In construing the provisions of the act, we keep in mind that the FOIA is intended primarily as a prodisclosure statute and the exemptions to disclosure are to be narrowly construed.State Employees Ass'n v Dep't of Management Budget, 428 Mich. 104; 404 N.W.2d 606 (1987)
Michigan Federation of Teachers School Related Personnel, AFT, AFL-CIO v Univ of Michigan, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 22, 2007 (Docket No. 258666).Michigan Federation, supra at 3, citing Tobin v Civil Service Comm, 416 Mich 661, 671; 331 NW2d 184 (1982), and State Employees Ass'n v Dep't of Mgt Budget, 428 Mich 104, 124; 404 NW2d 606 (1987).Michigan Federation, supra at 3, citing Mager v Dep't of State Police, 460 Mich 134; 595 NW2d 142 (1999); Detroit Free Press, Inc v Dep't of State Police, 243 Mich App 218; 622 NW2d 313 (2000); Clerical-Technical Union of Michigan State Univ v Michigan State Univ Bd of Trustees, 190 Mich App 300; 475 NW2d 373 (1991).
And no matter what use Practical Political Consulting may make of the requested information — even if Practical Political Consulting intends to send unwanted mass mailings or a deluge of junk mail or make telephone solicitations or personal visits — such future use is irrelevant. State Employees Ass'n v Dep't of Mgt Budget, 428 Mich 104, 121; 404 NW2d 606 (1987).State News v Mich State Univ, 481 Mich 692, 703; 753 NW2d 20 (2008).
See Swickard v. Wayne Co. Medical Examiner, 438 Mich. 536, 543-544; 475 N.W.2d 304 (1991).Swickard, supra at 543-544; State Employees Ass'n v. Dep't of Management Budget, 428 Mich. 104, 113-121, 126, 129; 404 N.W.2d 606 (1987); Int'l Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America v. Dep't of State Police, 422 Mich. 432, 439-440, n. 7; 373 N.W.2d 713 (1985), modified on other grounds 423 Mich. 1205 (1985). 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) et seq.
231(2); MSA 4.1801(1)(2); State Employees Ass'n v Dep't of Management Budget, 428 Mich. 104, 109; 404 N.W.2d 606 (1987). The FOIA requires the disclosure of all public records that are not exempt under MCL 15.
This Court has consistently held that the FOIA is intended primarily as a prodisclosure statute. Swickard v Wayne Co Medical Examiner, 438 Mich 536, 544; 475 NW2d 304 (1991); see also State Employees Ass'n v Dep't of Mgt Budget, 428 Mich 104, 109; 404 NW2d 606 (1987); Booth Newspapers, Inc v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents, 444 Mich 211, 231-232; 507 NW2d 422 (1993). Accordingly, under the FOIA, unless expressly exempt, a public body must disclose a public record if provided with a written request that sufficiently describes the record.
Home addresses of government employees were again at issue in State Employees Ass'n v. Dep't of Management Budget, 428 Mich. 104; 404 N.W.2d 606 (1987). Dividing three-one-one-one (with one justice not participating), this Court determined that the privacy exemption did not authorize nondisclosure of the information.
MCL 15.243(1)(a); MSA 4.1801(13)(1)(a); Swickard, n 14 supra at 546-547; State Employees Ass'n v Dep't of Management Budget, 428 Mich. 104, 123; 404 N.W.2d 606 (1987); Kestenbaum, n 20 supra at 528, n 7. See Booth, n 5 supra at 234 (holding that subsection 13[1][a] does not apply if the information is not of a personal nature).
New York and Chicago were two such axis cities. As noted by Justice CAVANAGH in the lead opinion in State Employees Ass'n v Dep't of Management Budget, 428 Mich. 104, 123; 404 N.W.2d 606 (1987), and quoted with approval by Justice RILEY in Swickard, supra at 546: The Legislature made no attempt to define the right of privacy [in § 13(1)(a)].
Since Michigan's act is silent regarding the effect noncompliance with § 210 has on alleged discriminatory employment practices, we will look to analogous federal case law as an aid in our construction. MSEA v Dep't of Management Budget, 428 Mich. 104, 117; 404 N.W.2d 606 (1987), citing Kestenbaum v Michigan State Univ, 414 Mich. 510; 327 N.W.2d 783 (1982). It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer —