Smiertka tries to deceive city council

July 31, 2023

At last Monday's city council meeting, there was a struggle between the city attorney and the city council over two ethics complaints. One was the complaint against council member Jeffrey Brown, which was signed by Mayor Andy Schor and five council members. At Monday's meeting, the council voted unanimously to dismiss the complaint. Some of the charges could not be substantiated and others were for actions on the part of Brown that were not clearly unethical.

So why did five council members sign on in the first place? Because the city attorney, acting on behalf of Mayor Schor, coerced them into doing so. The State Journal reports that

[Councilmembers] Hussain and Spitzley told the State Journal they were "strongly, legally advised" to sign the complaint against Brown. Garza and Wood told the State Journal they signed on the complaint due to their legal obligations as council leaders.

Why would they not believe the city attorney when he tells them they have a legal obligation to sign? His job is to advise them as well as the mayor. But he lied to them. They had no obligation to sign. Schor just thought his frivolous ethics complaint would be less likely to be questioned if council members signed on.

Why Schor was so determined to smear Brown is unknown, other than Brown was one of the council members who voted to override his veto of the budget in May.

The second ethics complaint was prepared by Lansing community activist Erica Lynn. She wanted city council to review it and support it. It was in regard to the solicitation email that Schor sent in June. I wrote about it in my June 27 story. Lynn did not think it was proper for Schor to raise money to support the campaigns of his preferred candidates, or to send it under his title as mayor, or to use the city logo. Also, the email went to the work email addresses of some city employees, which Lynn saw as misuse of city resources.

In a letter to city council, Smiertka found no problem with Schor's solicitation. Council member Patricia Spitzley wasn't buying it. She said she would like an outside review of Smiertka's opinion. Smierka resisted, saying

We have vetted this opinion. We have researched, we have very a talented office. I see no reason to go outside because we've issued an opinion. You're questioning our credibility.

He then said that council did not have the power to request outside counsel. In response, councilmember Ryan Kost read the relevant city charter passage:

No board or officer shall employ or retain special counsel in any matter relating to the affairs of the city without first securing the approval of such employment or retainer by the City Council. The City Council shall act only after requesting the City Attorney’s written opinion.

The council did get the city attorney's opinion and disagreed. Spitzley moved to seek outside counsel and the motion was approved 7-0.

Smiertka's next attempt to block the ethics complaint against Schor was to claim that discussion of the complaint by city council could put them at risk of a misdemeanor for violation of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. Section 57(1)(d) says that the use of a pubic facility cannot be granted one candidate if other candidates are not given the same opportunity. There was no way this applied to this situation. A city council discussion is not a campaign event. It was a desperate attempt by Smiertka to protect the guy who appointed him.

More from the LSJ on the ethics complaint against Schor here. There is also a 3 hour, 25 minute discussion of the July 25 city council meeting and the ethics complaints on Merica 20 to Life, the website of Mike and Erica Lynn.

Send comments, questions, and tips to stevenrharry@gmail.com or call or text me at 517-730-2638. If you'd like to be notified by email when I post a new story, let me know.

Previous stories