With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". act, I cannot agree with the majority’s decision to cast aside 33 years of precedent and erroneously write into the OMA a requirement that the Legislature did not intend—i.e., that a party must obtain formal injunctive relief as a prerequisite to an award of costs and attorney fees under MCL 15.271(4). Because I believe that more than three decades of precedent properly interpreted and effectuated the Legislature’s intent, I respectfully dissent. 1 See Sunshine or Shadows, 1977 Det C L Rev at 617 (“Concern for public access to governmental decision-making is not new. . . . [T]he importance of government being open and accessible was established very early in this country.”). 2 See, also, Menominee Co Taxpayers Alliance, Inc v Menominee Co Clerk, 139 Mich App 814; 362 NW2d 871 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Schmiedicke v Clare Sch Bd, 228 Mich App 259,

A: holding that the absence of a formal injunction does not preclude the plaintiff from recovering costs and attorney fees under mcl 152714
B: holding that a declaratory judgment entitles a plaintiff to actual attorney fees and costs under mcl 152714 despite the fact that the trial court found it unnecessary to grant an injunction given defendants decision to amend the notice provision after plaintiffs filed the present suit
C: holding attorney fees not allowable as costs
D: holding that the legal remedy of declaratory relief is adequate to trigger an award of attorney fees and costs under mcl 152714
A.