Committee flags attorney-opinion language after debate over FOIA, privilege and 'formal' opinions

The committee held an extended discussion of Section 7.6(a) and broader Chapter 8 transparency language that would require certain city attorney "formal opinions" to be made available to the public.

Several members and legal advisers raised concerns that the current draft could be read to waive attorney-client privilege for opinions that should remain confidential, such as litigation strategy, negotiation tactics or certain personnel matters. A municipal attorney who spoke to the committee advised that unless the charter explicitly excepted materials already exempted under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, the draft language could create confusion about whether opinions remained privileged. The attorney suggested adding clarifying language such as a parenthetical stating "not otherwise exempt from disclosure under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act."

Committee members proposed categorizing attorney advice: (1) clearly privileged/confidential opinions (e.g., litigation strategy), (2) informal oral advice given in meetings, and (3) formal written opinions intended for public release (e.g., interpretations of plain statutory terms). Members said the intent is to increase transparency for routine legal interpretations while preserving privilege for sensitive matters.

Several members asked the city attorney to provide a formal written opinion on whether current charter language (as drafted) would waive attorney-client privilege and to propose clarified wording. The committee agreed to return the matter to a future meeting with redrafted language that defines "formal opinion" and that explicitly addresses FOIA exemptions.

Ending: No charter change was adopted; the committee asked the city attorney for a written analysis and recommended clearer definitions and exceptions to ensure privileged materials remain protected while improving routine access to non-exempt legal guidance.