Charter commission weighs who the city attorney serves and whether council may retain outside counsel

The Lansing Charter Commission examined competing proposals this week over the role and removal of the city attorney and whether city council should have a formal entitlement to hire outside counsel.

The commission reviewed staff-drafted language that would let either the mayor or a two‑thirds majority of city council suspend or remove the city attorney, with the other branch having a veto-style check in some drafts. Commissioners and counsel discussed due-process language, whether removals should be "for cause," and how any veto or override would operate under existing charter provisions.

City Attorney Greg Venker, who attended the meeting, told the commission his legal obligations are to the corporate entity of the City of Lansing, not to a single elected official. "My client is the corporate body of the city," Venker said, describing the legal-ethical framework the office follows. He told commissioners he would recommend adding due-process protections in any removal procedure — for example, notice of reasons and a right to a hearing before final action — and said such language would align removal rules with protections already used elsewhere in the charter.

Council’s ability to hire counsel: Commissioners considered three options: (a) a standing city-council attorney retained at council discretion, (b) narrower authority for council to retain outside counsel for specified matters, and (c) a version modeled on another city that allows limited council retention in certain situations. Commission counsel said a permanent, standing council attorney is rare in Michigan charters and could increase friction; Venker warned a standing council attorney could prompt repeated dueling opinions and suggested any outside‑counsel authority be narrowly tailored to specific circumstances, such as an identified conflict of interest between the council (as a body) and the mayor (as executive).

Why it matters: The discussion responds to public comments and prior disputes about whether the city attorney serves the mayor, the council, or the corporate city; the commission sought language that clarifies duties, protects due process, and limits the scope for dueling counsel.

Public comment and concern: During public comment, Loretta Stanaway urged separating roles: she said the city attorney should serve the city administration, mayor and citizens and be appointed by the mayor with council confirmation; she recommended the council get a legislative aide or retainer counsel for specialized drafting work. Darren Kalis, speaking for the UAW bargaining unit for the city of Lansing, raised concerns about proposed new investigative powers that might allow council to call city employees for questioning, warning that language could create labor-law conflicts and interfere with collective bargaining agreement grievance processes. Both public commenters asked the commission to consider these rights and protections when finalizing language.

Next steps: Commission counsel and the city attorney agreed to circulate proposed drafting changes reflecting added due‑process language and narrower, targeted language for council retention of outside counsel. Commissioners said they would review the suggested edits before deciding whether to include them in the charter draft.

Ending: The commission did not adopt final text for the city-attorney provisions at this meeting; staff and counsel will circulate revised language for further review.