City attorney says state law blocks making Kalamazoo Civil Rights Board a local enforcement body; commissioners push education and a review committee

At a May 12 Committee of the Whole meeting of the Kalamazoo City Commission, City Attorney Aaron Liao told commissioners the city lacks legal authority to convert its Civil Rights Board into a quasi‑judicial enforcement body and urged more community education on chapters 18 and 18a of the city code.

The question matters because residents who addressed the commission asked for stronger local enforcement of the city’s anti‑discrimination and fair‑housing ordinances; Liao said state constitutional language and multiple Michigan Attorney General opinions reserve civil‑rights enforcement to the State Civil Rights Commission and its operational arm, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights.

Liao read a proposed amendment that had been submitted by a civil‑rights board subcommittee and then explained legal limits: “The board may hold hearings, subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, require the production of evidence, and issue appropriate orders, including dismissal of a complaint,” he read, but added that the state Civil Rights Commission’s authority is drawn from the Michigan Constitution and related opinions that have long treated civil‑rights enforcement as a statewide function. Liao said the State Civil Rights Commission has not authorized any city to take on civil enforcement and that Detroit had twice requested such authority and been declined.

Liao presented complaint data to illustrate local needs. “Since the ordinance…went into effect in 2021, there have been 126 complaints filed,” he said, adding that 87 complaints (69%) were deemed not actionable. He detailed that 57 of those fell outside chapters 18 and 18a or outside city limits; 15 were referred to Legal Aid of Western Michigan and the Fair Housing Center for private legal issues; and 15 were referred to other agencies, including a Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety internal affairs referral and a Portage School Board matter. Liao said city staff conducted nine thorough investigations; seven were resolved in the complainant’s favor (two of those included additional Civil Rights Board hearings), and two were dismissed.

Liao described what a transition to a quasi‑judicial board would entail and the costs and risks involved. He estimated a minimum startup cost of approximately $350,000 to fund training, additional investigative staff, outside legal counsel and a litigation contingency fund. He highlighted legal and procedural complexity, the need for ongoing training because case law and federal agency guidance change, and the risk that local decisions could be appealed to circuit court.

City staff and commissioners discussed alternatives. Tanya Hewitt Smith, the city’s director of diversity, equity and inclusion, said Detroit’s board functions as an advisory board supported by staff and an investigator and confirmed Detroit’s board is not a quasi‑judicial enforcement body. Public commenters pressed for enforcement or better follow‑through: Toby Hannah Davies urged the commission to “please direct your legal department to find another way to enforce it so that it's more than lovely words,” and Charlei Davis called for an anti‑racism, equity‑centered approach to the city’s work.

Several commissioners emphasized education and outreach as the most immediate and feasible steps. Liao and staff noted that much of the high volume of nonactionable complaints likely reflects limited public understanding of what chapters 18 and 18a cover — for example, many complaints involved incidents that occurred outside the city or were private legal issues better handled by other agencies. Commissioners proposed creating a small committee to work with the Civil Rights Board and city staff to identify best practices, outreach channels and potential ordinance changes; Commissioner Cooney volunteered to serve. Staff noted an educational subcommittee already exists on the Civil Rights Board and that the city can use channels such as National Night Out, social media and the CityView mailing to increase awareness.

Commissioners also asked whether the city could expand local protections beyond state or federal lists. Liao said that Kalamazoo’s 2020–2021 ordinance originally included protections later adopted at the state level — gender identity and source of income — while conviction records remain a category in the local ordinance that has not been adopted statewide. He noted HUD guidance on criminal‑history screening used previously was withdrawn in January of the year referenced in the presentation.

No formal motion to change the Civil Rights Board’s legal status or to adopt a new enforcement regime was offered or voted on during the discussion. Commissioners directed staff and willing commissioners to meet and bring back options and recommended outreach steps; staff cautioned that any move to create local enforcement would have substantial legal and budgetary implications and could expose the city to litigation.

The commission moved next to other agenda items without taking a formal vote on enforcement authority.