Traverse City Record Eagle v. Traverse City Area Public Schools, Docket No. 116207

• Decision Date: 23 August 1990
• Docket Number: Docket No. 116207
• Citation: 61 Ed. Law Rep. 1397,459 N.W.2d 28,184 Mich.App. 609
• Parties: TRAVERSE CITY RECORD EAGLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRAVERSE CITY AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant-Appellee, and Northern Michigan Education Association; and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 25, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees. 184 Mich.App. 609, 459 N.W.2d 28, 61 Ed. Law Rep. 1397, 18 Media L. Rep. 1654
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 28

459 N.W.2d 28

TRAVERSE CITY RECORD EAGLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRAVERSE CITY AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant-Appellee and Northern Michigan Education Association; and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 25 Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 116207.

184 Mich.App. 609, 459 N.W.2d 28, 61 Ed. Law Rep. 1397,

18 Media L. Rep. 1654

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Feb. 14, 1990.

Decided April 18, 1990.

Released for Publication Aug. 23, 1990.

[184 MICHAPP 610] Murchie, Calcutt & Boynton by Jack E. Boynton, Traverse City, for Traverse City Record Eagle.

Thrun, Maatsch & Nordberg, P.C. by James T. Maatsch and Martha J. Marcero, Lansing, for Traverse City Area Public Schools.

White, Beekman, Przybylowicz, Schneider & Baird, P.C. by Thomas A. Baird and Michelle R. Eaddy, Okemos, for Northern Michigan Educ. Ass'n Webb & Hildebrandt, P.C. by Ann Hildebrandt, Detroit, for AFSCME, Council 25.

Before MAHER, P.J., and GRIBBS and MURPHY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Traverse City Record Eagle appeals as of right from an order granting defendants summary disposition. Plaintiff, a newspaper, sought access to a tentative collective bargaining agreement reached between the Traverse City School District and two unions representing the teachers, professional personnel, custodial and maintenance employees. We affirm.

We note initially that plaintiff was given a copy of the agreement at issue after it was ratified by the contracting parties, rendering the issue in this case moot. In any case, we do not believe the circuit court erred in determining that a tentative collective bargaining agreement was exempt from [184 MICHAPP 611] disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, M.C.L. Sec. 15.231 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 4.1801(1) et seq.

This Court reviews the lower court's decision under a clearly erroneous standard. The trial court's findings or conclusions of law are clearly erroneous if they leave the reviewing court with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Tuttle v. Dep't of State Highways, 397 Mich. 44, 46, 243 N.W.2d 244 (1976).

In this case, the trial court found the tentative collective bargaining agreement exempt from disclosure pursuant to Sec. 13(1)(n) of the act:

(n) 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 shall not apply unless the public body shows that in the particular instance the public interest in encouraging frank communications between officials and employees of public bodies clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. This exemption does not constitute an exemption under state law for purposes of section 8(h) of Act No. 267 of the Public Acts of 1976, being section 15.268 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. 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 Act No. 336 of the Public Acts of 1947, as amended, being sections 423.201 to 423.216 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. [M.C.L. Sec. 15.243(1)(n); M.S.A. Sec. 4.1801(13)(1)(n).]

Before determining that a public body has sustained its claim of exemption, the trial court must specifically find that the particular sections of the public record would, for particular reasons, fall [184 MICHAPP 612] within the claimed exemptions. The...