Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Closed Session Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Lansing City Council enters closed session to consult attorney on Hills v. City litigation
Summary
The East Lansing City Council voted unanimously to enter a closed session under MCL 15.268(1)(e) to consult with the city attorney about trial or settlement strategy in Hills v. City, East Lansing (Ingham County Circuit Court). The council later returned to open session with no public action recorded at the meeting.
The East Lansing City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to enter a closed session to consult with the city attorney about trial or settlement strategy in pending litigation.
The motion, made by an alderman and seconded by Council Member Meadows, invoked MCL 15.268(1)(e) of the Michigan Open Meetings Act to permit a private discussion about “trial or settlement strategy in connection with pending litigation in Hills v City, East Lansing, Ingham County Circuit Court case number Twenty-one99CZ,” on the grounds that an open meeting could have a detrimental financial effect on the city’s litigating or settlement position.
Under roll call, Council Member Altman, Council Member Meadows, Council Member Watson, Mayor Pro Tem Singh and Mayor Brookover all voted “yes” to enter the closed session. The council adjourned to closed session and later returned to open session; a motion to return to open session was moved and seconded and the council voted to reconvene in public. No further public votes or decisions related to the litigation were recorded in the transcript of the meeting.
The statutory basis cited for the closed session was MCL 15.268(1)(e), the Michigan statute permitting closed meetings for consultation with public body legal counsel regarding trial or settlement strategy. The transcript records the case caption as Hills v City, East Lansing and gives an in-meeting case identifier as “Twenty-one99CZ.” The transcript does not provide additional factual details about the litigation, the parties’ claims, or any settlement terms.
Council actions recorded in public at this meeting were limited to the motion to enter closed session, the roll-call vote to do so, the subsequent motion and vote to return to open session, and routine motions to approve the agenda and to adjourn. The meeting also included an announced brief delay for an audiovisual transition before reconvening.
No public staff report, legal summary, or formal disposition of the litigation was read into the public record in the portions of the transcript provided.
