Residents press council on recall‑campaign paperwork and a policy for body barriers after homicide left body exposed

During the public‑comment period at the Lancaster City Council meeting, several residents raised two separate concerns: problems they say arose from a recent recall‑campaign paperwork process and a call for a city policy requiring temporary body barriers when a deceased person is visible to the public.

Aubrey McPherson, who identified herself during public comment, said she and others had been harmed by errors in the paperwork for a local recall effort and said the mistakes led to litigation that affected roughly 85 people. “The whole reason that we were sued on the first one was because of the bad paperwork,” McPherson said. She asked the council to consider a formal city recall policy because, she said, “there is no city ordinance or city regulation when it pertains to what our recall policy is for the city.” McPherson said she had already spoken with the county and the secretary of state and requested the council place the matter on a future agenda for fuller discussion.

McPherson also described a nearby homicide where she said a victim’s body “was left out for 15 hours, and there wasn’t any type of body barrier placed around her.” She asked the council to consider an ordinance or policy that would require first actions to include a body barrier when a dead body is present so grieving family and neighbors are not exposed to the scene.

Mark Maldonado, who identified himself with the Lancaster Freedom Coalition, disagreed with some of McPherson’s characterizations of the recall process and said recall committee members maintain they followed paperwork procedures; he urged the council to move meeting times back to 5 p.m. so more working residents can attend. Multiple other speakers raised concerns about comments reportedly made by the mayor regarding the unhoused and suggested council meeting times be scheduled to improve public participation.

Staff response and next steps: Council staff acknowledged receipt of McPherson’s written materials. A staff member (Allison) said she would review the materials and “bring back anything that I think needs addressing.” The city manager said he would “get with Allison” and have something drawn up. The transcript records no ordinance or formal action at the meeting; staff indicated they would review documents and consider drafting policy language for future council consideration.

Why it matters: Residents asked the city to clarify local procedures and protections related to recall petitions and to adopt a measure to reduce community exposure to corpses at scene investigations. Both issues, if referred to staff and returned as agenda items, could lead to draft ordinances or administrative policies.

Quotes from the meeting: Aubrey McPherson said the recall effort’s paperwork “got 85 people sued” and that “there is no city ordinance or city regulation when it pertains to what our recall policy is for the city.” She also told the council the victim’s body “was left out for 15 hours, and there wasn’t any type of body barrier placed around her.” City staff (Allison) replied, “I will definitely take a look at it and bring back anything that I think needs addressing.” The city manager added, “I'll get with Allison, sir, and we can we can certainly, have something drawn up.”

Details not decided: The council did not set a follow‑up hearing date or adopt any ordinance at the meeting; staff committed to review the submitted materials and to return with recommendations if needed.