Plaintiff was a frequent public commenter at County Board meetings, which feature two public comment periods at which speakers could provide comment for up to 5 minutes per public comment period. Though both comment periods traditionally were open to comment on any matters, the Board Chair announced at one meeting that the first comment period would be limited to comment on agenda items only. Plaintiff sued for an alleged violation of the OMA, claiming that the agenda-items-only rule violated the Open Meeting Act’s requirement that public comment be provided for pursuant to rules established and recorded by the public body. The Board’s rules were silent on the number of public comment periods or the scope of a particular comment period, but provided for public comment up to 5 minutes, with additional time available at the discretion of the Chair. Affirming the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to the County, the Court of Appeals found that the Board’s rules and their implementation comported with the purpose of the OMA, and that the Complaint failed to state a claim under the OMA upon which relief could be granted.