Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Amendment Terms Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Battle Creek Commission tables charter amendment to extend terms, discipline power
Summary
The commission voted to table Resolution 2-68, which would have placed a charter amendment before voters to set four-year terms for elected officials and allow the commission to discipline or remove officials for certain causes. Public comment urged term limits and warned against giving commissioners removal power.
The Battle Creek City Commission voted to table Resolution 2-68 to its next November meeting after a motion by Commissioner Lance.
If approved as written, the resolution would have submitted proposed amendments to the City of Battle Creek charter to set terms of office for all elected officials to four years, require terms to begin at the organizational meeting held the first Tuesday in December after the election, and subject elected officials to discipline by the commission up to and including removal for lacking required qualifications for office, conviction of a felony while in office, or misconduct in office.
Supporters of delaying the measure cited a need for more work on specific provisions. Commissioner Lance moved to table the resolution until the commission's next November meeting; the motion was supported and approved by the commission. The transcript does not record a roll-call vote tally.
Public comment before the motion focused heavily on two themes: adding term limits if the commission adopts longer terms, and rejecting a proposal that would allow commissioners to remove one another. Joe Harris, a Battle Creek resident, urged a “balanced approach” if the commission extends terms to four years and recommended adding term limits, suggesting commissioners “cannot serve more than 2 4-year terms either consecutively or nonconsecutively.” Harris also pointed commissioners to existing state processes for removal, citing (as read in the meeting) MCL 168.327 and MCL 168.93 as examples of state-level removal and recall processes.
Autumn Smith (Elk Creek) urged the commission to fix the city’s existing ethics ordinance before expanding commission power, recounting a 2015 ethics proceeding she said resulted in taxpayer expense and alleging selective use of the ordinance in the past. Jesse Mosier and multiple other residents warned that granting the commission removal power could enable retaliation or suppress voters’ ability to seek special elections.
Commission discussion prior to the tabling motion was brief on the record; the clerk read the full description of the resolution into the record before Commissioner Lance moved to table. No amendments to the resolution were adopted at the meeting.
The commission’s action to table Resolution 2-68 means the charter amendment will not go before voters unless the commission reintroduces the measure at a later meeting and approves it for submission to the electorate.
