(concurring). While I agree that the board’s use of multiple subcommittees amounted to a "constructive quorum” as defined in Booth Newspapers, Inc v Wyoming City Council, 168 Mich App 459; 425 NW2d 695 (1988), and therefore was a violation of the Open Meetings Act (oma), MCL 15.261 et seq.; MSA 4.1800(11) et seq., I do not believe the board was acting in bad faith or intended to directly circumvent the objective of promoting openness and accountability in government. Instead, I believe the board thought that Wyoming was not applicable because that case did not involve an employment matter, which, under § 8(f) of the oma, MCL 15.268(f); MSA 4.1800(18)(f), may be discussed in a closed meeting. Section 8(f) reads:
A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes:
To review the specific contents of an application for employment or appointment to a public office if the candidate requests that the application remain confidential. However, all interviews by a public body for employment or appointment to a public office shall be held in an open meeting pursuant to this act.
The language of this statute is ambiguous at best. The first sentence permits closed meetings when the subject matter is a review of an application for employment or appointment to public office. The second sentence requires that the meeting be open if it is an interview by the public body *590for employment or appointment. The question is which sentence applies when, as here, the interview is not for final selection or appointment, but is part of the weeding-out process. The trial court ruled that, while it did not approve of the use of overlapping subquorum committees, nothing in the oma applied to the prescreening activities of the board in its search for a university president.
This trial court has full respect for the Wyoming case, and in fact, agrees that application of the theory of "constructive quorum” was proper and produced a just result in that case, but, the subject matter of the present University of Michigan case is so different that for reasons of public policy a different result must be reached here else more harm than good would result to the people of the State of Michigan. The Court does not approve, nor does it wish to appear to condone, the use of overlapping and intercommunicating sub-quorum committees of the boards of public bodies as a contrived means of circumventing the oma of [sic] foia. Neither, however, does the Court condemn the Board of Regents for their well-intentioned desire to carry out their Constitutional duty to recruit and select the very best qualified person for appointment as president of the University of Michigan, given the potential restrictions posed by the oma, the foia, and the effect that an unthinking application of the Wyoming precedent might have upon the public good.
Given the ambiguity of the statute, I agree with the respected trial judge that the board’s use of subquorum groups was done in good faith and that screening interviews for the presidency of a college or university should be exempt from the requirements of the oma. However, I also agree with my colleagues that this is not the language in the statute and that any change should be made by the Legislature.
*591This matter concerns more than the University of Michigan. It concerns all universities and colleges in this state, particularly where there is an impending or existing vacancy in the office of president. I would urge that the Legislature take remedial action promptly.