MASB counsel briefs Brighton Area Schools on open-meetings, FOIA and messaging rules

Brad Banasic, general counsel for the Michigan Association of School Boards, presented a legal overview to the Brighton Area Schools Board of Education on public-record and open-meetings topics including the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), member communications and directory information.

Banasic told the board that the law focuses on the function of a group rather than the formal title when determining whether a gathering is subject to open-meetings rules. He summarized public-record obligations under FOIA and discussed practical examples raised by board members, including email, text messages and directory information shared with third parties such as military recruiters.

The presentation mattered because it outlined what communications can create a public record and how the district should treat requests for records from the public. Banasic emphasized that, when a district receives a FOIA request, staff must identify and preserve responsive records, and that responding to a request is distinct from creating new records or summaries that did not previously exist.

Board members asked multiple procedural questions. Several sought clarification about text messaging among board members: whether the prohibition applies only to texts exchanged between board members and the superintendent, or whether it extends to any texting related to public business. Banasic and board members discussed that the prevailing interpretation the board referenced treats texting among board members the same as other member-to-member communications that could form a quorum and thus trigger open-meetings obligations. He noted that some interpretations come from attorney-general guidance and informal opinions; they are not the same as a binding court decision.

The session also covered directory information rules and student privacy. A board member asked whether the district must get parental consent before releasing student contact information to third parties involved with school athletics. District staff and speakers explained that contractors and vendors under district contract commonly receive necessary student contact data as part of providing services; separate parental-consent rules depend on the district’s policy and federal privacy rules. The board discussed that the district will likely need a policy review to clarify when and how directory information can be shared.

Banasic and board members also discussed a recent court ruling referenced by participants (described in the meeting as the Mackinac Center case) that addressed whether teachers or similar entities qualify as public bodies under FOIA; the speaker said the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene, leaving the case’s outcome in place at the time of the meeting.

Board members closed the Q&A by asking staff to return with any recommended policy clarifications on texting, FOIA response procedures and directory-information sharing to ensure the district’s practices align with legal expectations.