## Facts

- Wayne County Community College’s Board of Trustees held a public meeting.
- Trustee Ford read aloud, into the meeting record, an anonymous letter criticizing certain college officials, including Chonich (a college administrator).
- The letter suggested that Chonich and others obtained large home mortgages after moving college funds or accounts to a particular bank, implying improper self-dealing tied to official action.
- Ford’s reading of the letter was not an item on the formal agenda and was not part of a formal disciplinary or investigative proceeding.
- Chonich alleged the statements were false and sued Ford for defamation, asserting Ford acted with at least reckless disregard for the truth.
- Ford sought summary judgment, arguing absolute privilege for statements made in legislative or quasi-legislative proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether a community college board of trustees functions as a legislative or quasi-legislative body for purposes of absolute privilege in defamation.
2. Whether absolute privilege covers a trustee’s off-agenda reading of an anonymous letter at a duly convened public board meeting, even when not part of a formal investigation or disciplinary process.
3. Whether alleged falsity, malice, or reckless disregard can defeat absolute privilege if the statement is made during legislative or quasi-legislative proceedings.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Ford.
- The court held that the board meeting was a legislative or quasi-legislative proceeding and that Ford’s statements during that meeting were absolutely privileged.
- Because the privilege was absolute, the defamation claim was barred regardless of alleged falsity or improper motive.

## Legal Principles

- Michigan recognizes absolute privilege for defamatory statements made during the course of legislative proceedings, and the privilege can extend to subordinate and quasi-legislative bodies.
- Absolute privilege provides complete immunity from defamation liability; when it applies, a defamation action cannot be maintained even if statements are false or made with malice.
- A statement may be considered made “during the course of” a legislative or quasi-legislative proceeding when made at an official meeting and related to matters within the body’s governance and oversight responsibilities, even if not on the agenda or part of a formal adjudicative process.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that a trustee’s public reading of an anonymous letter accusing a college official of misconduct at a duly convened community college board meeting fell within absolute legislative/quasi-legislative privilege, requiring dismissal of the defamation suit.


Chonich v. Ford, 115 Mich. App. 461, 321 N.W.2d 693 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982)