MML Review Magazine Spring 2026

commission’s services, and therefore not required. More impor tantly, where that option is not necessary to accommodate a qualified individual with a disability, the ADA does not require it and the OMA would not permit it.” In presentations I have made on the OMA, discussion of remote attendance often brings out forceful opinions both in favor and opposition. It’s a fascinating topic, pitting modern tech nological capability against the value of traditional in-person communication. While this “debate” continues, the OMA at present requires in-person attendance of members with the one exception. That said, the requirements of the ADA should not be ignored, as OAG 7318 opines. In reviewing advisories of three Michigan law firms with sub stantial local government client bases, l would conclude that, relying on the advice of your municipal attorney, it is prudent to develop a plan for what approach you would take if an ADA request, re meeting participation, is presented to you. It will likely be a fact-specific inquiry. Questions should be asked such as whether the person has a “qualifying disability.” In the Palmer case, the disability was presumably on-going. But what if the disability will be temporary, such as for post-surgery recovery? If it significantly limits major activities such as driving and ambulating, it would likely qualify. Another question is wheth er the request for accommodation is reasonable, including whether it will impose an undue financial or administrative bur

den. Would it be a fundamental alteration of your operations? Do you have sufficient resources to provide remote access, and have you provided it in the past? Note that OAG 7318 also references accommodations other than virtual attendance, such as masking, plexiglass, and social distancing. Beyond what may be required regarding members of a public body, there is the issue of participation of a member of the public with a disability, especially in the public comment portion of a meeting. You may need to provide acceptable alternative methods such as videoconferencing, dial-in link, or submission of written comments in advance that will be read or shared with the public body. Ultimately, because of the apparent conflict between the OMA and ADA, at least as interpreted by OAG 7318, city and village officials should carefully analyze whether and how to best accommodate both council, commission, board members, and members of the public who are individuals with disabilities seeking accommodations to participate remotely in meetings of these bodies. Again, with the advice of your city or village attorney, if a situation develops where you are facing either a violation of the OMA or of the ADA, it may even be advisable to seek a judicial determination before proceeding.

Bill Mathewson is a legal consultant to the League. You may contact Bill at wmathewson@mml.org.

| Spring 2026 | 29 2/3/26 4:44 PM

WITM-1002-80th-Whites-Westnedge-The Review-7.5x5_v2-PRPDF.indd 1