Attorney Philip Ellison Breaks Down Your Rights at Public Meetings in Michigan

What the law actually says about recording, speaking, and participating in public meetings

Hemlock, Mich. — A Mid-Michigan attorney is raising concerns about government transparency, saying many residents do not realize the full extent of their rights when it comes to holding public officials accountable.

Attorney Philip Ellison from Outside Legal Counsel, who focuses on property rights and government transparency cases, joined me for a wide-ranging discussion on Michigan law, the Open Meetings Act, and what citizens are legally allowed to do at public meetings.

Ellison said his work often centers on defending individuals when government actions interfere with property rights, as well as challenging violations of transparency laws.

“We protect the rights of individuals to basically fight against the government and have a voice,” Ellison said.

Click here to contact attorney Phillip Ellision.

A key part of the conversation focused on Michigan’s Open Meetings Act, which requires public bodies to conduct official business in meetings open to the public. Ellison emphasized that these protections are not limited to journalists or attorneys.

“Anyone in this state has a right,” he said, noting that citizens can attend, speak, and record public meetings.

Under Michigan law, individuals are generally allowed to record public officials during meetings, as long as they are not disrupting the proceedings. Ellison said that in many cases, citizens do not need to ask permission to record.

“If the government interferes with their right to record, they’re violating the law,” he said.

Ellison also addressed confusion surrounding consent laws, explaining that Michigan is considered a one-party consent state. That means only one person involved in a conversation needs to be aware of the recording and that person can be the one doing the recording.

The discussion also highlighted what Ellison described as a broader transparency problem in Michigan. While the state was once a national leader in open government laws, he said it has fallen behind in recent years.

“Rankings have routinely put us either last or second to last or third to last,” Ellison said.

Despite legal requirements for open meetings, Ellison noted that many government bodies still resist transparency, sometimes by imposing unclear or inconsistent rules on recording. While public entities can establish reasonable regulations, those rules must not interfere with a citizen’s ability to observe or document proceedings.

Click here to contact attorney Phillip Ellison and learn more about his wins.

He also made clear that people do not have to live in a specific community to attend or speak at its public meetings. Any member of the public, regardless of residency, has the right to participate.

When it comes to live streaming or recording meetings themselves, government agencies are not currently required under Michigan law to do so. Still, Ellison said there is little excuse not to.

“The cost to do live streaming now is so incredibly inexpensive that it would be almost silly not to do that,” he said.

He added that increased access through streaming can help people who cannot physically attend meetings stay informed and engaged.

Both Ellison and I agreed that transparency ultimately benefits the public, especially as government officials make decisions that directly impact people’s daily lives.

Ellison encouraged residents to learn their rights and not be afraid to exercise them.

“This is about educating people,” I said during the interview.

We plan to continue this conversation in a monthly segment focused on legal issues, property rights, and government transparency.

---

This interview and article are a paid partnership with Dave Bondy.