Goldstone v. Bloomfield Township Public Library

• Decision Date: 08 November 2005
• Docket Number: Docket No. 262831.
• Parties: George H. GOLDSTONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP PUBLIC LIBRARY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

708 N.W.2d 740

268 Mich. App. 642

George H. GOLDSTONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP PUBLIC LIBRARY, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 262831.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted October 12, 2005, at Detroit.

Decided November 8, 2005, at 9:10 a.m.

Released for Publication January 23, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Robert E. Toohey, Bloomfield Hills, for the plaintiff.

Seyburn, Kahn, Ginn, Bess & Serlin, P.C. (by Joel H. Serlin and Barry M. Rosenbaum), and Condit, McGarry & Schloff, PLLC (by Michael D. Schloff), Southfield, Bloomfield Hills, for the defendant.

Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C. (by Stephen O. Schultz and Sarah J. Gabis), Lansing, for Amici Curiae the Michigan Library Association.

Clark Hill PLC (by Robert Nyovich and Joseph C. Bennett), Birmingham, for Amici Curiae The Library Network.

Before: OWENS, P.J., and FITZGERALD and SCHUETTE, JJ.

FITZGERALD, J.

Plaintiff, George H. Goldstone, is a resident of the city of Bloomfield Hills. He brought an action for a declaratory judgment that would require the Bloomfield Township Public Library to grant him and other residents of the city "full, equal and free admission to the same library materials, programs, services, and activities that [defendant] gives to Bloomfield Township residents who support their library by local taxes." This occurred after the city and defendant had been unable to agree on a service contract. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of defendant, and plaintiff appeals as of right. We affirm.

FACTS

Defendant is a public library in Bloomfield Township. From 1964 to November 12, 2003, the library had a contractual agreement with the city that, for a fee, permitted city residents full access to the library. On November 12, 2003, the contract between the library and the city expired as a result of their inability to agree on a contract fee. As a result of the expiration of the contract, plaintiff and other city residents can visit the library and have access to its materials on site, but are prohibited from borrowing library materials and from having full-access to online databases and other programs, services, and activities that are regularly available to township residents. In addition, borrowing privileges at 90 other area libraries are not available to plaintiff and other city residents because of the loss of the city's contractual relationship with the library.

On May 27, 2004, plaintiff requested a nonresident library card and offered to pay a borrowing fee. Defendant denied the request because plaintiff is not a resident of Bloomfield Township and resides in a city that does not have a service contract with defendant. Plaintiff then filed a complaint for declaratory relief, seeking a determination that defendant is required by Constitution or statute to issue plaintiff a nonresident library card and thereby give him access to the library and its resources equal to that afforded to township residents. While acknowledging defendant's right to impose a nonresident borrowing fee, plaintiff sought the court's determination of the statutorily mandated parameters and limitations on the fees that could be charged.

Following a hearing, the trial court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary disposition and granted defendant's motion for summary disposition. The court ruled that the library's determination to permit nonresident borrowing only in accordance with the execution of a contractual agreement with a nonresident's community does not violate Const. 1963, art. 8, § 9 and that it is not a denial of equal protection for the library to provide preferential treatment to its own residents and deny borrowing privileges to nonresidents.

I. Const. 1963, art. 8, § 9

Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in determining that Const. 1963, art. 8, § 9 does not require defendant to allow plaintiff or other nonresidents to borrow books.¹ A trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is reviewed de novo. Dressel v. Ameribank, 468 Mich. 557, 561, 664 N.W.2d 151 (2003). Similarly, the interpretation, application, and constitutionality of statutes are questions of law that are reviewed de novo. Eggleston v. Bio-Medical Applications of Detroit, Inc., 468 Mich. 29, 32, 658 N.W.2d 139 (2003).

Plaintiff contends that the plain and ordinary meaning of Const. 1963, art. 8, § 9 requires public libraries to allow all state citizens, regardless of area of residency to borrow books. Const. 1963, art. 8, § 9 provides:

The legislature shall provide by law for the establishment and support of public libraries which shall be available to all residents of the state under regulations adopted by the governing bodies thereof. All fines assessed and collected in the several counties, townships and cities for any breach of the penal laws shall be exclusively applied to the support of such public libraries, and county law libraries as provided by law.

The primary objective in interpreting a constitutional provision is to determine the text's original meaning to the ratifiers, the people, at the time of ratification. Wayne Co. v. Hathcock, 471 Mich. 445, 468, 684 N.W.2d 765 (2004). While legal or technical terms should be assigned their legal or technical meanings, to understand or discern the intent of those ratifying the provision, this Court's focus is to determine and effectuate the common understanding of the text at the time of its ratification. Id. at 468-469, 684 N.W.2d 765; see also Phillips v. Mirac, Inc., 470 Mich. 415, 422, 685 N.W.2d 174 (2004). Additionally, to clarify meaning, the circumstances surrounding the adoption of a constitutional provision and the purpose sought to be accomplished may be considered. Comm. for Constitutional Reform v. Secretary of State, 425 Mich. 336, 340, 389 N.W.2d 430 (1986).

In support of his argument plaintiff relies on the interpretation of Const. 1963, art. 8, § 9 in OAG, 1979-1980, No. 5739, p. 874:

[T]he right of state residents to use the facilities of any public library includes not only the right to enter a public library and read books there, but the same right to borrow books that is offered to residents of the community in which the library is established. . . .

While informative, this interpretation is not dispositive. People v. Waterman, 137 Mich.App. 429, 439, 358 N.W.2d 602 (1984).

The specific language of Const. 1963, art. 8, § 9 reveals a clear intent that libraries "be available to all residents of the state. . . ." But this mandate is not without restrictions in that libraries are authorized to impose "regulations adopted by the governing bodies thereof." Thus, a library is imbued with the discretion to adopt regulations pertaining to the library's governance, functioning, and management of its resources. This language does not coincide with plaintiff's interpretation of the provision to mean unfettered or free access.

Further, in contradiction to plaintiff's position, the Attorney General's interpretation of this provision does not require a determination that nonresidents are entitled to all public library privileges enjoyed by residents of the community where the library is located, subject only to imposition of a reasonable borrowing fee. A review of Attorney General opinions demonstrates an historical recognition of the authority of public libraries to govern and restrict the use of their resources. OAG, 1977-1978, No. 5180, p. 109, addressed the use of penal fines to pay for library services. In that opinion, it was recognized that

[a] township or charter township is empowered to contract with any other governing body for any services for which it could by law provide for its residents. Because a township may provide a library for its residents in the manner authorized by law, it may therefore, when authorized, provide for library services by contracting with any governing body to provide those services. . . .

Implicit in this opinion is the recognition that full library services are subject to contractual agreements and that, absent such an agreement, nonresidents do not have unfettered access to library resources. And OAG, 1979-1980, No. 5739, p. 874, indicates in relevant part:

[U]nder the constitutional mandate. . . the right of state residents to use the facilities of any public library includes not only the right to enter a public library and read books there, but the same right to borrow books that is offered to residents of the community in which the library is established subject to reasonable regulations. [Emphasis added.]

Additionally, it was recognized that "the framers intended that each local governmental unit which operates a public library may prescribe reasonable rules and regulations governing availability of its library services." Id. This recognition of restrictions on use, and the right of local libraries to establish their regulations, was again recognized in evaluating interlibrary loan programs. In evaluating the imposition of fees on nonresidents for borrowing privileges at local libraries, the Attorney General has recognized

that the framers intended that the constitutional grant of authority to adopt regulations relating to the availability of library services be restricted to those persons who resided in townships which do not have a public library and which are not under contract with a public library for the provisions of full library services for its residents.

* * *

MCL 397.214 . . . empowers cities, incorporated villages and townships operating free public libraries to contract with townships for full use of such library by its residents. . . . [OAG, 1983-1984, No. 6188, p. 8.]

The opinion continued:

Recognizing that the Legislature had implicitly authorized library boards to license potential borrowers of books, Const. 1963, art. 8, § 9 must be read to include authority to impose fees upon those nonresident users seeking to borrow from a library who...