East Lansing council approves first reading of police‑oversight ordinance; commissioners and residents warn changes gut investigative access

East Lansing City Council on Aug. 12 approved the first reading of ordinance 15‑53, a package of amendments to the city's Independent Police Oversight Commission ordinance, after public commenters and a commission member said the revisions would significantly limit the commission's ability to obtain records and conduct independent reviews.

The concerns centered on proposed deletions and revisions to the oversight ordinance that speakers said would remove language protecting the commission's access to records, expand the department's discretion to withhold material, lengthen response times for requests, and bar the commission from compelling officer participation in reviews. The council voted to refer the ordinance for second reading to its Sept. 23 meeting.

Why it matters: The oversight commission was created to review complaints and recommend policy changes related to policing. Speakers said the changes under consideration would make it harder for the commission to investigate use‑of‑force incidents, review body‑worn camera footage, and obtain prior complaint histories, which they said would undermine the commission's stated purpose of addressing racial inequities and use of force.

Public comments and commission view

Dr. Edsel, speaking during communications from the audience, described the history of policing complaint handling in East Lansing and said the original ordinance (written when the commission was created) included investigatory access that has since been removed. He stated that changes followed a tentative agreement with the nonsupervisory officers' union and a subsequent administrative ruling, and that a May 1 memo from City Attorney Anne Gabbard told the commission that even asking whether a policy was violated "was in fact crossing over into discipline." He said, "The ordinance was changed by veil of the council to include several references to the Commission not having disciplinary powers." Dr. Edsel provided multiple examples where, he said, the commission has sought body‑worn camera footage and other information to review incidents involving use of force.

Christine Root, a member of the Independent Police Oversight Commission who spoke for herself, said the commission has not completed a formal response but urged council members to ask the attorneys who drafted the amendments to "quote the relevant part of the CBA that requires each specific change." Root said the amendments touch 18 of 35 sections of the ordinance and delete nine sections she described as "some of the most important in the entire ordinance," pointing to language that previously said the city would not rely on discretionary FOIA exemptions "unless there is a compelling reason for disclosure." Root said the proposed language removes the standards and replaces them with a broader rule allowing a department to redact "information the police department or other department believes should be kept confidential."

Specific changes cited in public remarks

- Scope: Speakers said amendments affect complaint review access, use‑of‑force reporting, early warning systems, and the commission's ability to obtain prior complaint history for officers covered by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). - FOIA/redactions: Commenters contrasted current ordinance language that limits redactions to cases "prohibited by statute" or where a "compelling reason" exists with the proposed text that would permit departments to redact material they simply "believe should be kept confidential." Root said that language weakens a transparency safeguard. - Timelines: Amendment language referenced in the packet would lengthen the period for providing information to the commission from 21 days to 30 days; Root warned that, because the commission meets monthly, a 30‑day response window would often make it unlikely the commission could review information at its next meeting. - CBA interaction: Speakers repeatedly referenced a collective bargaining agreement between the City of East Lansing and the Capital City Labor Program Nonsupervisory Patrol Officers and a tentative agreement (TA dated 03/20/2025). Commenters said some contract language prohibits the commission from receiving prior complaint histories and that the contract links complaint review and confidentiality provisions in articles 26.2 and 26.3.

What council did and next steps

Mayor Brookover moved the ordinance's first reading and referral; the motion passed on a unanimous roll call vote. Council set the second reading and possible adoption for Sept. 23, 2025, and during discussion several council members urged the city attorney and the labor counsel to meet with commissioners and provide the legal bases for each proposed change. Multiple speakers asked that the attorneys identify the specific CBA provisions that allegedly require each amendment.

What the commission members asked for

Root asked council to delay adoption of changes that are not explicitly required by the contract and to use national best practices — she referenced the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) — in any ordinance revisions. She also asked that council provide the legal citations or memos showing why particular deletions and revisions are claimed to be contractually required.

Council and staff responses

During council discussion, the city attorney said she would follow up, and the city manager and council members urged staff to provide additional documentation and legal cross‑references so that the commission and the public can see which changes are strictly required by the contract and which are staff or attorney proposals.

Ending

Councilers and commission members said they expected further meetings and written material before final action. The ordinance received first reading on Aug. 12 and is scheduled for second reading and possible adoption at the Sept. 23 regular meeting of the East Lansing City Council.