SDMiller

Ahhhh, the light dawns. Thanks, J.J.!

@Kim Goldsworthy Yes, of course everything you say follows from your premise that the motion to end the closed session is a main motion -- but is it? Or is it a privileged motion, effectively to adjourn the closed session? @Richard Brown, forgive e, but I do not see anything in the text J.J. helpfully posted about the motion requiring a second or being debatable. What am I missing?

I apologize for being in absentia on this thread. I had asked to be notified of replies, and I wasn't notified. Finally decided to check today, and I see that I stirred up quite a little discussion a couple of weeks ago. Let me try to bring it back around to the questions at hand: Michigan's Open Meeting Act does require that the reason for entering closed session be entered in the minutes of the open meeting; in practice this means the reason is stated in the motion. It does not have to be so specific as "to fire Mr. X", but does need to be one (or more) of several specific reasons listed in the act, e.g., to discuss discipline of an employee. The act also requires all deliberations at a meeting constituting a quorum, and all decisions, to be taken in an open meeting. The state attorney general's opinion says: "Leaving a closed session – the OMA is silent as to how to leave a closed session. We suggest that you recommend a motion be made to end the closed session with a majority vote needed for approval. Admittedly, this is a decision made in a closed session, but it certainly isn't a decision that ;effectuates or formulates public policy.'" So we need a motion, and we need a vote. Richard Brown was very declarative that this motion needs a second and is debatable, and Josh Martin concurs. Neither learned gentleman cites an authority for this position. The remaining replies, while interesting, are not on point, except those suggesting we consult a Michigan attorney, which we have done. He agreed with my contention that the motion is akin to a motion to adjourn, because the closed session is effectively a meeting within a meeting, and the motion is to end the "child" meeting (and therefore to return to the "parent" meeting). But he agreed in a kind of "sounds good to me" way, not with any conviction or authority. I state the questions again, with a third question: Does the motion to leave the closed session require a second? Is the motion debatable? What authority supports your answer? Thanks for the interesting discussion!

I'm a member of a school board governed by Michigan's Open Meetings Act and (in our bylaws) by RONR. The OMA specifies several reasons that we can go into closed session and prescribes procedures for doing that. However, the OMA is silent on how to return from closed session to open session. The state attorney general's office has recognized this gap and issued guidance recommending that a motion be made to return to open session. However, the AG's recommendation is silent on whether the motion needs a second, and on whether it is debatable. I'm tempted to say that the motion to end closed session and return to open session is effectively a motion to adjourn, and therefore needs a second but is not debatable. But perhaps this decision falls within the chair's prerogatives. Or perhaps I'm missing something in RONR. Thoughts please?