Big Rapids commission advances charter draft, asks legal review and tightens manager-evaluation language

The Big Rapids Charter Revision Commission reviewed a word‑smithing draft of the city charter at its Nov. 12 meeting and approved a string of editorial and substantive changes while scheduling a final legal check before sending the document to voters.

The commission approved the minutes of Oct. 8, heard a committee report on a consolidated draft compiled by Stacy Foster and others, and set a goal to provide the draft to attorney Ron Reddick and the attorney general's checklist by early December.

Why it matters: The draft rewrites several governance passages that shape how the city commission interacts with the city manager, how election and petition procedures are handled, and how the charter will reference state law. Those choices affect transparency, the manager's evaluation process and the mechanics of local elections.

Most of the meeting was spent finalizing wording. The wordsmithing team removed the old preamble, updated the charter year to 2026 and addressed formatting inconsistencies, including inconsistent use of numerals. After discussion, the commission voted to remove an extraneous numeral that appeared in multiple places.

A central policy debate focused on the city manager's evaluation. Commissioners considered competing drafts over whether the charter should itemize evaluation criteria or require only that the commission set goals and communicate them to the manager. One proposal the group discussed would read: "The city commission shall establish goals, communicate them, and evaluate the city manager's performance annually." Speaker 4 argued the wording keeps the commission responsible for setting expectations while leaving implementation details to the commission and manager.

The commission also reworked language addressing when an elected or appointed official becomes "in default to the city," adopting revised drafting that gives a remedy period (discussed as 30 days) to eliminate a default or contest liability in good faith before automatic removal from office; members asked counsel to confirm the legal effects of that approach.

Election‑related language drew attention. The draft states the city "shall consist of one ward" but allows the commission to establish precincts by resolution or ordinance in accordance with Michigan election law (MCL 168.654). Commissioners asked for confirmation that section 4.1 should not be read to allow the commission to be the sole adjudicator of its own elections; they agreed to have Reddick clarify the intent and proper drafting.

The group also corrected a mistaken statutory citation involving conflict-of-interest law, accepting counsel's recommendation to cite MCL 15.323 rather than the miscited section, and clarified that election‑inspector compensation is determined by the election commission and then approved by the city commission.

Next steps: Staff will produce a clean version showing accepted edits, update the table of contents and run a final check with Reddick so the commission can meet on Dec. 10 to sign off and begin planning public outreach and ballot scheduling. "We would like to have the document ready to give to Ron for his review . . . by early December," Speaker 2 said.

Votes at a glance: the commission approved the Oct. 8 minutes, voted to remove an extraneous numeral from the draft, approved revised default-removal language for counsel review, and adjourned at the end of the meeting.

The commission plans to submit the revised draft for legal review and return with a clean copy at its regular Dec. 10 meeting; public outreach timing and ballot deadlines will be addressed once the state review is complete.