Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Article 1 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lansing Charter Commission adopts Article 1 as amended; heated debate continues over electing city attorney
Summary
The Lansing Charter Commission on Dec. 17 approved Article 1 of a proposed charter revision and adopted several definition and publication provisions, but commissioners stalled on whether to make the city attorney an elected office after extended debate about independence and removal procedures.
The Lansing Charter Commission met Dec. 17, 2024, and voted to adopt Article 1 of its proposed charter revisions after making several amendments to definitions, publication requirements and penalties.
Attorney Matt Cross, appearing virtually, recommended retaining the existing definition of 'officer' — which includes members of boards and commissions — and proposed clarified language for how the city will 'publish' required notices. Commissioners voted to keep the broader officer definition and to adopt the proposed 'publish' text, which leaves implementation flexibility (for example, the clerk or a designee) while aiming for widespread notice.
The commission also added a short definitions clause that 'voters' mean 'electors' and moved to adopt Chapter 2 as amended. On penalties, Cross advised the panel that state statutory caps limit city ordinance penalties to $500 and 90 days’ incarceration; although some commissioners asked about raising those limits to 93 days or $1,000 to trigger fingerprinting and appointed counsel, the attorney advised the limits are capped by the Home Rule City Act and the commission preserved existing Section 1‑501 language.
Despite the progress on Article 1, debate continued into Article 2 on officers and elections. Commissioners spent significant time discussing whether Lansing should make the city attorney an elected position. Commissioner White and others argued an elected city attorney would be more independent and accountable to voters rather than beholden to the mayor; opponents warned of politicizing the office and raised questions about removal, First Amendment constraints and the difficulty of recalling an elected official. The commission did not adopt language to elect the city attorney and asked counsel to draft alternative guardrails that could increase independence without creating unworkable removal or conflict issues.
The commission also approved adjustments to term and staggering language for elective officers to allow a phased transition (moving the phase start to 2027 with full 4‑year terms by 2029) and asked staff to return with clarified draft language about when a person is 'in default to the city' and thus ineligible for office.
Next steps: counsel and staff will return with refined language on the city attorney options, default/forfeiture timing and quorum/notice alternatives for Article 3 items slated for discussion in January.
