East Lansing Council Narrows HRC Authority Shortly After Police Misconduct Findings

At a meeting on Tuesday, the East Lansing City Council unanimously voted to amend a 60-year-old ordinance that governs the Human Rights Commission in a way commissioners believe significantly weakens the body’s authority. 

The original ordinance allowed the Human Rights Commission, or HRC, to investigate any complaint filed with them, providing multiple avenues to investigate complaints, mediate and issue orders. Under the new amendments, the HRC’s role is stripped down: they can receive complaints and hold hearings, but if a violation is found, they may only refer the parties to a qualified mediator or help the complainant to file with a state or federal agency. 

Crucially, the amendments exempt city employees and city entities from HRC reviews entirely. Any complaint against city staff or an elected official must now be filed with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, or MDCR. 

The fast-tracked changes passed unanimously three weeks after they were initially presented to the City Council, arriving shortly after the HRC concluded a controversial investigation into East Lansing Police Department officers. The commission found that East Lansing police officers violated the human rights of two Black men, Lonnie Smith and Mason Woods, and issued a list of orders to the city, including $50,000 each in compensatory damages. 

At its June 10 meeting, members of the HRC expressed openness to exploring some amendments to the commission, but asked the council to slow the process and allow the commission to obtain independent legal help.

“I am extremely disappointed,” HRC Chair Karen Hoene told East Lansing Info. “I do have to say I was not surprised, but I didn’t expect it to be a 5 to 0 vote, and I was holding out hope that they would have at least slowed the process down and given some consideration to our concerns and our feedback, as well as given the community more of a chance for input.”

City Attorney Carlito Young said the HRC exercised judicial power it does not have by ordering restitution. Young said that the HRC is an extension of the City Council, which is a legislative, not judicial body.

“The statutory pieces in terms of council’s powers and this narrower question on what are we authorized to give to commissions I think is the one that will be driving my vote on this,” Councilmember Kerry Ebersole Singh said before voting in favor of the changes. 

This exemption for city officials is a major concern for many commissioners and community members. Redirecting cases to the MDCR forces a larger burden of proof on victims, presents a more complex system to navigate, and offers fewer legal protections than the City of East Lansing, commissioners have said. 

“We have more protections in this city than there are in the MDCR, and the MDCR would not have any role to play in certain protections of students or other protected sections of the city,” Commissioner Matthew Boughton said at the June 10 HRC meeting. 

When Councilmember Mark Meadows asked Young why city employees were excluded from local review, Young replied that under the city charter, personnel matters are handled by the city manager. He added that existing union contracts prevent individuals from participating in these types of investigations. 

“What happens is you have another entity that’s coming in there that is making decisions that by charter or by the practice … it’s not part of their tasks,” Young said. 

Another distinct change replaces the word “investigate” with “review” throughout the ordinance. City Attorney Gopi Patel noted that this aligns with a 1978 Michigan Attorney General’s opinion stating that human rights commissions are limited to an educational, counseling, and advisory role, rather than enforcement. 

Still, Patel believes the HRC preserved some authority by having the ability to receive complaints, evaluate evidence, and hear from both the complainant and the respondent in a public hearing. 

“That is a form of investigative fact-finding that the commission will be enacting in terms of their authority,” Patel said. “So while investigation was removed, I believe that there is still an inherent ability to investigate through those confines of the proposed amendment.”  

The fight has also moved to the courtroom. In addition to filing an initial federal lawsuit in Nov. 2025, Smith and Woods filed a second lawsuit on Tuesday seeking a judicial order to force East Lansing to pay each man $50,000, as the HRC ordered.

During the meeting, Singh asked if the remedies ordered by the HRC create a conflict with the ongoing federal litigation. 

“I’m limited in how we should answer that question in lieu of pending litigation, but to answer, yes,” Young said.

Mayor Pro Tem Chuck Grigsby said that during his own volunteer time on the HRC, it was difficult to get transparency from the city. He noted that while the group used to work around institutional barriers, the combination of new amendments and federal lawsuits has made the process deeply confusing. 

“They [HRC] were following the ordinance to what they felt like they had the right to do in regards to the way it was written,” Grigsby said. “With these revelations of the federal litigation and some conflict of interests, according to our city attorneys, it just really made it a very confusing place not only for them but for the community.” 

When asked whether East Lansing intends to pay the $50,000 damages or legally challenge the new June 16 lawsuit, Mayor Erik Altmann told ELi that he could not comment on pending litigation. 

The changes were approved amidst a series of policing scandals and a year after the city installed changes that weakened its Police Oversight Commission. Hoene believes the action sends a troubling message. 

“To completely overhaul a 60-year-old ordinance within a three-week time period without any collaboration with the commission responsible for overseeing the ordinance is a grave injustice and sends a message to the greater community that protecting human rights in our community is not a priority or even a concern for this council, the lawyers, or for city leaders.”