Michigan Senate OKs plan critics argue will 'vastly expand secrecy in public bodies'

• Michigan Senate approves legislation to make it easier for public government bodies to make meetings private 
• Proponents say the plan would allow for frank conversation. Transparency advocates say it goes too far to shield information
• The bill now moves over to the House for further consideration

LANSING — Legislation that would allow public government bodies to hold more private meetings passed the Senate on Wednesday, a move critics called “a grave setback for transparency in Michigan.”

Public bodies — which Michigan law defines as any state or local legislative or governing body, including a board, commission, committee, subcommittee, authority, or council — are generally required to meet and conduct official business in full view of their constituents. 

Current law allows some instances in which public bodies can meet in a “closed session,” including to discuss a trial or settlement strategy with legal counsel, “but only if an open meeting would have a detrimental financial effect on the … position of the public body.”

The new proposal, approved by the Senate in a 22-13 vote, would significantly expand what had been limited circumstances for closed meetings. Reasons could include:

• Pending or notice of potential litigation in which the public body or a member of the public body is a party or a potential party, as advised by their attorney, 
• To consult with a public body’s own attorney regarding an attorney’s oral or written legal opinion, even if said attorney is not physically present
• To consider a demand or offer made to or by the public body to settle a claim against the body or a member of the public body
• To consider a lawsuit the public body is contemplating filing
• To meet regarding a criminal investigation against a member or employee of the public body

The bill would allow government officials to “address issues where they think there may be mismanagement of money …without having to deal with it publicly and putting people on notice,” among other things, said sponsoring Sen. Veronica Klinefelt, D-Eastpointe.

“It gives them the tools to …. safeguard the public’s trust and the public’s money,” she told reporters after the vote. 

But critics contend the opposite could be true. 

Related:

• Michigan nears ticket bot ban as House OKs plan inspired by Taylor Swift
• Panel: Public can’t know cost, details of ‘critical’ security project at Michigan Capitol
• Michigan House GOP leader on FOIA reform: 'Don't get your hopes up'

The proposal could “vastly expand secrecy in public bodies,” Lisa McGraw, public affairs manager with the Michigan Press Association, told lawmakers in a letter prior to the vote, urging them to oppose the bill. 

She pointed to language allowing closed meetings to discuss "potential litigation" or litigation in which a member of the public body is "a potential party."

That “could apply to virtually any issue before a public body, from a threat to sue over removal of a textbook to zoning changes to sexual harassment claims against a public body or individual,” McGraw wrote. “Further, a person who wishes to force an issue behind closed doors could merely threaten to sue and spark a public body to discuss it entirely in closed sessions."

The Senate approved the measure in a quick vote, without debate. All Democrats voted in favor of the bill alongside four Republicans: Sens. Mark Huizenga of Walker, Dan Lauwers of Brockway, Ed McBroom of Waucedah Township and Michael Webber of Rochester Hills. 

The Democratic-led Michigan Senate just voted 22-13 to expand when public bodies could go into closed session during open meetings, something the Michigan Press Association earlier this week said could "have significant consequences for the public’s right to know." pic.twitter.com/WTc81mO3vQ

— Jordyn Hermani (🔈: "HermanE”) (@JordynHermani) June 25, 2025

The proposal is backed by local government groups, including the Michigan Townships Association and the Michigan Municipal League.

As the bill made its way through the Senate Local Government Committee she chairs earlier this month, Klinefelt argued that some conversations involving public bodies are “sensitive discussions that could interfere with police investigations if they take place in public.”

Other supporters offered similar rationale for allowing more closed meetings.

“I think we need to protect our people, no matter who they are,” Sen. Rosemary Bayer, D-West Bloomfield, said Wednesday after voting for the legislation. “If you worked for me, would you want me telling the whole world about some private thing that happened at work?”

The legislation now heads to the state House for further consideration.

Wednesday’s vote came amid a series of stalled transparency pushes in the Michigan Legislature, including legislation that would expand the state’s Freedom of Information Act to subject the governor and lawmakers to public records requests, which apply to most other government officials in the state. 

The Democratic-led Senate approved a FOIA expansion plan in January, but the Republican-led House has not taken up the measure, and Speaker Matt Hall has made clear he does not intend to. 

House lawmakers, meanwhile, have approved new rules to make the earmark process more transparent and mandate a two-year “cooling off” period before lawmakers can become lobbyists. Neither has passed the Senate. 

As for the Michigan Open Meetings Act, the state’s Capitol Commission recently invoked a closed session to discuss security upgrades to the building that members claim are so sensitive that even knowing the dollar value of the project could jeopardize its efficacy.

Bridge Michigan has submitted a FOIA request to the commission for further information.