Lansing charter panel debates requiring a commission vote every 12 years

By TYLER SCHNEIDER

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 4 — A key recommendation that could come out of the city of Lansing Charter Commission is amending — and even eliminating — the provision that established the review commission in the first place.

“It should be repealed,” Commissioner Liz Boyd declared at last night’s regular meeting.  The charter requires that voters decide every 12 years whether to create a review commission.

“I don't think it's necessary. The charter can be amended by the Council if there's a need. What we're doing is a lovely exercise, but it's very costly and I don't think it's important enough, to be honest," Boyd said.

“I would strongly recommend that this be removed from the charter.”

City Clerk Chris Swope agreed.

“I don't have a vote," he said,  but "it benefits the city to remove this provision."

City Clerk Chris Swope

Six of the seven other commissioners of the nine-member panel present indicated being open to changing how the commission is established and how it elects its members, including removing or amending the charter provision that requires the question of whether the city should form a charter commission to be on the ballot every 12 years.

The city administration estimated the cost of having a commission would cost at least $500,000, but by a narrow majority, voters approved it last November. Then they elected nine members out of 36 candidates in a special May election.

The commission, which began meeting in May, has already spent $148,000, and it has almost two years before any recommendations will appear on the ballot.

Explaining his position, Swope said Lansing is one of just six Michigan cities with such a provision.

“Most cities don't have anything where they automatically have a vote on whether to have a general revision. It's a rare thing that we have,” he said.

In some ways, he said, the provision “creates a false timeline” because there are already two other ways in which a charter commission can be established. One is via a three-fifths majority vote by the Council. The other is through a citizen-led initiative petition.

“That can be done any time in any year,” Swope said. “So, I think this automatically going on the ballot is not necessarily meeting the city's needs. This should always be in the back pocket of both the voters and the City Council.

Commissioner Jody Washington said she was open to changes but stopped short of supporting Boyd.

Charter Commissioner Jody Washington

“This is our city's constitution, and I don't think cost should even be a consideration,” she said. “I would never vote to have this repealed, ever,” she added. “But my question is, does it have to be 12 years?”

Commissioner Guillermo Lopez said a few other Michigan cities have pre-established charter committees or commissions that review their charter semi-regularly. He said they can approach their Council, which can then legislate them via ordinance or establish a charter commission via a majority vote if any changes are needed.

Swope confirmed that the Council can establish a committee at any time. East Lansing’s Council did so this year.

Vice Chair Lori Adams Simon, subbing for Chair Brian Jeffries, also said the 12-year timeline should be reconsidered.

She urged a standing commission.

Charter Commission Vice Chair Lori Adams Simon leads the Dec. 3 meeting in Chair Brian Jeffries' absence.

“I don't think a charter should be reviewed every 12 years with changing terminology and technology, but if we put a solid document in place right now, we may not have to address that.”

Swope added that state law also permits cities to have the ballot question on whether to form a charter commission run concurrently with the election of its nine members. He added that the first commission 1978 did it that way.

“If the voters say we don't want a charter commission, then the people who run aren’t elected because there is no office to be elected to. But it saves having two separate elections. It puts the whole discussion out there at once. I think that allows a city to have a more informed process,” Swope said.

Boyd said she was open to this change, citing the six months the commission lost from its three-year lifespan between the November 2023 election and the May 2024 special election that determined the commission makeup. “I think that needs to be addressed, at a minimum,” she said.

Washington agreed.

“I think voting for the two at once is a good idea because losing six months, frankly, angered me. But I want the people to be still able to vote whether or not to open this charter. For a local government, it's good to review it in totality now and again,” she said.

Commission attorney Kristen Rewa noted that a revision would still “have to be passed by the voters,” but she welcomed members to have her take a look at how such a change should be implemented according to state law.

“I just have to think about this for a couple of weeks,” Washington said. “We all know that doing a public initiative is burdensome. Some people don't know how to do it, and really what that does is keep the people out of the process,” Washington said.

Simon agreed and asked members to review the section independently and write their thoughts for a future meeting.

In other matters, the commission discussed changing the timeframe for electing City Council members. Based on section 2-101.3, “the terms of office of the Council members shall be staggered so that two members elected for wards shall stand for elections every two years and two members elected at-large shall stand for election every two years.”

Swope said that many Michigan cities have their elected officials up simultaneously, saving the city at least $100,000 on election administration costs.

Commissioner Joan Bauer noted that, in her experience as a former Council member, she’s partial to keeping Council elections staggered so that at least half the members are serving with at least two years’ experience. Still, she said, she’s open-minded.

Washington supported electing everyone at once.

“It's a cleaner election, and that 50% left might not be that good.”

However, Lopez said he was “not sold” on the idea.

“We can talk about it, but we have a better chance to know the candidates with staggered elections,” he said, adding that he “wasn’t thinking so much about saving money” but rather “about making it better for the electorate.”

Commissioner Ben Dowd suggested they consider this and vote on a potential change at a later date. The body agreed.

The three-hour discussion did not result in any firm votes, but another notable development came when some members proposed establishing new positions within City Hall.

Commissioner Jazmin Anderson started the discussion by proposing a new city statistician role.

“That it would be helpful when we're making decisions about our city, or when people are looking specifically at their ward and advocating for things, that there’s data available,” Anderson said. “How many people live in this ward? What are the ages of those people, even if we're breaking it up into age brackets of how many are children, how many are seniors? How much are we spending in each ward?”

“You can designate a position as a statistician in the charter,” Washington replied. “I, frankly, would like to see a health expert. I won't recommend that, but I think what Commissioner Anderson is asking for is valid and should be there.”

Boyd said she disagreed with that need but had another proposal for a new position, which she said she’d announce at a future meeting.

Again, Adams Simon said, members should put their proposals in writing to discuss later.

Finally, Washington asked Rewa if the city attorney could be elected instead of appointed. She cited potential conflicts of interest between the mayor and the Council. Only the mayor has the power to fire a city attorney, even though they’re supposed to serve both the mayor and the Council.

“I am unaware of any city attorney elected in the state of Michigan, but nothing prohibits that,” Rewa replied.

Other commissioners did not weigh in on that possibility, however.

Following their three-hour discussion, they adjourned until their final meeting of the year, set for Dec. 17.