I think that’s what I intended to convey, but clearly not successfully.

I think it is this sentence that you’re identifying as problematic, with emphasis added this time around: “Second, the bylaws do not state that if you’re appointed to a committee, then you have to attend at least 70% of the meetings.” I meant to be denying the implied if-then interpretation that Leah Gunn was giving the bylaws. Put another way, I don’t think the bylaws make 70% attendance conditional on being appointed to a committee. There’s not a rule that says: If you’re appointed to a committee, then you have to attend 70% of that committee’s meetings. The bylaw is stronger: It says you’re expected to serve on a committee and that service is measured by the 70% standard. That is, I don’t think it’s an adequate defense for not serving actively on a committee to say: But I was never appointed to a committee.

Did I screw that up? Or is there some other, different thing I’ve screwed up?

My, what a generous comment.

And inspiring:

Proofread your comments, Dave. (I’m following Leah’s fine example and withholding an exclamation point.) I think you meant in #8 that the bylaws *do* require 70% attendance.

Note that the OMA defines a public body to include subcommittees:

Any state or local legislative or governing body, including a board, commission, committee, subcommittee, authority, or council, which is empowered by state constitution, statute, charter, ordinance, resolution or rule to exercise governmental or proprietary authority or perform a governmental or proprietary function, or a lessee thereof performing an essential public purpose and function pursuant to the lease agreement.

If the subcommittee itself has responsibility for performing a “governmental … function” like placing an item on the agenda of the full public body for action, then that subcommittee could itself be considered to be a public body under the OMA, and its subquorum status would not excuse it from the requirements of the OMA.

This reasoning isn’t mine – as I’m simply parroting a 15-year old Michigan attorney general opinion here, involving the standing committee of a county board of commissioners:

It is my opinion, therefore, that a meeting of a standing committee of a county board of commissioners, composed of less than a quorum of the full board, is subject to the Open Meetings Act when the committee is effectively authorized to determine whether items of county business will or will not be referred for action by the full board. [AG Opinion #7000, Frank Kelly 1998]

It could be that there’s some more recent legal authority on this question – a COA opinion that explicitly rejects that AG opinion, for example. It would be nice if someone with access to Westlaw or similar could just look that up to see if the AG opinion is still good law.

If there’s not a more recent authority, then I’m not sure that the AAATA’s committees – sub-quorum though they might be – would be excused from fulfilling the requirements of the OMA. From a practical point of view at least, the AAATA subcommittees do seem to determine whether an item will come before the full board for consideration, making those committees parallel with the board of commissioners subcommittee in the AG opinion. But I have not reviewed the AAATA bylaws for its rules on how items can make it onto the full board’s meeting agenda. It could be that the placement of an item on the agenda is not the function of committee, but rather the staff, and it’s just the committee’s recommendation on whether the full board should approve it that’s under the committee’s control. Still, that seems like a reasonable legal foundation for a suggestion to the AAATA to open up its PMER committee meetings to attendance by the public (like the PDC meetings) – because that would be way less time consuming than wrangling about whether it’s legally required.

Similarly, the Ann Arbor city council’s “council administration” committee has an agenda-setting function, and might need to conform to OMA requirements, even though it’s a subquorum committee of the council. In the past I recall meetings of that council committee being noticed to the public, although the online Legistar system isn’t showing me anything for 2013. But city committees, by council resolution dating from the early 1990s, are supposed to conform to OMA requirements as best they can anyway, whether the OMA requires it of them or not.

It does not have a place to request electronic copies rather than paper copies. (Most governmental entities do not charge for electronic copies unless staff time is required to compile information.) Also, though PDF forms may now be constructed so that they may be filled in digitally, this still appears to require filling in manually. It does not direct the user to a FOIA officer or explain how the form is to be submitted.

That’s not true, and beside the point as well. First it’s not true. From the minutes of the last annual meeting:

Ms. Smith reviewed the members and chairs of the Operations Committee. Mr. Hewitt, Mr. Splitt & Mr. Orr will serve as committee chairs, the remainder of the DDA board members will serve on the committee.

Ms. Smith reviewed the members and chairs of the Partnerships/ Economic Development Committee. Ms. Smith and Ms. Lowenstein will serve as committee chairs, the remainder of the DDA board members will serve on the committee.

No exception was carved out for Hieftje out of the “remainder of DDA board members.”

Second, the bylaws do not state that if you’re appointed to a committee, then you have to attend at least 70% of the meetings. Whether he was appointed to a committee or not, the bylaws require service on a committee with 70% attendance:

As the work of the DDA is done primarily through Committee, it is expected that each Board member will actively serve on at least one committee, and will attend a minimum of 70% of the committee’s meetings per year as a condition of remaining on the DDA Board.

So even if it were true that Hieftje had never been appointed to a committee, it would not defend against the fact that he hasn’t fulfilled the requirement of the bylaws.

There was a reorganization of the AATA in July 2008, when the subquorum committees were formed. I’m sending you (DA) the document. Under the leadership of David Nacht as Chair, there was a “strategic working session” in June 2008 (no minutes exist as far as I have been able to determine). This resulted in a newly stated mission and structure of the AATA Board.