By Mary Drier
Staff Writer
CARO — Because only two Tuscola County Commissioners were physically present at a March board meeting, it was decided no formal action should be taken and to seek a legal opinion.
Commission Chair Thom Bardwell and Commissioner Matt Bierlein were the only ones who were physically present. The board was able to conduct a meeting because Commissioner Craig Kirkpatrick “Skyped” in via computer over the Internet so that met the requirement of having three of the five board members, but commissioners were hesitant about making decision without their attorney’s advice about a quorum.
“While the question of whether an individual participating electronically in an open meeting is counted toward determining whether a quorum is present has not been specifically addressed within Michigan statute, case law, or an Attorney General Opinion,” explained county attorney Clayton Johnson. “It is our opinion that under current law that such – they indeed are counted toward a quorum, provided that the means of electronic communication allows two-way communication between the participant and those in attendance at the meeting.”
Using the “two-way communication” criteria, it was a legitimate meeting.
“Under current law, those participating electronically may vote. It would also follow that they are to be considered ‘present’ and therefore are to be included when determining whether a quorum exists,” he said. “From a legal standpoint, there is no specific minimum number of commissioners who must be physically present. Even so, from a practical perspective, it would seem preferable that at least one commissioner is present to preside over certain aspects of the meeting, such as the public comment portion.”
While Michigan law does not specifically limit electronic participation in an open meeting (again, provided that members of the public who attend the meeting may hear and be heard by such means), Johnson suggested the board implement certain minimum requirement at least one commissioner be physically present.
However, a proposed new law, HB-4182, may change that.
“This bill would revise the Open Meetings Act to state that a meeting is not considered open to the public if any member of the body casts a vote without being physically present at the meeting,” said Johnson. “This change would prohibit the body from making any decisions at such a meeting. It is unclear at this point whether this bill will eventually become law.”
HB-4182 has seven sponsors -one of whom is the vice-chair of the house Oversight and Ethics Committee, to which this bill has been referred for consideration.
Mary Drier is a staff writer for the Tuscola County Advertiser. She can be reached at drier@tcadvertiser.com.