Battle Creek workshop reviews charter amendment to extend terms, add commission removal power

Battle Creek City commissioners discussed a proposed charter amendment at a workshop that would change mayoral and commissioner terms from two years to four years, move the organizational meeting to the first Tuesday in December, and give the commission limited authority to discipline and remove elected officials.

City Attorney Bill Kim told commissioners the panel "has no authority to extend its own terms," but said the amendment would apply to future commissions and "would not go into effect until the election in November 2026." He described the proposal as three parts: four-year terms for the mayor and commissioners, a fixed organizational meeting date in early December, and a removal process with specified grounds and due-process protections.

Why it matters: The change would alter how frequently residents vote for local leaders and shorten windows for recall elections. Kim said a commission-proposed amendment would require a three-fifths vote of the members-elect (six votes), be submitted to the governor for review, and, if approved or the governor's disapproval overruled, be placed before city voters; the resolution under discussion would schedule a citywide vote as early as May 2026 to meet ballot and print deadlines.

Public comment at the workshop included strong opposition. Autumn Smith of Battle Creek said the amendment was "a self-serving power grab" that would let elected officials "lengthen your own time in office without first securing the people's consent." Another resident, Steve Koch, urged term limits and said removals should be decided by ward voters or a special vote rather than by commissioners.

Officials stressed legal and procedural limits. Kim said the proposed removal authority would be an additional option alongside existing routes — a gubernatorial removal process and recall elections — not a replacement. The draft language would limit removal to narrow grounds (lack of required qualifications such as residency, misconduct in office tied to official duties, or conviction of a felony while in office), require written notice and a hearing with opportunities to confront witnesses, and require a two-thirds commission vote for removal.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about the amendment's provenance, timing and mechanics. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the package originated with sponsoring commissioners or staff; Kim said the resolution was sponsored by the mayor, Commissioner Lance and Commissioner Reynolds and was drafted by the city attorney's office working with those sponsors. Commissioner Patrick O'Donnell asked whether terms could be staggered to preserve institutional knowledge; Kim said staggered terms are possible but would require more complicated language and initial two-year runs for some seats to create the stagger.

Several commissioners expressed conditional support for four-year terms but reservations about the removal provision. Commissioner Morris said she favored separating the items and "is not in support of commissioners being able to remove each other either." Commissioner Lance said he would "definitely entertain" staggering and wants clearer removal language. Commissioner Kotarski Smith said the four-year term and December organizational date "seems fine" but opposed lumping unrelated changes together.

City Clerk Vicky provided turnover data, noting that the 2020 election (five new commissioners) was atypical and that most elections yield fewer new members, a point offered against the need for mandatory staggered terms. Kim noted practical constraints in Michigan election law: the county canvass and extended receipt windows for absentee ballots can push certification toward late November, which is why the amendment proposes a fixed first-Tuesday-in-December start for terms.

No formal vote was taken at the workshop. Kim said the commission has three options: approve the resolution as drafted, reject it, or amend it before placing it on a future agenda. He also warned commissioners that, to meet the May 2026 ballot schedule, the city should submit the proposed amendment for governor review soon if they intend that calendar. The workshop ended without a decision; commissioners indicated they may return the item to a later meeting with revisions or a clearer separation of the proposal's parts.

Clarifying details mentioned during the meeting included that a commission-initiated charter amendment requires a three-fifths vote of members-elect (six votes), a citizen petition path typically requires signatures from about 5% of registered city voters, a governor review period exists and can be overruled by a two-thirds vote, a rejected charter amendment cannot be resubmitted for two years, vacancy appointments occur under existing charter rules (the commission appoints if the vacancy occurs outside a short pre-election window and must do so within 30 days), and recall petitions are not permitted during the first and final years of an elected official’s term (a constraint that the amendment would affect by moving from two- to four-year terms).

Next steps: the commission may decide this month whether to ask staff to submit the proposed resolution to the governor for review and place the amendment on the May 2026 ballot. If commissioners choose to amend the draft, Kim said the body could alter the language (for example, to stagger terms or narrow removal grounds) before any final vote to send it forward.