By Liz Nass
Gongwer Nes Service
A “thorn in the side of local officials” in the Detroit area affirmed his right to hear his public comments read aloud at city council meetings, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled.
In Charles Blackwell v. City of Inkster (COA Docket No. 372782), the plaintiff, Blackwell, was backed by the court to have his public comment acknowledged at city council meetings as he cannot readily attend the in-person meetings because he is confined to a wheelchair due to a spinal-cord injury.
The published decision written by Judge Christoper Yates agreed with the trial court that provisions in the Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act requiring public accommodations for those with disabilities does not interfere with the Open Meetings Act.
“The trial court delicately struck an appropriate balance between the standards of the OMA and the requirements of the PWDCRA, thereby harmonizing the statutory dictates prescribed by our Legislature,” Yates wrote. “As a result, the trial court’s injunction comports with the standards of the PWDCRA, and nothing in the OMA undermines the trial court’s reliance upon the PWDCRA to obligate defendant to read aloud at city council meetings the public comments submitted by plaintiff in advance of each meeting.”
While Blackwell did not attend the meetings, he would submit comments in advance. The city initially accommodated this request at two meetings in June 2024, then subsequently adopted a policy in July 2024 to limit public comment to in-person remarks.
The trial court issued a ruling obligating the city to read out the comments and the city appealed the decision, claiming its actions were compliant with the Open Meetings Act. However, Blackwell filed suit based on disability accommodation.
The trial court also ruled the city had to prove accommodation would impose “undue hardship” on the council.
“In bringing this action requesting to have his public comments read aloud at city council meetings, plaintiff is asking for the same ‘full and equal enjoyment’ as nondisabled people of the opportunity to make public comments during city council meetings,” Yates wrote.
After the trial court decision, the city implemented a written public comment notice 72 hours ahead of meetings, but they would still not be read aloud. However, Yates wrote that “although plaintiff’s comments would reach some of the public as part of the official record of the meeting, that public exposure is much less significant than being heard by the attendees of the meeting” and “nondisabled people who speak at meetings have their public comments heard not only by members of the city council, but also by all members of the public in attendance.”
The court also ruled that the accommodation does not “run afoul” to the language or purpose of the Open Meetings Act while the city argued the act does not even touch on accommodations.
“Defendant nonetheless claims that the injunction imposes a hardship because it contravenes defendant’s authority to establish and enforce rules for city council meetings under the OMA,” Yates wrote. “The OMA does not obligate defendant to provide accommodations to people with disabilities, but the (Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act) plainly imposes such obligations.”
Judge Michelle Rick and Judge Philip Mariani also signed the opinion.
Gongwer Nes Service
A “thorn in the side of local officials” in the Detroit area affirmed his right to hear his public comments read aloud at city council meetings, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled.
In Charles Blackwell v. City of Inkster (COA Docket No. 372782), the plaintiff, Blackwell, was backed by the court to have his public comment acknowledged at city council meetings as he cannot readily attend the in-person meetings because he is confined to a wheelchair due to a spinal-cord injury.
The published decision written by Judge Christoper Yates agreed with the trial court that provisions in the Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act requiring public accommodations for those with disabilities does not interfere with the Open Meetings Act.
“The trial court delicately struck an appropriate balance between the standards of the OMA and the requirements of the PWDCRA, thereby harmonizing the statutory dictates prescribed by our Legislature,” Yates wrote. “As a result, the trial court’s injunction comports with the standards of the PWDCRA, and nothing in the OMA undermines the trial court’s reliance upon the PWDCRA to obligate defendant to read aloud at city council meetings the public comments submitted by plaintiff in advance of each meeting.”
While Blackwell did not attend the meetings, he would submit comments in advance. The city initially accommodated this request at two meetings in June 2024, then subsequently adopted a policy in July 2024 to limit public comment to in-person remarks.
The trial court issued a ruling obligating the city to read out the comments and the city appealed the decision, claiming its actions were compliant with the Open Meetings Act. However, Blackwell filed suit based on disability accommodation.
The trial court also ruled the city had to prove accommodation would impose “undue hardship” on the council.
“In bringing this action requesting to have his public comments read aloud at city council meetings, plaintiff is asking for the same ‘full and equal enjoyment’ as nondisabled people of the opportunity to make public comments during city council meetings,” Yates wrote.
After the trial court decision, the city implemented a written public comment notice 72 hours ahead of meetings, but they would still not be read aloud. However, Yates wrote that “although plaintiff’s comments would reach some of the public as part of the official record of the meeting, that public exposure is much less significant than being heard by the attendees of the meeting” and “nondisabled people who speak at meetings have their public comments heard not only by members of the city council, but also by all members of the public in attendance.”
The court also ruled that the accommodation does not “run afoul” to the language or purpose of the Open Meetings Act while the city argued the act does not even touch on accommodations.
“Defendant nonetheless claims that the injunction imposes a hardship because it contravenes defendant’s authority to establish and enforce rules for city council meetings under the OMA,” Yates wrote. “The OMA does not obligate defendant to provide accommodations to people with disabilities, but the (Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act) plainly imposes such obligations.”
Judge Michelle Rick and Judge Philip Mariani also signed the opinion.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
