East Lansing Police Oversight Commission Moves to Hire Attorneys, Say New Police Contract Hurts Transparency, Accountability

The new contract between the City of East Lansing and a union representing East Lansing Police Department (ELPD) patrol officers is a blow to transparency and accountability in policing, members of the East Lansing Independent Police Oversight Commission (ELIPOC) say. 

The recently negotiated contract creates changes to the ordinance governing ELIPOC. Concerns include that officers’ names will now be hidden in reports about times when officers’ use force while on duty, and a change in the complaint review process that will not allow the commission to weigh-in on complaints before a final ruling 

Commissioners also expressed frustration with the city attorneys. While ELIPOC has access to the city attorneys, the attorneys’ job of carrying out city council’s goals presents a conflict if those goals do not align with the commission’s mission. The commission is intended to operate independently from city council and the police department. Commissioners eventually moved to hire legal counsel to work on ELIPOC’s behalf. 

“I’ve watched policies and procedures used to silence people of color, the community, and the public,” Commissioner Amanda Morgan said. “We [ELIPOC] represent the public, we are doing the very best we can to speak louder than the policies and procedures.” 

Dispute Over Bargaining Obligations 

Typically, bargaining negotiations between the employer and the employee include wages, benefits and working conditions. During negotiations, the union believed that ELIPOC was a bargaining obligation. The city disagreed, and when the two could not come to an agreement, the city filed an unfair labor practice dispute with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission in 2022. 

In 2024, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) David Peltz ruled that several aspects of ELIPOC’s processes are a bargaining obligation under the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA), allowing the police union to negotiate terms around ELIPOC in its new contract. 

The new contract includes specific language that contradicts the current ordinance. Since the ordinance has not been updated yet, ELIPOC must follow the contract language, which will govern if there’s a conflict. 

A memo sent by City Attorney Anne Gabbert and Labor Attorney Gouri Sashital outlines the changes ELIPOC must now follow. 

The first change is the timeline in the complaint review process. 

Previously, after an internal investigation was completed, the ELPD investigator would write a report and send it to ELIPOC within 10 days. ELIPOC then has 60 days to review it or request further investigation. Both the report and the comments made by ELIPOC went to the police chief, who made the final finding and issued any discipline, if necessary. 

Under the new contract, the investigation goes straight to the police chief, who makes the final determination and issues any discipline. Then ELIPOC receives information about the complaint and the outcome. However, any discipline, filing of grievance or arbitration must all be completed before ELIPOC receives the complaint. 

The commission is concerned about the stage at which it will receive information on complaints. Previously, the commission could issue a recommendation on whether or not it agrees with the investigation outcome or if further investigation is needed before the chief made a final decision on a complaint. 

The new contract also prohibits ELIPOC and individual commissioners from commenting on pending complaints, internal investigations or personnel matters involving police officers; disclosing the names or identities of ELPD employees; and disclosing law enforcement operations or open criminal investigations. 

“You are not allowed to talk about pending complaints,” Sashital said. “You are allowed to take the complaint, file it with the police department, and follow that process.” 

“Can we talk about it here before the complaint is filed?” Morgan asked. 

“I would err on the side of no, because if they’re gonna make a complaint, it’s going to be subject to an internal investigation,” Sashital replied. 

Critically, the new contract also means the names of ELPD officers in use-of-force reports and person-in-crisis reports will be redacted, city attorneys said at the meeting. 

ELIPOC members were surprised to find this out at the meeting, because the contract does not mention these reports, which are prepared by police. 

“That goes way further than the complaint investigation, which seems to be what the contract is about,” Commissioner Chris Root said. “The use of force reports and crisis encounter reports are not mentioned in the contract. I don’t understand how this is happening.” 

These reports detail police interactions where force was used during an encounter, and incidents where officers address people experiencing mental health crises. The reports include the name(s) of the officers involved, injuries that occurred and incident descriptions—information that helps the commission make recommendations, identify needed policy changes, suggest officer training and address racial inequities.

Without the names of officers included in the reports, commissioners worry that they will be unable to tell if there are patterns with certain officers.

“These are supposed to be the ways we identify officers who need support and counseling,” Morgan said. “It’s about noticing who gets put in front of the lines and never gets the support they need.”

Sashital shared that she had discussed a tracking system with Police Chief Jen Brown in which every officer would be assigned a consistent identifier—such as a letter or number—that wouldn’t change month to month.

However, commissioners mentioned that one of their responsibilities is to review prior complaints and identify patterns of behavior. The commission would not be able to match the new identifying marks to data already collected on officers’ over the commission’s more than three years of existence.

“A prior complaint helps us know if this is a pattern of behavior, for a particular policy or practice. If we never know who’s violating those policies and practices, what are we supposed to do?” ELIPOC Chair Ernest Conerly asked. 

“I don’t know without knowing specifically what you do and the information you’re requesting, and I can’t give an opinion,” Sashital replied. 

Frustration Over Representation 

Frustrated with the city attorneys’ role in the new contract language, ELIPOC eventually moved to hire its own independent legal counsel.

The commission hopes the attorney will be able to analyze the contract to see if the restrictions put on  ELIPOC are necessary under the language in the agreement. ELIPOC also anticipates that the changes to its ordinance made due to the agreement will be formalized by city council at some point, and would like an attorney’s opinion before that happens. 

There was a fiery discussion during the meeting over the specific contract language, and general frustration from commissioners who felt ELIPOC was not adequately represented by the city attorneys.

“One of the things that confuses me is that you’re either a client or you’re not a client,” Commissioner Sharon Hobbes said. “Either our concerns and issues are represented by you or they’re not, and it feels like no one was expressing our concerns.” 

“You [ELIPOC] have been created through the city, so in a sense you’re an arm of the city, and we represent the city,” Gabbert said. “I hear you in the sense you feel that at times you are not represented independently, with that being said, I don’t specifically advocate on their [commissions] behalf, I am here specifically to assist with questions. But if it’s against the city, that’s an awkward position, and I know that that’s been expressed to me.”

The city attorneys represent and protect the city’s interest, even if it differs from ELIPOC’s interest. ELIPOC’s ordinance gives it access to the city’s attorneys – but commissioners point out that there is a conflict if the city has interests that are different from ELIPOC’s. While ELIPOC commissioners are appointed by City Council, the commission works independently from city government and city council. 

“Our ordinance clearly states we have the right to our own attorneys, and this seems like a circumstance where we should have one rather than accept that somehow, you are the attorney for ELIPOC,” Commissioner Michael McDaniel said. 

Commissioner Robin Etchison emphasized the need for public awareness and officer accountability.

“From an accountability standpoint, if I’m an officer, and I violated policy multiple times, but I’m still employed, and the community at large has no idea that I’m out here operating, and violating policy over and over and over again—they don’t know who’s policing them,” he said. 

“I don’t necessarily view these changes that way,” Sashital responded. “I view the changes as a compromise that was reached, to protect on one side, ELIPOC’s functioning, and the rights of unionized employees.”

After nearly an hour of discussion, Root drafted a motion for ELIPOC to hire its own legal counsel. The motion passed unanimously.