State Employees Ass'n v. Department of Management & Budget

32 Citing cases

  1. Swickard v. Wayne Med Examiner

    438 Mich. 536 (Mich. 1991)   Cited 71 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting the similarity between these exemptions

    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)

  2. Mich. Fed. v. Univ. of Mich

    481 Mich. 657 (Mich. 2008)   Cited 43 times
    Reasoning that disclosure of university employees' home addresses and telephone numbers would reveal little or nothing about government operations

    Michigan Federation of Teachers School Related Personnel, AFT, AFL-CIO v Univ of Michigan, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 22, 2007 (Docket No. 258666).Michigan Federation, supra at 3, citing Tobin v Civil Service Comm, 416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).

  3. Practical Pol. v. State

    287 Mich. App. 434 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 13 times
    Stating that the relevant inquiry was whether the voter's name coupled with his or her party preference amounted to information of a personal nature and concluding that party preference is not such information

    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).

  4. Lansing Asso., School Adm. v. Lansing Board, Educ

    216 Mich. App. 79 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that provisions of CBAs of public employee organizations cannot "eliminate [the agency's] statutory obligations to the public merely by contracting to do so with plaintiff'

    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.

  5. Shellum v. Michigan Employment Security Commission

    194 Mich. App. 474 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 2 times

    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.

  6. Herald Co. v. Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents

    475 Mich. 463 (Mich. 2006)   Cited 141 times
    Holding that courts must “interpret every word, phrase, and clause in a statute to avoid rendering any portion of the statute nugatory or surplusage”

    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.

  7. Mager v. Dep't of State Police

    460 Mich. 134 (Mich. 1999)   Cited 35 times
    Finding that disclosure of individuals who owned registered handguns was "entirely unrelated to any inquiry regarding the inner workings of government, or how well the Department of State Police is fulfilling its statutory functions"

    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.

  8. Bradley v. Saranac Community Schools Board of Education

    455 Mich. 285 (Mich. 1997)   Cited 114 times
    Finding that the government's heavy redaction of a document disclosed in response to a FOIA request was "entirely at cross purposes with the FOIA," quoting the purpose clause's goal of providing "full and complete information" to those who request it

    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).

  9. Booth v. U of M Bd. of Regents

    444 Mich. 211 (Mich. 1993)   Cited 257 times
    Holding that Michigan Open Meetings Act applied to presidential selection procedure undertaken by university board or by any type of subcommittee it creates if committee is empowered by board resolution to exercise authority and requiring "reduction" of candidates to be undertaken in public

    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)].

  10. Victorson v. Dep't of Treasury

    439 Mich. 131 (Mich. 1992)   Cited 18 times

    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 —