Court hears argument over whether Royal Oak city manager was subject to Michigan Open Meetings Act

The court heard oral argument this morning on whether the city manager of Royal Oak functioned as a "public body" under Michigan's Open Meetings Act when analyzing and assigning marijuana license slots, a question with implications for how local governments structure licensing decisions.

Anne McClory McLaughlin, counsel for the City of Royal Oak, told the court the issue is straightforward: "He was not a public body." She said the city manager acted under the city's ordinances as an administrative official who ranked applicants and consulted department heads on factual matters (water bills, taxes, police contacts), but did not perform as a collective governing body whose deliberations must occur in public. McClory McLaughlin emphasized that the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act (MRTMA) requires a competitive process but does not prescribe that the city commission itself must make the licensing-slot assignment, and she pointed to the city charter and ordinance structure as authorizing administrative implementation.

Will Desessa, counsel for Elite Quality Roots Inc., urged the court to deny the city's application for leave or to affirm the Court of Appeals. Desessa argued the court of appeals followed established precedent (including Pinebrook Warren and Booth) and that an entity can become a public body when a legislative body delegates governmental authority to it. He told the court that the record shows the city manager and his review committee "were the ultimate decision makers on who was going to receive licenses." Desessa read excerpts of former city manager Paul Brake's transcript testimony to show how rankings and selections were produced in practice.

Justices pressed both sides on where to draw the line between everyday administrative interactions and decisions that effectuate public policy and therefore require public deliberation. One justice asked whether treating the manager as a public body would open routine day-to-day administrative work to the Open Meetings Act; counsel for Elite Quality Roots responded that precedent and the facts distinguish those types of purely administrative matters from licensing determinations that effectuate public policy.

City counsel replied in rebuttal that the charter vests original licensing authority in the city commission and argued courts should not impose OMA-style public-meeting requirements on ordinary administrative consultations. She warned that requiring public meetings for administrative staff would impose burdens not intended by the Open Meetings Act and urged the court to reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court's decision for the city.

The case was submitted and the court adjourned.

Why this matters: a decision finding the manager subject to the Open Meetings Act could require greater transparency around how municipalities allocate limited marijuana license slots and could affect other delegated administrative processes; a contrary decision would preserve a broader administrative-exemption understanding for city managers and similar officials.

What happened next: the court took the case under submission and made no immediate ruling on the record.