Lansing Charter Commission delays PR firm pick, sets tight timeline for bidders

The Lansing Charter Commission on July 15 reviewed six proposals for a public-relations contract but declined to pick a firm, citing time for review and election-related deadlines.

Commission leaders told members the commission received six proposals — three described as local to Lansing, one from Grand Rapids, one from Detroit and one from Midland — and presented a rubric for scoring each offer. The chair described a short timetable and said staff will collect commissioners' questions and send them to all bidders.

Why it matters: The commission is working on a charter proposal that could appear on ballots this fall; commissioners repeatedly raised concerns about printing, mail deadlines for absentee/AV ballots and whether bidders had vendor capacity to meet election timelines.

Commissioner Boyd said he was not prepared to vote because he had only read three of the proposals and wanted more time to compare them. "I will not be prepared to vote tonight," Boyd said, citing unanswered questions about vendors and printing locations. Boyd and others urged staff to estimate contingency budget needs if the charter work continues into 2026.

Commissioner Washington said he would "only vote for a Lansing firm," arguing local vendors would better understand Lansing and avoid travel costs. The chair and other commissioners suggested narrowing the field to the three local firms for further review or interviews.

Staff process: Clerk's staff asked commissioners to submit all questions by Thursday at 5 p.m.; the clerk will compile questions, remove duplicates and distribute them to all bidders so each has the same opportunity to respond. The clerk also reminded commissioners that sharing deliberative exchanges by email risks creating a quorum and could trigger Open Meetings Act concerns.

Timeline pressures: Commissioners discussed election dates and absentee/AV ballot schedules as constraints on campaign and printing work. A staff advisor said in similar procurements a decision by the end of the month would generally allow firms to meet printing and mailing deadlines, but commissioners insisted on clarity about printers, vendor locations and whether printers are unionized.

Next steps: The commission set a follow-up meeting referenced in the transcript as "20 ninth, 06:30" to continue evaluation; the transcript language for the date is ambiguous. Commissioners were directed to submit questions through the clerk by Thursday at 5 p.m.

The commission did not vote to award the contract at the July 15 meeting.