Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter City Attorney topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charter commission debates whether city attorney should be elected, and how department heads report to mayor or council
Summary
Commissioners spent substantial time on March 4 discussing whether the city attorney should be an elected office and on clarifying appointment, reporting and removal authority for department heads including the police and fire chiefs; no final charter decision was made on an elected city attorney.
Commissioners on the Lansing Charter Commission spent a large portion of the March 4 meeting debating how the charter should treat the city attorney and department heads, including how officials are appointed, confirmed and removed.
Several commissioners voiced support for an elected city attorney. Commissioner Washington said an elected city attorney would “answer to the people and not to the mayor or the city council,” and argued the current arrangement—where the mayor appoints and has termination authority—creates a structural conflict. “The way it is written right now… the mayor has the authority to fire the city attorney. The council does not,” Washington said, calling the system “broken.”
Other commissioners urged caution. Commissioner Cooley and others noted that elected city attorneys are uncommon in Michigan and raised concerns about creating a third independently elected legal office that could challenge both mayor and council, potentially adding cost and complexity. One commissioner said an elected city attorney “answers to nobody” between elections and could reduce checks and balances.
The commission also discussed whether department heads such as the finance director, public service director and city engineer should report to the mayor or be described differently in the charter. Commissioners debated proposed wording changes to section 4‑302.2 that would change the finance department’s relationship to divisions (proposed: "shall coordinate with" instead of "shall be in charge of") and whether that language conflicts with head of department provisions that make department heads responsible to the mayor. An attorney advising the commission noted the phrasing could “muddy the waters” and offered to provide a more thorough legal review.
Police and fire appointment language drew questions about consistency: the fire chief’s appointment language refers to selection from candidates recommended by the Board of Fire Commissioners, while the police chief’s language refers to appointment by the mayor in consultation with the Board of Police Commissioners and confirmation by a majority of the board. Commissioners asked staff to research historical practice and prior charter language to determine whether the two appointment processes should be made consistent.
Several commissioners said they were open to limiting the mayor’s unilateral removal authority for department heads or to crafting specific termination procedures; staff said department heads typically have annual contracts that describe terms and at‑will employment status.
Why it matters: The way the charter defines appointment, confirmation and removal authority sets accountability and the balance of power among the mayor, council and independent boards. An elected city attorney or changes to removal procedures would materially alter those relationships and could impose budgetary and operational changes.
No final charter text for an elected city attorney or for new termination procedures was adopted on March 4; commissioners requested additional research and legal review and scheduled follow-up discussion at future meetings.
