Residents, advocates fault mayor’s handling of Civil Rights Board appointment after applicant withdraws

Kalamazoo — Several residents and local advocates used public comment at the April 7 Kalamazoo City Commission meeting to criticize Mayor Mary Anderson’s decision not to place attorney Lewis Smith’s application for the Civil Rights Board on the commission agenda, and to note that Smith later withdrew his application.

Speakers said the denial was announced to community members, not the commission or the Civil Rights Board, and framed it as inconsistent with how the commission handles conflicts of interest.

“Attorney Smith contacted me this past Friday with his letter of withdrawal,” said Kathy Fason, housing task force lead and chair of the Civil Rights Board, describing Smith’s action after a meeting with the mayor. “He explained that you would be denying his appointment and not adding him to the agenda.”

Why it matters: The Civil Rights Board reviews complaints and proposed changes to local anti-discrimination ordinances; board members and community advocates said legal expertise is needed to ensure the board can act effectively. Speakers said the refusal to forward Smith’s application deprives the board of that expertise and undercuts transparency.

Community members who spoke described following the prescribed application process and said the Civil Rights Board had voted unanimously to forward Smith’s name once he moved into the city. Meg Adams, speaking as a member of ISAAC and a Civil Rights Board committee member, cited state ethical rules for attorneys and said she found no prohibition that would bar Smith from serving on a municipal board.

“What could the Michigan rules of professional conduct for lawyers say that may pertain to this conflict? Nothing. Basically, what it says is an attorney can serve as an elected official right where any of you are sitting,” Adams said.

Multiple speakers contrasted the mayor’s handling of Smith’s application with other instances in which commissioners have recused themselves for conflicts of interest. Charlei Davis, of advocacy group ISAAC, urged the commission to explain the process and to fill three current Civil Rights Board vacancies.

“This is a time for the history books,” Davis said. “We want this work to get done.”

Duncan (City of Kalamazoo), a frequent public commenter who said he had engaged with the body over many issues, called the mayor’s decision “hypocrisy” and framed the mayor’s refusal as an act of obstruction that keeps the board “under resourced and under supported.” He told the commission: “This is isn’t a request. It is a demand.”

What the record shows: Commenters said Smith’s application process began in early February and that the Civil Rights Board unanimously recommended him after he moved within city limits. According to public comment, Smith met with Mayor Anderson and then submitted a letter of withdrawal. The commission did not take a vote on an appointment at the April 7 meeting.

What advocates asked for: Speakers requested clarity about the criteria used to deny the appointment, public explanation of any conflict-of-interest analysis, and that the commission consider the Civil Rights Board’s recommendation in public session instead of removing it from consideration.

The meeting record on April 7 does not show a formal written opinion or an ordinance citation supplied by the mayor explaining the denial; speakers referenced the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct as the relevant ethical framework and said those rules encourage attorneys to provide public service so long as conflicts are managed.

The commission did not announce a response during the public-comment period. The city manager and mayor’s office were listed on the meeting agenda later for reports but did not supply an explanation on the record at this meeting about Smith’s application.

Community context: Commenters tied the appointment dispute to broader concerns about how the city is responding to housing instability, policing and public safety, and the Civil Rights Board’s capacity to address complaints. Several members of ISAAC and other advocacy groups attended and spoke.

Looking ahead: Speakers said they expect the commission to publicly explain the basis for not placing the appointment on the agenda and to fill the Civil Rights Board vacancies so the board can resume full reviews.