(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the majority’s conclusion that art IV, § 4 of the teacher tenure act, MCL 38.104(a); MSA 15.2004(a), does not exempt from disclosure tenure commission decisions that are judicially reviewed.1 I also agree that the purpose of art IV, § 4 may only be achieved by keeping the decisions of the Teacher Tenure Commission, as well as the hearings before the commission, private. Indeed, my reading of art IV, §4 of the teacher tenure act indicates that the decision of *132the commission is but one aspect of the hearing procedure.2
The statutory right of tenured teachers to elect a private hearing is essential to the fulfillment of the broader objectives of the tenure act. As we have noted in the past:
[T]he primary purposes of the teacher tenure act are to maintain an adequate and competent teaching staff, free from political and personal interference, Detroit Bd of Ed v Parks, 417 Mich 268; 335 NW2d 641 (1983), and to protect teachers from arbitrary and capricious employment practices of school boards. See Davis v Harrison Bd of Ed, 126 Mich App 89; 342 NW2d 528 (1983). [Tomiak v Hamtramck School Dist, 426 Mich 678, 686-687; 397 NW2d 770 (1986).]
The tenure act achieves these objectives, in part, by removing from the political arena what is essentially and properly a personnel matter.
Our primary objective in construing statutory requirements is to discover and give effect to the legislative intent. Williams v Hofley Mfg Co, 430 Mich 603, 612; 424 NW2d 278 (1988); State Treasurer v Wilson, 423 Mich 138, 143; 377 NW2d 703 (1985); Hiltz v Phil’s Quality Market, 417 Mich 335, 343; 337 NW2d 237 (1983). The release of tenure decisions by the commission is inconsistent *133with both the clear, statutory right of teachers to private tenure hearings and the broader objectives of the tenure act itself. No discernible purpose could be served by granting teachers the right to a private hearing, while requiring the commission to release evidence and rulings derived from the same hearings. Thus, in my view, § 4 of the tenure act, MCL 38.104; MSA 15.2004, is properly read as exempting the disclosure of the decisions of the tenure commission. These decisions need not be disclosed under § 13(l)(d) of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.243(l)(d); MSA 4.1801(13)(l)(d).
I do not join that portion of the majority opinion which appears to hold that the foia requires disclosure of these decisions after the expiration of the appeal period from the agency decision under § 104 of the Administrative Procedures Act. MCL 24.304(1); MSA 3.560(204)(1). Nothing in § 104 of the apa suggests that tenure proceedings automatically move beyond the administrative level at the expiration of the appeal period. Indeed, my reading of § 104 of the apa suggests that movement beyond the administrative stage of proceedings is foreclosed upon expiration of the appeal period. Moreover, as the majority observes, once proceedings have moved beyond the administrative stage, responsibility for the record shifts to the circuit court and the foia is inapplicable. See MCL 15.232(b)(v); MSA 4.1801(2)(b)(v). See also MCR 8.116(D). I would, therefore, be inclined to question the Teacher Tenure Commission’s practice of releasing copies of unappealed matters upon expiration of the appeal period from the final agency decision.
However, we need not reach this issue on these facts. No actual controversy exists between these parties regarding the release of final decisions of *134the Teacher Tenure Commission that have not been appealed. See MCR 2.605(A)(1) and 3 Martin, Dean & Webster, Michigan Court Rules Practice (3d ed), Rule 2.605, comment 3, pp 423-425. As previously noted, it has been the practice of the commission to release its final decisions at the expiration of the sixty-day period when no appeal from the agency decision has been perfected. Neither the plaintiffs nor the intervening plaintiff have challenged this practice of the tenure commission, and no party has moved for, or in opposition to, the suppression of a circuit court record.
Levin and Brickley, JJ., concurred with Boyle, J.Under § 104 of the Administrative Procedures Act, MCL 24.304(2); MSA 3.560(204)(2), the agency must transmit to the reviewing court the original or certified copy of the entire record. We are not apprised of the practice of the tenure commission in retaining the original, a copy, or any record of its proceedings in addition to the record transmitted to the circuit court. Presumably, since the agency does not argue otherwise, their record-keeping procedures are not a basis for withholding disclosure.
MCL 38.104(f); MSA 15.2004(0 provides in part:
Any hearing held for the dismissal or demotion of a teacher, as provided in this act, must be concluded by a decision in writing, within 15 days after the termination of the hearing.
While the third clause of this sentence suggests some ambiguity as to whether the decision is included within the word "hearing,” any apparent ambiguity is resolved with an understanding that "paper hearings” are allowed under the Administrative Procedures Act, 1970 PA 40. See MCL 24.275; MSA 3.560(175). In its broad sense, the word would embrace adversary, ex parte, or paper hearings. See Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed), p 649.