East Lansing council reviews draft RFP for city attorney services, requests clarifications

East Lansing City Council members spent part of their Feb. 11 discussion meeting reviewing a draft request for proposals (RFP) for city attorney services and asked staff for clarifications before the RFP is issued.

The review focused on wording in the draft RFP, the process for distributing the solicitation and evaluation, and reporting expectations of the appointed city attorney. Council members asked the city manager to revise or clarify several provisions and said the city manager could proceed to distribute the RFP once those edits are made.

Council members questioned a provision (page 13, item 10 in the draft) that says the city attorney “prepares legal opinions at the request of the council or city manager.” Several members noted that the council’s rules allow an individual council member or the mayor to request legal opinions, and asked that the RFP language be broadened so it does not conflict with those rules. Mayor Brookover suggested amending the clause to align with the city charter and council policies.

Members also asked for a new quarterly requirement: a written report on the status of all pending litigation. Council member Meadows said past firm contractors provided litigation status reports and that the council should require them in the contract. The city manager indicated that the RFP is a first step and that binding commitments are finalized in the resulting contract.

Other procedural items surfaced: the draft sets a 30-day response window for proposals; the draft currently requests six hard copies plus one digital copy and lists an email address for submissions that a council member said should be checked because the staff member named (Emily Gordon) is no longer with the city. Council members asked the manager to confirm whether six hard-copy submissions remain necessary or whether electronic-only submission is acceptable.

Council members raised concerns about two scope items: a clause requiring the appointed city attorney to attend “all other meetings, hearings and or other city events as requested by the city manager and or his or her authorized staff member,” which some members said is too broad and should include a limiting phrase tied to council authorization; and a note in the cost-proposal section about district court prosecution services that a council member asked to delete as a typographical carryover from an earlier draft. The city manager agreed to revise the draft and circulate a redline to the council within a day or two.

Council members asked staff to ensure the RFP is broadly distributed beyond the existing firm list to encourage a diverse candidate pool, including minority-owned practices. Staff said the list will be circulated and publicized through the city’s communications channels and association websites.

The discussion did not produce a final vote on the RFP; council members asked the city manager to update the draft and proceed with distribution once the edits are made and staff confirms submission instructions.

Ending — Next steps and follow-up The city manager will circulate a redline of the RFP with the requested edits and confirm submission instructions (including whether hard copies remain required and the correct digital contact). Council members asked for the quarterly litigation-status report language to be added to the RFP/contract and for clearer limits on the city manager’s authority to require attorney attendance at events.