O. Garfield Jones, is an excellent guide for neighborhood association chairs to familiarize themselves with this information.

TIPS FOR TESTIFYING Thoughts and opinions can be shared with decision makers at any time, but when a Bend resident testifies these words carry great weight because testimony becomes part of the official record used by officials to make decisions. There are several forums for providing testimony at the City level such as at a City Council meeting, a planning commission meeting, a land-use hearing or at meetings of other committees. Here are some tips for providing effective testimony: Observe first. You may want to consider attending a public meeting or public hearing to familiarize yourself with how the meeting is conducted and how testimony is given Prepare. Prepare what you are planning to say because there is usually a time limit for public statements or testimony, usually three minutes. The time limits may be more or less depending on the number of people who wish to speak. Do not memorize your testimony; you can speak more informally or read it word-for-word Know your facts. Whether speaking during the visitor period or a public hearing, know the facts of the case upon which you wish to testify. Contact the appropriate department in City Hall if you have questions about the topic about which you are testifying. Learn as much as you can about the issue and note just the facts. Accurate information weighs more heavily than opinion. Support your statements with valid references. Write out your statement or testimony. If you attend a public meeting or hearing, you will observe that many people who testify do so from written testimony. Choose your main points and write them down. Writing out your testimony can help to organize it and may reduce some of the emotion that you might feel about the topic or issue State your position. When making a statement or testimony, clearly state the issue, your position on that issue, and what you would like the Council or committee to do. It is helpful if you suggest solutions to the situation(s) or issue(s) you are addressing. It is also helpful if you are courteous and professional to the committee and others during your statement or testimony Be concise. Since a hearing on a controversial matter may last for several hours, a concise presentation is helpful. A clearly presented argument can be very forceful Bring a copy of your complete testimony. Include research sources to leave with the committee members. You do not need to limit the length of your written testimony Offer a Solution. Take advantage of having an audience to hear your recommendation. Relate how this issue directly affects you and what you would like to see done Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t repeat othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; testimony. If you are planning to speak during a public hearing, listen to the testimony of others who speak and be sure to offer new information

WORDS THAT WORK Communications Messaging for Community Benefits Agreements A Joint Publication of the Partnership for Working Families and the SPIN Project

The Partnership for Working Families thanks the following funders for their generous support of our work:

Annie E. Casey Foundation The California Endowment The Catholic Campaign for Human Development The Discount Foundation The Evelyn & Walter Haas, Jr. Fund Ford Foundation French American Charitable Trust The Hill-Snowden Foundation Fund Marguerite Casey Foundation Maurice Falk Fund The McKay Foundation The Nathan Cummings Foundation The New World Foundation Open Society Institute The Ottinger Foundation Panta Rhea Foundation The Phoenix Fund for Workers and Communities Public Interest Partners Public Welfare Foundation Racial Justice Collaborative Fund Rockefeller Foundation Rosenberg Foundation The Solidago Foundation Surdna Foundation The Tides Foundation The Woodbury Foundation

The Partnership for Working Families

Vision Building a New Social Movement for Workers and Communities

The Partnership for Working Families (Partnership) promotes a new vision of organizing around economic policy and development to transform the lives of workers and their communities. Our local Partner organizations represent diverse coalitions of labor, religious, community and environmental groups that organize for better jobs, a healthy environment, more affordable housing and healthcare and accessible public services. As a Partnership, we leverage local and national resources to support these efforts, link our work through peer-to-peer learning and share best practices and legal support across regions and industries. We believe that we can reclaim and redirect economic development to benefit low-wage workers and communities of color. Our Partners incorporate research, organizing, coalition building and policy development into effective campaigns for economic development practices and decisions that build healthy urban economies and empower working people.

The Partnership for Working Families Offices

Executive Office

National Program Office

2525 W. Alameda

633 S. Hawley Rd., Suite 106C

Denver, CO 80219

Milwaukee, WI 53214

(303) 727-8088

(414) 475-0623 phone Grants Administrator Communications Program

464 Lucas Ave., Suite 202

436 14th St., Suite 1126

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Oakland, CA 94612

(213) 977-9400, ext. 101

(510) 834-8503 phone

ljoseph@laane.org

(510) 835-0468 fax Staff Community Benefits Law Center

Leslie Moody, Executive Director

870 Market St., #915

John Goldstein, National Program Director

San Francisco, CA 94102

Julian Gross, Director of the Community Benefits Law Center

(415) 544-9944 phone

Kathleen Mulligan-Hansel, Director of Research & Communications

(415) 544-9946 fax

Ernesto Sanchez, Communications Specialist Derek Smith, Organizing Program Director Amber Belindo, Director of Finance & Administration 1

WORDS THAT WORK

Framing for Community Benefits

houghtful framing can effectively communicate the critical essence of Community Benefits. It helps advocates forge and articulate a vision for Community Benefits, as well as develop clear language that encompasses the broad impact of urban development issues. In this section, we will look at framing basics, framing to be heard and framing examples to give advocates tools to influence and control the Community Benefits debate.

About this Toolkit debate. This toolkit can help you find those messages and incorporate a proactive communications and media component into your CBA campaign. The toolkit is also written for community members who need communications resources to tell their stories, to illustrate the dramatic effect of rampant and ineffective development in their lives and to describe a positive vision of the community in which they want to live.

The Partnership for Working Families and the SPIN Project are proud to bring you Words that Work: Messaging for Community Benefits Agreements, a communications toolkit designed to help Community Benefits advocates learn from othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experiences and integrate successful communications strategies into their own campaigns. Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) are a powerful new tool being used by organizations working for economic justice to ensure that large-scale developments serve not only the corporations that underwrite them, but also the communities that surround them. CBAs ensure that development provides quality jobs, community services, local hiring, environmental protections and improvements, affordable housing and a voice for the community in the development process itself.

In these pages youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll find best practices for creating successful CBA communications campaigns, based on the work of the Partnership for Working Families, the communications professionals at the SPIN Project and the leaders of organizations across the country who have fought for, and won, CBAs for their communities. The toolkit is organized into three parts. Part I focuses on framing and messaging considerations for CBAs, including framing/messaging basics, tailoring messages to your audience, examples of good framing and sample messages. Part II contains case studies of three CBA campaigns led by the Front Range Economic Strategy Center in Denver, the Milwaukee Good Jobs and Livable Neighborhoods Coalition and Georgia Stand Up. Part III provides a sample press release, an Op Ed and a communications plan to help you implement a media strategy for your own campaign.

This toolkit is intended to give advocates, grassroots organizers, policy specialists, community leaders and their allies the tools they need to shape public opinion through effective framing, messaging and other communications techniques. Advocates across the nation must describe complex growth and development issues using simple language and concepts to influence the terms of

COMMUNITY BENEFITS COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT

About the Partnership for Working Families

About the SPIN Project

www.communitybenefits.org

The SPIN Project is a nonprofit group of communications specialists who work with grassroots organizations across the nation to build their communications capacities. SPIN helps organizations increase their effectiveness in influencing debate, shaping public opinion and garnering positive media attention. The SPIN Project honors the multiracial, multicultural, diverse constituencies of the groups we train.

www.spinproject.org

The Partnership for Working Families grew out of efforts in individual cities to negotiate Community Benefits Agreements around large-scale, publiclyfinanced redevelopment projects. In the 1990s, coalitions of community-based organizations, neighborhood associations, faith-based organizations and local labor unions pushed for new approaches to urban redevelopment, ultimately winning a series of negotiated contracts with developers that ensured these projects would provide good jobs, local hiring, opportunities for education and training, affordable housing provisions, environmental provisions and other neighborhood amenities. As the Community Benefits movement grew, the Partnership for Working Families was formed to maximize the effectiveness of individual efforts by linking peers across cities, providing technical assistance and support to individual campaigns, and tapping into national-level resources that can be difficult for local organizations to access.

The SPIN Project works with a broad range of organizing, advocacy and policy organizations, all of which work to strengthen democracy and public participation. Our clients typically focus on issues concerning civil rights, human rights, social justice and the environment. We work toward a stronger democracy in which people enhance and actively participate in the public discourse. To best meet the needs of our clients, we offer: © Communications Audits © © © © ©

Framing’s basic truth is this: The person who defines the issue and sets the terms of the debate is halfway to winning.

Communications Strategy Development Skills Building and Leadership Development Communications Coaching Organizational Communications Infrastructure Campaign Support Peer Networking Customized Communications Conferences Publications

We invite you to visit our Web site at www.spinproject.org or contact us if you would like to discuss our services. 3

WORDS THAT WORK

PART I. FRAMING AND MESSAGING Community Benefits Effectively communicating Community Benefits is essential to the movementâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s success. If you took an informal poll, most people would not know or understand terms like accountable development, Community Benefits or even sprawl. Community Benefits advocates have an opportunity to frame, clarify and contextualize this issue. They can create meaningful, values-based messages that resonate with people far more than technical, policyoriented jargon. How can advocates put a human face on these issues? How can the Community Benefits story be told in a way that gives hope to everyday people across the country? This section of the toolkit offers some answers to these important questions. In it, youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll find:

the framing process and what frames have been effective for some advocate organizations.

Basic Framing for Community Benefits looks at the why and how of Community Benefits framingâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;why it is important to frame, examples of

A Sample Communications Plan provides concrete examples of how to create a communications plan for a Community Benefits campaign.

Framing Examples explores opposition frames and their impact in shaping public perception about Community Benefits, as well frames that are ineffective for our purposes. This section will also look at successful frames and how they embody affirmative possibilities for future framing. Message Development outlines a Community Benefits message. This section offers tips for cohesive and effective Community Benefits messages. It also looks at the importance of understanding your target audiences and how to reach them with your messages.

The concept of Community Benefits is one of the most compelling grassroots economic development strategies in the United States today. It holds the promise of improving the quality of life for the many Americans who live and work in both urban and rural areas that are experiencing development challenges. 4

COMMUNITY BENEFITS COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT

Background on Community Benefits Agreements

media landscape for Community Benefits issues.

Basic Framing for Community Benefits

Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) are enforceable agreements between community groups and developers seeking to address a broad range of community needs. They ensure community participation in shaping major developments, and help shift the public discussion on economic development that meets the needs of working families.

Thoughtful framing can effectively communicate the essence of Community Benefits, helping advocates forge and articulate a vision of economic justice and develop clear language to underscore the importance of development issues for communities across the country. In this section, we will explore the basics of framing and provide examples of effective framing to help advocates influence and control the Community Benefits debate.

As Community Benefits work deepens and moves into cities and towns across America, one of the biggest challenges facing advocates is communications—how we translate the goals of the work and the values that inform it to the public, policymakers, allies and the media. There is a real opportunity for advocates to define and mold this movement to reflect our values.

Effective framing is critical to mounting a winning campaign. Ultimately, framing means creating and advancing your perspective on the issue. Successfully defining the issue and setting the terms of the debate is half of the battle. Framing helps you advance your perspective, putting you in a proactive stance, with your opposition on the defense. It allows you to establish the “meaning” of an issue and control the debate by defining key points and key players. Framing needs to convey a vision that Community Benefits brings positive solutions to the lives of everyday people and it is a viable solution for changing how development helps working families and local communities. By crafting language based on how people understand the issues, advocates can garner support from broad and diverse constituencies for Community Benefits solutions.

The Community Benefits movement is also building power for working people, giving them the context, language and tools to organize, advocate and build the communities they envision. Living wage jobs, affordable housing and fair and responsible development are goals linked to Community Benefits organizing efforts. The next frontier is how to leverage Community Benefits into a broader movement for fair and responsible development, and communications has a critical role in shaping the future of this work.

Communications tools for success: Winning messages, strategic frames, disciplined spokespeople, compelling communications plans and an understanding of target audiences.

One telling example is how the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE) and a broad-based coalition of labor activists, small business owners, and clergy beat back a Wal-Mart effort to circumvent local government and the will of the community by building a Supercenter that would have provided little, if any, benefit to the community. LAANE’s victory over Wal-Mart is particularly impressive given that Wal-Mart outspent them 10-to-1. Moreover, a disciplined communications strategy helped everyday people understand and remember the concepts of Community Benefits and responsible development. LAANE and its coalition partners created the gold standard for media coverage on Community Benefits. Winning messages, strategic frames, disciplined spokespeople, compelling communications plans and an understanding of target audiences are all tools that Community Benefits organizers can use to influence the political and

Moreover, framing for maximum impact gets the media—and new constituencies—interested in your issue. It is an opportunity to generate earned media (stories in the news media) through effective news hooks—the story elements that attract a reporter’s attention. Framing pushes your issue into the forefront of dialogue, enabling your perspective to be taken seriously and broaden or reframe it to counter opposition framing. 5

WORDS THAT WORK

Framing in Action One of the most recent examples of the power of values-based framing is the CBA campaign for the Yale-New Haven Hospital’s $430 million cancer center. The Connecticut Center for a New Economy (CCNE), along with its partners from local labor, community- and faith-based organizations, successfully negotiated a groundbreaking CBA. Benefits to the surrounding community were estimated at $5 million, not including the hundreds of long-term jobs for local residents. CCNE President Andrea van den Heever notes that the CBA was the result of years of negotiation, and years of painstaking relationship-building before that. “These types of victories don’t come along too often. It is of national significance because of the fact we were able, over the long period of time, to forge the ties we did between the union, the neighborhood and the faith community around a common agenda. It took us five years of intensive focus and five years before that of building community [relations]. It’s 10 years of work that got us here.”

Framing Basics Framing is your analysis of an issue—the ability to define and control the telling of your story. Framing is also rooted in values. What do you believe in? What do you stand for? What are the values behind a Community Benefits campaign? The framework defines what’s in your story, which idea you choose to promote and how you push that idea. Community Benefits campaigns carry several powerful frames that echo familiar American themes: David vs. Goliath, underdogs overcoming obstacles for the common good and a positive, optimistic vision for the future.

Among the specific gains from the agreement are: support for affordable housing and neighborhood improvement in the Hill neighborhood surrounding the Hospital; increased access to health care for neighborhood residents; guarantees that the Cancer Center’s construction will be environmentally friendly; support from the Hospital for education, job training and youth programs in the community; and organizing rights for hospital employees. These benefits reflect the values of the residents that fought for them, and support their vision of a safe, economically viable community.

It’s important to note that our understanding of the American experience is a function of storytelling. We love stories because they affirm that we share a common American culture. We choose sides, identify with key players and seek a comforting resolution to crises. Community Benefits advocates can use framing to accomplish similar goals by telling compelling Community Benefits stories. The Inglewood vs. Wal-Mart struggle is a classic example of a David vs. Goliath frame that captured the country’s imagination. Wal-Mart was accustomed to setting up Supercenters wherever it wanted, without opposition—despite its antiunion policies, low-wage business model and lack of accountability. The Inglewood community with LAANE and their coalition partners fought back with the political equivalent of a slingshot and stone. Using this kind of frame will play well even with people who are not familiar with the issue, because it is a classic American story. It makes it easier for people to understand what’s happening and why they should care.

Framing to Be Heard Framing can—and must—be used to move people from general American values to action on specific issues. Advocates for Community Benefits need to understand these values completely, how to connect them to action and how to better position themselves to tell stories for their communities. To develop a frame, you need to ask yourself a few simple questions about your issue. As you build your frame, carefully consider the words you use to convey your issue and your values.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT

Answering these questions can also help you translate the jargon we often use with colleagues for an audience of everyday media consumers. How many people know or really understand terms like Community Benefits or responsible development? Advocates may know, but most people have no clue what we’re talking about. Remember: Most daily newspapers write for the fifth grade reader. Their job is to make news and information accessible to the broadest audience possible, and they do this by making the news into a story with a moral, a narrative structure and clearly defined heroes and villains. Television news reporters don’t have

time for nuance—they capture only the most basic, essential information for viewers, often relying on pictures to tell a big part of the story. If more people are going to understand and support the Community Benefits movement, it is crucial to describe it in a values-oriented and accessible way. Detailed policy solutions and shades of gray don’t fit into this model. In order to win on their issues, advocates need to understand how news outlets work and find the right stories to tell them. Policy-laden terminology requiring translation only separates us from our critical audiences.

Framing at Yale-New Haven Hospital’s Cancer Center What frames were employed in this campaign?

1© A New Social Contract

2© Positive Vision

3© Win-Win Solutions

4© Community Participation

Because Yale University, and the Yale-New Haven Hospital, have a huge impact on the neighborhoods in which they are situated, it is critical that they reflect the values of those communities, and recognize their responsibility to promote the wellbeing of their neighbors. This frame is about ensuring that major institutions acknowledge that responsibility, and ensure, in CCNE’s words, “that every family in every neighborhood of our community can prosper.”

Americans are optimistic, and find it easier to understand and support a positive vision than a negative one. In this case, residents could articulate a vision for the community and for their future that encompassed quality jobs, responsible development, affordable housing and safe neighborhoods.

There are benefits here for everyone: Yale-New Haven Hospital, policymakers, small business and the community all saw real, concrete gains from the agreement. This frame emphasizes shared prosperity.

This is a frame rooted in the value of democracy. Americans believe in including a broad range of voices, and offering community solutions to community issues that reflect real needs.

WORDS THAT WORK

TO FRAME, CONSIDER THESE QUESTIONS: What is the issue of Community Benefits really about? Answering this question helps focus your analysis or perspective on the issue. © ©

Values: Fairness, participation, the benefits of development shared by the entire community. Context: Responsible growth and development means good jobs, affordable housing and a healthy environment.

Who is affected? Framing for widest reach and drama allows you to show the broad impact of Community Benefits and development decisions on many people, not just selected parts of a community. ©

What media hooks does this frame contain?

Residents, workers, schoolchildren, merchants, business-owners, churchgoers… the entire community is affected.

Target reporters by using media “hooks” that attract their attention and make sense of an issue in their language. The media determines newsworthiness by checking your story against media hooks.

Who are the players?

Most frames will have a good vs. bad aspect to them: hero vs. villain, the Force vs. the Dark Side. People are accustomed to choosing sides on issues. This is your chance to cast these roles as you see fit—this can be especially helpful when you need to hold elected officials or developers accountable.

Framing will help determine who the players are. © ©

Protagonists: Community Benefits advocates and their allies in the community. Antagonists: Forces of resistance and lack of accountability (potentially developer associations, Chambers of Commerce, elected officials).

Target Audiences: Influencers (who can move antagonists), your base and the public (people to act).

Controversy: Good stories often have a conflict that grabs attention. Frame the story to put the opposition on the defensive. Trend: Reporters love stories that suggest new opinions, behavior patterns and attitudes. Three constitutes a trend: Find at least three examples to assert that a new trend is emerging. Human Interest: Feature individuals, community leaders or galvanizing spokespersons who may become news themselves because of their fascinating stories. Localize National Stories (and vice versa): Take a national story and emphasize its local impact— for example, how does the battle over a new big-box store in your community mirror what’s going on in the rest of the country? Celebrity: If you have a celebrity on your side, make sure to include them in your pitches.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT

What pictures and images communicate this frame?

BASIC FRAMING REMINDERS

Images and symbols can be critical to conveying the story that you want to tell. Find images that convey the values behind Community Benefits, the impact of development on the community, and your hope for the future. For example: Pictures of the community united in their demand for change, the everyday life of the community, schoolchildren petitioning the city council.

Framing is about clarifying and promoting values. Clearly define development issues and set the terms of debate for maximum media impact. Proactive framing means offering a positive vision for your campaign: Be for something, not just against something. Do not reinforce your opposition’s frame. Repeating their frames reinforces their definition of the issue, thus supporting their point of view. For example, don’t reinforce the following:

Sharing the Frame Framing is also about empowering others to speak about the issue. Community Benefits advocates can share a successful frame to move the issue beyond preaching to the already converted. Every opportunity to communicate a frame is an opportunity to reinforce the values and meaning that define the debate, re-frame the issue to favor Community Benefits advocates and provide the language for decision-makers and the media to help them understand the issue.

Community Benefits advocates are stifling growth and free markets. Development is good for all Americans and Community Benefits advocates are anti-development. Advocates are just trouble-makers who are against sensible growth.

You will almost certainly hear these frames from your opposition, but it is vital that you do not repeat and thus reinforce them—even to dispute or dispel them. Concentrate on your positive vision of how development can provide real benefits to everyone in the community. Repetition and consistency are the keys to helping the frame hold. Creating an effective “echo” keeps a frame alive and moving. Echoing builds scale, creates the perception of broad public support and demonstrates real public demand for our issues. Echoes can help capture the attention of lawmakers, corporate decision makers and those whose businesses and careers depend on the public will.

WORDS THAT WORK

FRAMING EXAMPLES Effective Frames

Ineffective Frames

Community Benefits advocates can localize these broad framing concepts and leverage them to help win their campaigns.

It’s sometimes tempting for advocates to talk about the issues in the following ways, but these frames actually work against the Community Benefits argument. Speak to your strengths and not to the either/or, divisive language that alienates potential audiences.

Positive Vision. CBAs articulate a vision for communities and for their future that encompasses quality jobs, responsible development, affordable housing and safe neighborhoods.

Win-Win Solutions. CBAs mean benefits for all, and support the idea that competing interests can actually work together for livable neighborhoods and responsible development.

Broad Range of Voices. CBAs allow for, and encourage, broad participation to ensure development meets the needs of all. This frame includes not only community members, but also decision-makers and other key players in the development process.

Community Origins and Participation in Development. CBAs are the result of the whole community coming together to identify what kind of place they want to live in—with everyone working together, the challenges of development that benefits everyone can be overcome.

Policy Reform. Discussions of policy nuance do not move people. Policy details don’t address values or define the stakes of the issue for target audiences in terms they can easily grasp. Anti-Development. This is a classic “Us vs. Them” frame that causes more problems for advocates than it solves. Developers seize this opportunity to say advocates simply do not want development at all. Sprawl vs. Smart Growth. This shouldn’t be an oppositional frame. Smart growth is varied, responsible and a win-win possibility for all. Sprawl isn’t necessarily perceived as a negative thing among those who see outward growth as an opportunity to fulfill their American Dream. Smart growth can be a tool to influence people’s understanding of development issues.

Principled/Mutual Progress. CBA advocates aren’t radicals trying to block development. They are working collaboratively within the process to ensure that development works for the common good.

CBAs articulate a vision for communities and for their future that encompasses quality jobs, responsible development, affordable housing and safe neighborhoods.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT

Your Opposition’s Frames While you are busy trying to frame the issue, remember that the opposition is busy creating its own frames. These are some common arguments against Community Benefits from the opposition in past campaigns. Advocates should be prepared to respond to these arguments and defend their positive vision of what CBAs can achieve. ©

Community Benefits are anti-business. Chambers of Commerce typically argue that Community Benefits advocates are hostile to business. Their classic argument is that tax revenues and jobs will be lost. ©

Community Benefits will stifle growth and cost us jobs. The frame here is that developers have all the answers to growth and prosperity, and advocates are job-killers that are driving the economy downward. In this frame, CBAs will discourage local investment. Community Benefits will encourage bureaucracy. Community Benefits advocates are accused of adding red tape by calling for additional and unnecessary layers to government approval processes, which slows down economic growth and progress.

We Already Provide Community Benefits. Developers will argue that a they always provide community benefits, or even that a CBA has already been negotiated with community stakeholders regardless of whether such stakeholders truly represent the needs of working families impacted by the surrounding development. Developers will cite this fact with subsequent coalitions who truly represent the broad voice and concerns of neighboring residents and community leaders in an effort to bypass addressing the long-terms needs of communities.

Community Benefits are driven by special interests. The assertion is that big labor and other outsiders with narrow interests are driving the issue—not the larger community or a concern for the common good.

While you are busy trying to frame the issue, remember that the opposition is busy creating its own frames.

WORDS THAT WORK

TARGET AUDIENCE Knowing Your Audience

Understanding your target audience helps you craft appropriate messages to reach them. It is especially important to make distinctions among messages for policymakers, media, allies and community groups.

Community Benefits advocates can test the effectiveness of messages and determine what audiences think about Community Benefits and the issue of responsible development through polls, focus groups, interviews and research. These can gauge the mood and attitudes of intended audiences. They are supports—not substitutes—for the focused advocacy, policy and communications work that is needed to win Community Benefits campaigns.

What is your target audience—three possibilities to consider: Your base: Communities, allies and advocates. People who can influence the campaign target: The people who can push that target to give you what you want.

Polling gauges public perception of an issue over time or in a moment. It can help you develop your Community Benefits messages or make news of findings. Track polls to look at changing attitudes over time.

Secondary target audiences: People in the community who should know about you to build power and brand awareness for your group.

Surveys ask in-depth questions and seek to get a deeper understanding of a particular issue. Interviews and Surveys are inexpensive ways to get information from your target audiences about their opinions on your issue. Focus groups assemble people for focused discussion and to give feedback on a particular issue. Participants’ opinions, perspectives and viewpoints can help you develop messages for your intended “target audiences.” Research—by consuming various media, including print, radio, television and online—is the most important way to understand attitudes and types of media messages permeating the political terrain. The Pew Research Center [www.pewresearch.org] offers information on trends, attitudes and issues in American society, particularly related to how we consume the media.

Understanding your target audience helps you craft appropriate messages to reach them.

Framing the Development Debate Many groups working on Community Benefits strategies also face challenges related to gentrification and rapidly changing communities. Talking about these issues is a tricky business; we do want quality housing, jobs and the other benefits that development can bring to our communities, but not at the expense of people who have lived and worked there for generations. Here are some strategies to help you frame and discuss broad issues of development in your community.

DO…

DON’T…

Make it local—talk about how these issues are playing out in your neighborhoods and communities. Be clear about the goals and tone of your efforts. Are you trying to stop development or shape the way it’s done?

Remember to talk about fundamental values— why do you want what you want?

Define “community” from many angles— schools, churches, small businesses, environment, health, transportation, workforce. These community resources are required to fuel a healthy economy.

Tell human stories to back up the facts. Put a face on the abstract issues. Talk about fairness in general terms—get specific on what is currently unfair and how it can be made fairer. Be concrete! Use history. Talk about famous cases of displacement that resonate in your area. Tap into the language of smart growth—it resonates for a lot of your targets (city council, etc). Use arguments that focus on community-driven development, as well as strengthening community and economic diversity.

Use the word gentrification. It’s a charged word that only a handful will recognize—much less relate to. Find ways to define the concept and its impacts without using shorthand. Say you oppose development. In the US, that’s like saying you hate apple pie and puppies. Talk about the need for principled progress. Confuse your demands with your messages. Your demands are only part of the narrative, part of the picture you want to paint. It’s not about housing or jobs; it’s about creating a community for all of us. Let local officials off the hook. Many people believe that when it comes to development, elected officials have their own agendas—set largely by developers. Local officials aren’t trusted to consider the long-term consequences of their decisions, so your messages may have an opening there.

WORDS THAT WORK

Key Community Benefits messages should concisely communicate the key issues at stake. Many organizations attempt to discuss using policy details—or worse, political strategy—instead of putting out sharp messages with clear language that defines and makes the case for Community Benefits. The SPIN Project recommends adopting a strategy that addresses three key points—the Problem, the Solution and the Action. This method of creating messages helps you develop short, pithy “talking points” that move to the essence of an issue, rather than jargon-filled lectures that only your allies understand. This section will help advocates design and hone key messages for audiences new to the Community Benefits movement. Once your frame helps you determine the story you want told, message development allows you to create sharp, concise messages, making the issue as accessible as possible.

DEVELOPING THE MESSAGE: PROBLEM, SOLUTION, ACTION

SAMPLE MESSAGE

Problem

Problem Redevelopment has the potential to strengthen our communities, but the current system in Metropolis is not working well. Crucial issues such as job quality, housing and neighborhood services are not considered before a project is approved, while residents directly affected by developments have little opportunity for input. Lawmakers are forced to make decisions and commit taxpayer funds without full information, and developers must confront opposition from frustrated residents whose concerns have not been addressed.

This section of the message should frame the issue clearly, broadly and in a compelling way so that the impact of Community Benefits is felt and understood by everyone—especially to those not familiar with the issue. This section defines the issue, who is affected, who is causing the problem and who is responsible for correcting the problem.

Solution This part of the message should convey your values. What do you stand for? What is your vision for solving the problem? How will your community benefit from fair and smart development? The solution helps you convey viable alternatives for success. You must offer a positive vision for your initiative—not just a response to your opponents. It’s also important to convey a sense of hope and possibility in this message, to suggest that change is achievable and within our reach.

Solution Redevelopment in Metropolis must focus on the real long-term needs of our communities. A Community Impact Report is a simple, common sense tool that will provide residents, policymakers and developers with the facts they need about development projects. The Community Impact Report will encourage projects that create good jobs, affordable housing and vital neighborhood services, give residents a voice in decisions that affect their lives and allow policymakers and developers to build projects that enjoy strong public support.

Action This portion of the message is the call to action. You must offer a picture of leadership to your target audience, and give them a sense of what they can do to solve the problem and help achieve the solution. Keep in mind that particular actions may be different depending on your various target audiences—not every target is asked to do the same thing.

Action Give residents, developers and policymakers the facts they need to build good projects and healthy communities. Support the Community Impact Report policy.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT

MESSAGE DEVELOPMENT

SUPPORTING MESSAGES Below are some Community Benefits messages that have proven successful in prior campaigns.

Here are some step-by-step tools to help you create your message.

Problem © © ©

Ask yourself: What’s going on here? What is the problem and why is it relevant?

Define the issue: Set the terms of debate, and place the issue in its context. Jargon alert: Avoid jargon, insider language and policy-speak in the problem part of the message. Think of people who do not know anything about your issue and explain it to them.

CBAs prevent cities from misallocating taxpayer dollars on development projects that produce no tangible benefits.

Values: Does your message match up with your audiences’ values, experiences and beliefs?

CBAs ensure taxpayer money serves the best interest of the community by linking development/redevelopment with good jobs, job training, housing and other Community Benefits.

Community Benefits are good for Policymakers

Solution ©

CBAs help policymakers be more informed on developments and how they could impact the entire city.

Ask yourself: So what? Why should people care? Offer a vision of success. Ensure the solution is viable and practical.

Involve your audience in the solution. Communicate your values: fairness, participation, benefits for all (win-win).

CBAs give policymakers important information to help them make the best decisions for development projects. Policymakers who support CBAs are real leaders, representing the interests of the whole community. CBAs help policymakers consider redevelopment projects as a way to provide living-wage jobs and safe and affordable housing.

Action © ©

Community Benefits are good for Developers

Ask yourself: Now what? What do I want this audience to do?

CBAs help developers understand community concerns and needs, and gain much-needed public support as they seek permits and tax subsidies. CBAs improve community “buy-in” by addressing concerns early in the development process.

CBAs give community members a voice in economic development decisions that affect them. CBAs meet the real needs of the community by addressing crucial needs like housing and jobs, thereby improving the overall quality of life.

WORDS THAT WORK

KEYS TO MESSAGING Message Essentials

Repeat Messages Over and Over

Your messages communicate your frame, position and call to action. The Community Benefits message clarifies your advocacy position and whose interests are at stake. For example, Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE) essentially re-framed the debate on economic development in Los Angeles using Community Benefits framing and messaging: a positive vision, win-win solutions and community-based themes.

Create an “echo” effect when sharing Community Benefits messages. Repeating your key messages over and over is the only way to get them into the public consciousness. The message pipeline can carry messages through a cycle from advocates to allies, repeating the same message to influencers, repeating it in the media, in community outreach, etc. We can also echo the message with symbols and visuals that convey the essence of the issue.

Condense your Issue into Key Messages

Respond to Reporters’ Questions with Key Messages

Try to distill what you want to say into a sharp, concise message. Community Benefits policy nuance and complexity isn’t necessary—capture the essence of the issue and make it as accessible as possible. Community Benefits means “fair and beneficial development and creates sustainable communities with good jobs and affordable housing.”

Media interviews are opportunities to communicate your key messages to your intended audiences, not to the reporter. The average sound bite in broadcast media is eight to 10 seconds. Complicated policy explanations will not help here, but key messages will.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT

Stay ON MESSAGE The key here is discipline. Discipline your messages and the spokespeople delivering the messages. The combination of an effective message and a disciplined messenger will lock an issue into the audienceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s consciousness.

Repeating your key messages over and over is the only way to get them into the public consciousness.

Many Messengers, One Message Successful Community Benefits messaging depends on creating a constancy of message across a wide spectrum of interests. This spectrum may include other advocates, allies, community partners, religious and union leadership and others. Everyone should be advancing the same essential message. And this message should be constantly echoed across all media engagement: press releases, media advisories, Op Eds, letters to the editors, television, radio and online communications.

WORDS THAT WORK

Front Range Economic Strategy Center Denver’s first responsible development victory: Community Benefits achieved at the Gates Rubber Factory.

The Promised Land

FRESC Leads the People

In 2001, Cherokee-Denver, LLC purchased the Gates Rubber Factory, an old building sitting on a 50-acre parcel. The Gates company and factory had once been pillars of Denver’s economy. Opened in 1911, Gates produced tires, rubber hose and automobile belts, but, like many other US corporations, moved its operations abroad. The rubber factory slowly began to deteriorate and was officially declared blighted in 2003.

United in a vision to build responsible development for the Denver area, the Campaign for Responsible Development (CRD), a broad coalition of community organizations, labor unions, faithbased groups and community residents, was incubated at the Front Range Economic Strategy Center in 2002. The coalition’s member organizations represented tens of thousands of members and their families, and were committed to maximizing economic opportunities for Denver’s communities in redevelopment projects that received public support or subsidies.

After Cherokee-Denver, LLC purchased the site, Denver residents were inspired by its possibilities. Redevelopment, they imagined, could return to the site its lost status as a center of the city’s economy.

The CRD chose to target the Cherokee-Gates redevelopment project as a model for what good development could look like. The CRD proposed a Community Benefits Agreement to Cherokee that would ensure union construction, living-wage jobs and affordable housing.

Instead, the developer asked for $150 million in tax-funded subsidies to develop high-end condos without any assurances for affordable housing, and to create low-road service jobs.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT

The Strategy

The Message

The Campaign for Responsible Development used several key strategies to get the developer to negotiate.

Version I

The campaign’s early frame of the issue focused on the lack of public return on public investment. This message played well with certain business publications, but organizers found the message too academic and out of reach for community residents.

Broad Coalition The breadth of the coalition included several labor, religious and community-based organizations who, in turn, mobilized hundreds of community residents at key city council meetings and community town halls.

Version II

Research on Tax Increment Financing Through a series of studies on projects funded through tax increment financing (TIF), the campaign educated policy makers and local politicians on the failure of publicly subsidized redevelopment projects to build stronger local communities and economies.

The campaign refocused on defining redevelopment as a tool for building community. Sample messages included: We believe economic development should build communities where ordinary people can afford to live and work.

Political Pressure Armed with this information, the campaign advocated for council members to ask the developer questions about the benefits that the community would reap, and to make specific agreements about those benefits.

Economic development should improve the lives of people living in distressed communities. Economic development should be an investment that improves the city’s fiscal health and enriches our entire community.

Tenacity The CRD campaign remained consistent and adamant in their resolve to create greater economic opportunity and stronger local communities by standing firm on the issue over the course of three years.

“We believe that TIF-subsidized economic development can achieve its goals, but only if we raise the expectations for affordable housing and establish wage and benefit standards that allow people to lead healthy and self-sufficient lives here in Denver.” —Robin Kniech, Campaign for Responsible Development

WORDS THAT WORK

Lessons Learned

Win

Early on in the campaign, leaders learned the importance of developing a frame that resonated with people’s immediate needs, rather than longer-term community concerns. In the first years of the campaign, the coalition had a strong environmental frame identified by community residents near the rubber plant who feared the toxicity of the land and its effects on residents. Although the City Council called the organizers alarmist and tried to downplay the environmental angle, the campaign continued to support thorough environmental cleanup of the land.

In February of 2006, after more than three years of community mobilization and negotiations with the developer and the city, the CRD was proud to voice its support for public investment at the Cherokee-Gates site. Some of the Community Benefits won at Gates include:

Additionally, campaign leaders developed a keen understanding of the importance of getting to know the city beat reporters and predicting what angle of the story would capture their interest. Some reporters were more interested in the political dimensions of the issue, and focused on the process by which the city makes decisions about spending public money. In order to capitalize on this interest, the campaign had to create controversy and tension over how to hold the city responsible for how it was spending tax-payer money.

A cautionary note about long coalition names. While reporters often included the full name of the coalition—the Campaign for Responsible Development—editors repeatedly took it out, saying it had too many words.

A landmark Affordable Housing Plan that includes 200 units of rental housing for Denver families with the greatest need, those at 50% and 30% of Area Median Income (50% = $35,825 and 30% = $21,495 for a family of four in 2005). Developer cooperation and participation with the neighborhood-based Voluntary Cleanup Advisory Board that is monitoring the environmental cleanup and communicating cleanup issues to affected residents. An unprecedented agreement to pay prevailing wages and benefits for every construction worker engaged in the publicly funded construction of site infrastructure and maintenance of public spaces and facilities. Selection of a union construction manager and a general contractor with a strong record of good wages, health care and retirement benefits, as well as high-quality skills and safety training. A commitment to use a “Best Value” selection process for subcontractors at all tiers, maximizing the chances of worker health-care coverage and opportunities to train new apprentices. An unprecedented agreement to extend Denver’s Living Wage Ordinance to cover parking lot attendants and security personnel employed at the site’s public facilities. An early agreement that excluded big-box grocery stores, which are typically low-road employers and bad neighbors. An enhanced “First Source” local hiring system that promotes the recruitment of local residents to fill new positions and, for the first time, prioritizes immediately adjacent low-income neighborhoods.

Milwaukee Good Jobs & Livable Neighborhoods Campaign A Tale of Two Cities In the fall of 2002, Milwaukee community leaders found out about plans to redevelop land that became vacant when city officials decided to dismantle its Park East freeway. These community leaders approached city officials to ask for information on how the planning and redevelopment process would create good jobs, but were told by the Department of City Development that the quality of jobs being created did not factor into redevelopment plans. Community leaders were extremely concerned that, as in past downtown development projects, millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money would be spent subsidizing development that would not generate concrete economic gains for local residents.

Milwaukee Innercity Congregations Allied for Hope (MICAH), a broad array of labor and community organizations embarked on a campaign to demand that Park East redevelopment benefit all of Milwaukee, including some of the city’s poorest residents. The Coalition called for a Community Benefits Agreement to be incorporated into the city’s redevelopment plan. The proposed CBA

Within three months, a group of 30 community and labor organizations formed the Good Jobs & Livable Neighborhoods Coalition (GJLN). Spearheaded by the Milwaukee County Labor Council, the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future and

WORDS THAT WORK

The Campaign

would require any projects within the redevelopment area that received substantial city subsidy to pay prevailing wages for construction and living wages for post-construction jobs; to include job training and job access provisions to ensure local residents found employment opportunities in the redevelopment area; and to include affordable housing in any residential projects.

GJLN’s volunteer-run coalition began organizing and canvassing, held over 100 meetings with public officials and staged a public meeting where over 700 people turned out to support the coalition’s efforts. GJLN developed key messages that included: ©

GJLN framed the issue around A Tale of Two Cities, noting that Milwaukee was the seventh poorest city in the country, ranked fourth highest in child poverty and suffered from extremely high unemployment rates among people of color. They also noted that previous public and private investments in downtown redevelopment—investments which had been committed without any Community Benefits provisions—had done little to address the poverty and unemployment that had devastated many Milwaukee neighborhoods. Community leaders framed the Park East redevelopment as an opportunity to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor by creating good jobs, improved access to education and training and a dedicated local hiring program.

The Park East redevelopment plan characterized the downtown area as one of the most valuable pieces of land likely to be available for development in our lifetime. If this land is so valuable, community members have a right to expect concrete benefits from its development. This is a tremendous opportunity for our city to bridge the gap between the rich and poor. CBA strategies have been used before by government bodies in the Milwaukee area and across the country. Many of the components of the proposed CBA, such as local hiring and prevailing wage requirements, had already been implemented by the City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee County and other local quasi-governmental units. CBAs provide concrete, measurable ways of ensuring that developers that receive subsidies deliver on the promises they make. Too often, past developments have received city subsidies based on the hope that they will benefit the community, but with no real way to ensure that concrete benefits accrue.

Community leaders framed the Park East redevelopment as an opportunity to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT

Changing Strategies Over the course of an 18-month campaign, the coalition used these frames to change the nature of economic development discussions in Milwaukee. Unfortunately, the Milwaukee Common Council rejected the CBA in June 2004. Immediately, the Coalition shifted its focus to the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors, which held title to the majority of the land. GJLN sought a county resolution requiring Community Benefits provisions to be attached to the redevelopment of any county-owned land. Continuing its program of mass mobilization, the coalition began a phone campaign which resulted in over 5,000 constituent phone calls to key County Supervisors emphasizing the desire to see Community Benefits in the Park East redevelopment area.

determine the benefits had done little to solve the poverty and unemployment in Milwaukee’s neighborhoods.

CBA – A Great Organizing Tool

In December 2004, the Supervisors approved the CBA resolution, 15-to-4, voting again just a few months later to override the County Executive’s veto.

According to John Goldstein, one of the key architects of the campaign: “CBAs are a great organizing tool because they enable many groups to come together on a joint project. Everyone is able to hold onto their own issues and it builds the coalition in a great way. They are a powerful tool for winning good jobs and more livable neighborhoods.”

Through the campaign, community leaders became experts on the development process and moved quickly to react to changing public perceptions of the campaign. Opponents argued that the CBA campaign was stalling all development and would ultimately kill Milwaukee’s nascent momentum for downtown development. They decried the CBA components as too onerous and expensive for developers to sustain. They focused on what they saw as contradictions among CBA provisions, worked to pit union members against community residents and even attempted to divide the coalition on the basis of race. Throughout it all, the Good Jobs and Livable Neighborhoods coalition was unwavering in their use of strategic frames, continuing to argue for citizen input into the development process and pointing out that letting the market

CBA campaigns are a great way to organize communities to address long-term needs. Through CBA campaigns, communities organize to develop a common mission and principles on how their communities should look like and what kinds of economic opportunities should be provided. Grassroots organizing that fuels CBA campaigns builds power for working families and establishes greater community control over economic development decisions. By organizing the power of working families to direct the process and decision-making around economic development, communities shift the balance from business-directed policy and development to people-directed policy and development.

Through the campaign, community leaders became experts on the development process and moved quickly to react to changing public perceptions of the campaign. 23

WORDS THAT WORK

Georgia Stand-Up Communicating is a two-way street. Listening well is as important as projecting your message clearly.

In the Beginning, There Was the Win

tracks and their surroundings into an interconnected network of green space, housing, public transportation and businesses. However, the initial proposal never addressed how the project would affect community residents already living along the Beltline. There was no mention of community benefits in return for the city’s tax dollars that went to the project or a process for residents to comment on the project’s impact on their community.

Atlanta was founded as a railroad town. In fact, its original name was Terminus, referring to its position at the end of a great national railroad. At one point, over 1,000 trains roared through Atlanta every day. As trucks replaced trains, Atlanta’s railways quieted, leaving the Beltline—a loop of tracks that encircled Atlanta and bisected many of its historically African-American and low-income neighborhoods—idle and open to redevelopment. Several years ago, academics, city officials and businesses proposed to turn the train

In November 2005, the Atlanta City Council revisited the issue of Beltline redevelopment, guaranteeing that Community Benefits would accompany a new $1.67 billion, 25-year Beltline development plan. Georgia Stand-Up, an alliance of labor, community and faith organizations, had advocated for the Community Benefits language and was thrilled at the victory, which promised prevailing wages for the construction jobs, local hiring that targets low income residents for permanent jobs and construction apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs. Finally, the ordinance guaranteed that affected communities would take part in defining what other Community Benefits they were to receive. After the initial glow of victory, Georgia Stand-Up staff and local officials began to sort through the pressing questions that would affect their communities for the next 25 years and beyond: What defines Community Benefits? Who is the community? Who gets to define them? What process is used in forming that definition?

Communicating is a two-way street.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT

Recognizing the need for another method of outreach to these neighborhoods, the strategy committee for the alliance planned a Community Input Session to gain the input of leaders from the historic neighborhoods of the city. The session was intended to provide a venue for leaders to come together and collectively express their opinions regarding the Community Engagement Toolkit, as well as provide an opportunity for these leaders to learn more about the Community Benefits principles amendment in the Beltline ordinance. Stand-Up sent out invitations to over 200 community leaders around the city inviting them to attend this special community input session.

Georgia Stand-Up Begins to Organize With the large task ahead, Georgia Stand-Up convened community leaders from the underrepresented neighborhoods of Atlanta to discuss the impact Beltline redevelopment will have on their neighborhoods. Georgia Stand Up began its organizing by bringing together the recent graduates of Stand-Upâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Policy Institute for Civic Leadership, a six-week intensive course designed to bring together community, neighborhood, labor, political and faith leaders to discuss issues such as smart growth and the regional economy. In the winter of 2006, Stand-Up had 30 leaders from around the Atlanta area participate in the Policy Institute, and through these leaders they began to organize around the issue of gaining broader public participation in the Beltline Community Engagement Toolkit.

As a result of the meeting, participants completed a consensus survey expressing the ways in which the Beltline could truly benefit the communities that have been traditionally overlooked around the city of Atlanta, with over 50 community leaders from around the city signing off on the results. These results were delivered to the Atlanta Development Authority, along with over 300 individual surveys filled out by residents along the Southside. Since this meeting, Stand-Up has been organizing these leaders, as well as many others around the city, to continue developing a plan for ensuring that the Beltline will be a project that will benefit all Atlantans. The Atlanta Beltline story illustrates the importance of finding the right communications strategy for connecting with key constituencies and communities.

Georgia Stand-Up held meetings with community leaders twice a month to discuss how outreach could be done in their neighborhoods to make the survey a more effective tool for gaining community input. The group formed an alliance, and its members identified the need to create a help sheet for residents to use when filling out the survey. The purpose of the help sheet was to break down difficult concepts, as well as to explain commonly used terms in the toolkit, such as economic development and historic preservation. Despite these efforts of Georgia Stand-Up and its alliance members, two weeks before the end of the deadline for community input, the response rate of residents in the Southside of Atlanta was still low in comparison to other areas of the city.

The Atlanta Beltline story illustrates the importance of finding the right communications strategy for connecting with key constituencies and communities. 25

WORDS THAT WORK

PART III Communications Tools This part of the toolkit contains practical tools to help you plan and implement the communications component of your CBA campaign. Here you’ll find:

Organizational logo, Web address and contact information should appear at the top of all releases. Organizational letterhead is often appropriate for this. Make sure to include your press contact’s office phone, cell phone and email. If there’s any chance your primary contact will not be available, list a secondary contact to ensure you do not miss out on valuable press opportunities.

Including a headline and sub-heads is critical, since busy reporters usually spend 30 seconds or less scanning a press release. Attract attention, but do not undermine your credibility with histrionic language. A good story doesn’t need to rely on inflammatory rhetoric to attract interest. The lead paragraph is the most important part of the release. The lead frames the issue for maximum media impact.

A sample Press Release A sample Op Ed A sample Communications Plan

Sample Press Release Contact: Danny Feingold, Communications Director Office: (213) 977-9400, ext. 109 Cell: (213) 555-1212 Email: dfeingold@laane.org

Council Approves $500 Million Agreement to Help Communities Near LAX Landmark Deal Sets National Precedent with Far-Reaching Package of Environmental and Economic Benefits for Residents Affected by Airport Modernization The Los Angeles City Council today overwhelmingly approved a landmark community benefits agreement that provides major environmental and economic improvements to communities affected by the planned modernization of Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The legally binding agreement—the result of months of discussions between the City, LAWA and more than 20 community groups, environmental organizations, school districts and labor unions—will establish a national precedent for community improvements around large-scale development projects. At $500 million, it represents the largest and most comprehensive community benefits agreement ever negotiated, designed to address known impacts to surrounding communities through improvements to environmental, labor, noise and health conditions.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT

“This agreement shows that by working with the surrounding communities from the beginning, large-scale development projects can result in economic benefits, social benefits and environmental benefits,” said Jerilyn López Mendoza, policy director of the Los Angeles office of Environmental Defense, one of the lead organizations involved in the negotiations. “By easing the pollution burden from LAX, this agreement secures a huge health and quality-of-life victory for area residents. This agreement can now serve as a national model for other large-scale development projects and affected communities to bring economic and environmental benefits to their own neighborhoods.” The agreement will now go to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), along with Los Angeles Mayor Jim Hahn’s $11 billion plan to renovate and modernize LAX. “This agreement is a milestone for the growing Community Benefits movement,” said Rev. William Smart, senior community organizer at the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, which pioneered the concept of Community Benefits Agreements and played a lead role in the negotiations. “We have demonstrated that when communities have a place at the table, economic development works better for everyone. This shows that responsible development is possible.” The agreement offers significant economic opportunities and qualityof-life improvements to residents east of the airport, who historically have suffered the worst consequences of airport development and had little voice in the decision-making process. It is also the first Community Benefits Agreement negotiated with a government entity. When the coalition approached Mayor Hahn late last year to propose the agreement, he immediately demonstrated his commitment to the communities surrounding the airport by directing Los Angeles World Airports and his own staff to work with the coalition to negotiate the agreement. Previous agreements, including half a dozen in Los Angeles, have been reached between private developers and community organizations. “This Community Benefits Agreement is a national model for airport development and serves to enhance the quality of life of the communities surrounding LAX as we move forward with our plans to make LAX safer and more secure for the millions of travelers who pass through the airport every year,” said Hahn. “I am proud that together we have developed a comprehensive environmental, economic and educational Community Benefits Agreement that will directly benefit the communities most impacted by operations at LAX.” The key improvements that would result from the Community Benefits Agreement include: © © ©

Sound-proofing all affected schools. Increasing funding for the sound-proofing of homes. Retrofitting diesel construction vehicles and diesel vehicles operating on the tarmac to curb dangerous air pollutants by up to 90%.

Include a compelling lead quote within the first 2–3 paragraphs, to frame the issue and clarify your most important news.

Use the Inverted Triangle Model to prioritize your framing points. After the lead, begin to fill in the story’s details. The inverted triangle model ensures that the most important news hits the reader at the top, and narrower details are filled in further down in the piece.

Aim for readability. The goal of your writing should be for the reader to comprehend your information as quickly as possible, not to impress them with sophisticated prose. Use short sentences.

Proofreading, spell-checking and consistency are critical. A press release says a lot about you as an organization. Make sure it makes you look good!

WORDS THAT WORK

Develop your message with supporting quotes. Continue to frame by building your cast of characters. Extra perspectives from different people can entirely recast a story.

Indicate the end of the release by typing “###” at the bottom of the final page. If your release is more than one page long, be sure to include page numbers and write “more” at the page breaks.

Include a boilerplate description of your organization. Don’t assume reporters know who you are or trust them to define your work. At the end of your release, briefly describe your organization and direct reporters to your Web site for more information.

Electrifying airplane gates to eliminate pollution from jet engine idling. Studying the health impacts of airport operations on surrounding communities and making those studies public on the LAWA Web site. Providing $15 million in job training funds for airport and aviationrelated jobs. Creating a local hiring program to give priority to local residents, low-income and special needs individuals for new LAX jobs. Enhance opportunities for local, minority and women-owned businesses in the modernization of LAX. Monitoring LAX, enforcing the agreement’s provisions and holding LAX accountable to the community.

“The Community Benefits Agreement has given disparate groups an opportunity to come together and work out differing opinions about how the development should be done,” said Daniel K. Tabor, an Inglewood resident and community activist who helped lead the negotiations. “As a result, LAWA and the City have avoided costly and lengthy litigation and the community will get health and jobs protection up front.” ### Founded in 1993, LAANE is recognized as a national authority on issues affecting the working poor and an innovator in the fight against working poverty. Combining a vision of social justice with a practical approach to social change, LAANE has helped set in motion a broad movement based on the principle that hard work deserves fair pay, good benefits and decent working conditions. Visit www.laane.org for more information.

Sample Opinion Editorial (Op Ed) Start with a strong lead. Op Eds need to grab a reader’s attention quickly, so make sure your first paragraph is strong. Chris Nevitt explains how Coloradans are being kept in the “dark” about how tax funded subsidies are spent and how they will benefit the community.

Subsidy Sunshine Needed for More Healthy Economic Development by Chris Nevitt Coloradans enjoy over 300 days of sunshine a year, but too little sunshine falls on our economic development subsidy practices. Lack of transparency, an absence of clear expectations and a failure to track measurable outcomes, all keep Coloradans in the dark about how millions in tax funded subsidies are spent, and the public benefits they are meant to be generating. Nationally, state and local development subsidies have ballooned to an estimated $50 billion in annual costs to taxpayers. In Colorado, Denver taxpayers alone are now committed to over $500 million in tax-increment financing subsidies. These are not spent directly out of Denver’s treasury but instead take the form of foregone revenue—

COMMUNITY BENEFITS COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT

taxes collected, but diverted to fund private development projects before ever reaching city coffers. Regardless of whether these subsidies are taxes spent or taxes never received, they are a substantial and growing sum—in Denver equaling roughly 7% of the city’s annual general fund budget. The idea behind such subsidies is that they catalyze growth, create jobs, strengthen local economies and benefit our communities. But do they? Led by the national subsidy watchdog group, Good Jobs First, communities across the country are beginning to ask “are taxpayers getting their money’s worth?” As detailed in the recent book, The Great American Jobs Scam, the answer has often been “no.” The focus on the issue, however, is resulting in more focused and effective subsidy policies, greater accountability, more transparency and robust community involvement. “Sunshine,” in short, is improving the health of economic development efforts across the country. In Colorado, unfortunately, citizens remain in the dark. Local tax subsidy expenditures are not accounted for in local budgets, leaving citizens and policy makers debating painful cuts while unaware of millions they are already spending elsewhere. The recent travails of Lakewood and their heavily subsidized Wal-Mart are a painful case in point. While developers generally must justify their need for subsidies, these calculations are often based on developers’ own estimates, and are not available for public examination, even years afterwards. Citizens also remain in the dark about the specific economic and community goals their subsidies are meant to achieve. Even Denver, perhaps Colorado’s most sophisticated dealer in tax-funded development assistance, appears to be functioning entirely without a strategic plan to guide its subsidy program. Denver’s public has certainly never had the opportunity to debate such a plan, much less the specific benefits the community should expect from subsidy recipients. Instead, the initiative for the use of subsidies is left almost entirely up to private developers themselves, and they are not required to detail the number or quality of the jobs they will be creating, and whether those jobs will have health care. This often results in lowwage, low-benefit jobs that produce little economic stimulus and exacerbate public service burdens. Nor are subsidized projects required to detail their likely impact on existing business, often leading to small local merchants forced to compete against subsidized big-box stores. Finally, Colorado citizens remain in the dark about their “return on investment” from subsidies. There is little or no effort to measure or track the economic and community impacts from subsidized projects once they are built. Partly, this stems from the failure to establish clear and quantifiable expectations in the first place. Nonetheless, local governments typically fail to collect even the most basic economic data from subsidy recipients, or about subsidy impact areas, much less analyze their net effects.

Aim for concise writing. Op Eds are generally 500–900 words long. Use short sentences and paragraphs to get your point across.

Frame the issue quickly. After the lead, Nevitt immediately develops the frame, pointing to how “sunshine” improves the health of economic development through civic participation and helps achieve community-wide goals by creating good jobs, a stronger economy and a healthier community.

Communicate your message. Clearly state the main message of your Op Ed early in the piece. Here, the main message is that citizens remain in the dark about public subsidies, a reality that threatens the health of the community.

Keep to the point. A healthy community cannot remain in the “dark” about local subsidy expenditures, the economic and community goals their subsidies are meant to achieve or how a city measures economic and community impacts once subsidized projects are built. This does not make for a healthy community.

WORDS THAT WORK

Conclude with your message. End the piece by reiterating your key message. Nevitt details “subsidy sunshine” suggestions for government accountability and transparency for healthy economic development.

Pitch It! Pitch your Op Ed to the Opinion Editorial or Editorial Page editor at your target newspaper. Call first to gauge their interest level, then fax or email the Op Ed with a cover letter and follow up to make sure they received it. Don’t submit the Op Ed to another outlet unless your first target decides not to run it. If at first you don’t succeed, consider other outlets or rewriting the piece.

Subsidy “sunshine” does not impede economic development. To the contrary, it promotes civic engagement, raises the bar for public expectations and improves accountability. This can only increase the likelihood that subsidy dollars achieve their stated goals: good jobs, a stronger economy and healthier communities. Most of us believe government has an important role to play in promoting economic development. Publicly funded education and infrastructure are key ingredients for successful economic development, and passage of Referendum C is a major step toward preserving the economic viability of Colorado. But effective government also depends on an informed citizenry, able to understand and influence the policies that guide its actions, and to debate their costs and benefits. This applies as much to tax subsidies as it does to direct government expenditures. This summer and fall, the Colorado legislature convened an interim committee to examine state economic development policies, and this committee will be introducing several measures in the upcoming legislative session. Unfortunately, while the committee made a good start toward clarifying job creation and wage and benefit expectations for direct state subsidy programs, it left the vast sums of locally-administered subsidies to continue being spent in the dark. Our state legislature needs to come to grips with how local governments must better inform and involve the public in subsidy decisions, and must hold their subsidies accountable for achieving clear, verifiable goals. There is still time for the legislature to assemble sensible measures to bring “subsidy sunshine” to local economic development in Colorado. Here are several suggestions: Require clear accounting for subsidy tax expenditures in budget publications. Promote formulation of local strategic plans for the use of subsidies, including clear and measurable expectations from subsidy recipients, and require robust community involvement in developing these priorities and expectations. Require subsidy recipients to estimate jobs, wages, health benefits and impacts on existing local businesses, and to report subsequent outcomes from their projects. Increase the transparency of information justifying the use and amount of proposed subsidies. Subject subsidy programs to regular and independent performance audits.

Who’s the author? Who signs the Op Ed is a strategic consideration—make sure that the person identified as the author has credibility with your audience. Finding a leader in your community to co-sign the Op Ed can be a great way to catch the attention of readers.

Sunshine is essential for the health of plants, animals and people. It is also essential for the health of our economy and our communities. Hundreds of millions of dollars in Colorado taxes should not be spent in the dark. Chris Nevitt, Ph.D., is policy director at the Front Range Economic Strategy Center and co-author, with Tony Robinson, of Are We Getting Our Money’s Worth? Tax-Increment Financing and Urban Redevelopment in Denver, Parts I & II 140 Sheridan Blvd. Denver, CO 80226

COMMUNITY BENEFITS COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT

Sample Communications Plan The legally binding Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) signed by the city of Los Angeles in December 2004—the result of months of discussions between the city, Los Angeles World Airports (the city-owned system of airports in LA) and more than 20 community groups, environmental organizations, school districts and labor unions—is perhaps the clearest victory yet for Community Benefits work. At half a billion dollars, it represents the largest and most comprehensive Community Benefits Agreement ever negotiated, covering a broad range of impacts including environmental, labor, noise, health and accountability issues. You can use this plan as a model for a communications plan for your own work. For more tips on creating a strategic communications plan, and a template you can use to create your own plan, visit www.spinproject.org.

An “Executive Summary” can be useful for sharing your plan with other staff members. The authors of the plan begin by laying out what they see as the key aspects of their communications work: a disciplined message, a range of media work, support from public figures, dynamic spokespeople and solid information for reporters.

Communications Plan for LAX Community Benefits Agreement Campaign The LAX Community Benefits Agreement media plan is designed to convey a simple, compelling message through media actions, feature stories, Op Eds and editorials. Our media message is crafted to achieve maximum appeal. To sustain coverage, we should consider a variety of actions, escalate the intensity of those actions if needed and call on high-profile public figures for selected events. Dynamic, articulate spokespeople, both English- and Spanish-speaking, will be crucial to our campaign. These should include residents, community leaders, advocacy group representatives, elected officials, businesspeople and other respected public figures. Fact sheets supporting our case and endorsements from a range of public figures will also help strengthen our campaign. We should be prepared to provide reporters with detailed information about the negative impact of LAX development projects on communities in the past, and how this will change if our policy is adopted.

Win Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) for LAX modernization plan

Internal © ©

Build strong coalition between environmental, labor, community groups Build community support for accountable development work in LAX communities

Target © ©

LAWA Commission City Council 31

Be clear about your goals. What do you want? Why are you launching a campaign in the first place and what is your positive vision for the future? Be bold and be specific. Here, the authors divide their goals into External (Win a CBA for LAX) and Internal (Build a coalition across issue areas and increase support in the communities around LAX for accountable development).

Identify your targets. Who can give you what you want? Can you influence your target directly? If not, who has the power to influence them? These are your target audiences. Here, the authors focus on the commission in charge of making decisions at the airport, and the City Council members who must approve the CBA.

WORDS THAT WORK

Frame the story. Describe the issue in a way that resonates with your targets and is also interesting to journalists. What is the story really about? Who is affected and who are the players? Here, the authors decide that they will tell a story about residents coming together to better their communities. It’s a “win-win” story, good for the residents and for the city, and one that City Council members will want to get behind.

Craft and discipline your message. The Problem lays out your frame. The Solution is your positive vision for the future. The Action calls on your audience to take some specific steps. Here, the author’s frame describes the missed opportunities and negative impacts on LAX’s neighbors because they weren’t consulted in its growth. The Solution presents the CBA as “good for our communities and good for Los Angeles.” Finally, the Action calls for support of the CBA to protect the environment, improve education and provide good jobs.

Voters in District X LAX Communities

Frame We want this story to focus on the betterment of communities adjacent to LAX. We should emphasize the benefits of the agreement—local jobs, environmental protection, better education—as well as the political empowerment of these communities. It should be a story about residents coming together to improve their communities. It is also a win-win story—good for affected residents, good for the city, good for Angelenos.

Message Problem LAX is an essential part of our region’s economy, but, for decades, airport development has come at the expense of neighboring communities. Residents have not been included in the process, resulting in negative impacts on our health, our schools and our neighborhoods. Solution This groundbreaking Community Benefits Agreement protects the rights of residents and gives us a real say in the region’s most important economic development plan. The agreement guarantees that the mayor’s LAX modernization plan will protect residents’ health, provide them with access to good jobs and improve the quality of our schools and neighborhoods. It’s good for our communities and good for Los Angeles. Action Join us in supporting the Community Benefits Agreement for LAX and help us guarantee a healthier environment, better schools and good jobs for our communities. False choice between airport development/jobs and community/environment. Can move forward with both.

Key Arguments 1. CBAs make business sense by avoiding costly and timely litigation and bad PR. Jobs vs. the environment is a false choice. 2. CBAs give communities a place at the table and a voice to help shape where they work and play. With this empowerment, communities can make development work for them. 3. CBAs have been proven to work. 4. CBAs create environmental and social benefits. 5. This CBA is a national model for alternative dispute resolution. 6. Broad community support for CBA. 7. Unites unlikely partners.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT

Environmental Justice Education Health Care Clergy Labor LAANE City Community Leaders/Residents

Note: Use residents/activists from other CBAs at press conference, hearings and Council meetings, with message that CBA has worked for their communities.

Spokesperson Training Selected spokespeople will participate in a training on campaign message and public speaking skills.

Coalition one-pager CBA one-pager Other CBAs LAX communities backgrounder General Q&A Coalition member profiles Message and key arguments (internal) Media prep Q&A (internal)

Media Events ©

Select and train spokespeople. Who are the best spokespeople to reach your target audience? Remember: Sometimes the person delivering your message is as important as the message itself. Here, the authors choose a diverse coalition of community leaders to act as spokespeople, as well as community leaders from other cities with CBAs to talk about how they’ve worked out for their communities. After the spokespeople are selected, they need to be trained on the messages they will be delivering.

CBA press conference

Speakers Community Leaders Environmental Leaders Clergy Elected Officials

Visuals Planes, playground, handkerchiefs, signs (healthy communities/livable communities)

How to get the message out? How are you going to let people know about your campaign? What materials can you produce and what events can you schedule to support your message? Here, the authors list the documents they’ll need, both internal and external, to discipline their message and get the word out through reporters. Key speakers and visuals to attract television reporters are noted for a planned press conference.

WORDS THAT WORK

National precedent for CBAs Groundbreaking community/labor/environmental coalition Precedent-setting environmental justice provisions Empowerment of underserved LAX communities

Target Outlets/Reporters

Who will you pitch this story to and how? Which reporters have written about your issue in the past? Which television programs are watched by your target audiences? Build a list of reporters you want to pitch. Be as specific as you can and choose outlets that are influential with your target audience. You might also consider placing an Op Ed in your local paper, booking your spokespeople on a local affairs talk show, writing letters to the editor or creating an advertising campaign.

Print/Local: Los Angeles Times, Reporter X Print/National: New York Times, Reporter X Wall Street Journal, Reporter X

Radio/Local KFWB KFA AM 640

Radio/National NPR, Talk of the Nation

TV CBS 2, Reporter X ABC 7, Reporter X Op Ed Editorials Columnists Talk Shows Letters to the Editor Paid Media

Conclusion We hope that this toolkit has provided you with some useful tools to begin planning the communications aspect of your CBA campaign. Creating a strong strategic communications plan, with clear goals, compelling, well-targeted messages and disciplined implementation, will help win real benefits for your community. The Partnership for Working Families’ Web site (www.communitybenefits.org) contains research, reports and resources related to economic justice in general and CBAs in particular. The SPIN Project’s Web site (www.spinproject.org) contains free tutorials, articles, links and other resources related to strategic communications.

The Partnership for Working Families Partner Organizations Contact Information Center on Policy Initiatives – San Diego, CA Donald Cohen dcohen@onlinecpi.org (619) 584-5744, ext. 45

Good Jobs and Livable Neighborhoods Coalition – Milwaukee, WI Pam Fendt pfendt@communitybenefits.org (414) 443-2090

Central Arizonans for a Sustainable Economy – Phoenix, AZ Derek Smith (Interim Contact) dsmith@communitybenefits.org (310) 801-1410

Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy – Los Angeles, CA Madeline Janis mjanis@laane.org (213) 977-9400, ext. 108

Coastal Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy – Ventura, CA Marcos Vargas marcos@coastalalliance.com (805) 658-0810, ext. 201

New Economy Working Solutions – Sonoma County, CA Martin Bennett mbennett@vom.com (707) 527-4873

Community Labor United – Boston, MA Lisa Clauson lisa@massclu.org (617) 723-2639

Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development – Orange County, CA Eric Altman ealtman@communitybenefits.org (714) 392-0959

Connecticut Center for a New Economy – New Haven, CT Andrea Van Den Heever andrea@ctneweconomy.org (203) 785-9494, Ext. 269

Pittsburgh UNITED – Pittsburgh, PA Tom Hoffman tom@pittsburghunited.org (412) 231-8648

East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy – Oakland, CA Amaha Kassa amaha@workingeastbay.org (510) 893-7106, ext. 12

Puget Sound SAGE – Seattle, WA David West dwest@pugetsoundsage.org (206) 622-0897

Front Range Economic Strategy Center – Denver, CO Carmen Rhodes crhodes@fresc.org (303) 477-6111, ext. 11

San Bernardino/Riverside, CA Derek Smith (Interim Contact) dsmith@communitybenefits.org (310) 801-1410

Garden State Alliance for a New Economy – Northern New Jersey David Johnson (Interim Contact) dave.organizer@worldnet.att.net (609) 306-5952

Syracuse Alliance for a New Economy – Syracuse, NY Mark Spadafore (Interim Contact) mark@cnylabor.org 315-422-3363, ext. 11 Working Partnerships USA – San Jose, CA Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins phaedra@atwork.org (408) 269-7872

Georgia Stand-Up – Atlanta, GA Deborah Scott dscott@georgiastandup.org (404) 501-0053

436 14th St., Suite 1126 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 834-8503

149 Natoma Street San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 227-4200