• @Thrive_through_fury · 1 like May 21, 2026

    Here’s a breakdown of the legal framework that would apply in a situation where financial bills are paid by private communications directly from a Mayor prior to commission approval involving the City of Lapeer and Mayor Jeremy Hing. 1. Lapeer City Charter & Commission Authority I could not locate the full current Lapeer City Charter text online in a searchable official format, but multiple public records and meeting summaries show that the Lapeer City Commission functions as the governing body approving: * bill listings, * contracts, * appropriations, * appointments, * and policy changes. That matters because in most Michigan commission-manager systems: * the commission/council controls legislative and spending authority; * the mayor is often primarily: * ceremonial, * presiding, * agenda-related, * or limited executive authority unless delegated. If a mayor privately approved or authorized payment of a bill before commission approval was legally required, the core issue becomes: Was the mayor acting: * under delegated authority? * under an existing budget appropriation? * as routine administrative processing? * or outside charter authority entirely? If outside delegated authority, the action could potentially be considered: * ultra vires (outside lawful authority), * improper expenditure authorization, * or circumvention of legislative approval. ⸻ 2. Michigan Municipal Finance Statutes Michigan municipal spending is governed largely through: * the Revised Municipal Finance Act, * local charter provisions, * budget acts, * procurement ordinances, * and fiduciary duties of public officials. Michigan law places emphasis on lawful appropriations and authorized expenditures. Key legal concepts: A. Public money cannot generally be spent without lawful authorization That authorization may come from: * annual budgets, * appropriations, * approved contracts, * emergency authority, * or delegated administrative authority. If none existed beforehand, paying first and voting later becomes legally vulnerable. ⸻ B. Retroactive approval can be problematic Some municipalities later “ratify” actions already taken administratively. That is not automatically illegal. However, if: * the payment already occurred, * the city became contractually bound, * or the commission no longer realistically had the ability to reject the expenditure, then the public vote may arguably become a formality instead of genuine deliberation. That is where Open Meetings and charter issues begin overlapping. ⸻ 3. Michigan Open Meetings Act (OMA) Michigan’s Open Meetings Act requires governmental decisions and deliberations to occur openly. The law applies to: * councils, * commissions, * committees, * authorities, * and other public bodies. Potential OMA problems in your scenario A violation becomes more plausible if: * the decision was effectively finalized privately before public vote; * commissioners coordinated outside public meeting; * contracts were executed before official approval; * or the commission’s later vote was only ceremonial. Michigan courts often focus on: * whether a “decision” was effectively made outside public session; * not merely whether an official vote eventually happened. The Michigan Municipal League specifically warns municipalities about: * “round robining,” * email quorum discussions, * and private consensus-building outside meetings. ⸻ Important nuance: Officials can discuss matters privately in limited ways. The key distinction is whether: * discussion occurred, vs. * actual deliberation/decision-making occurred outside public process. That line becomes fact-specific. ⸻ 4. Could the Action Be Invalid? Possibly. Under Michigan OMA: * courts can invalidate decisions made in violation of the Act; * require “do-over” votes; * issue injunctions; * and award attorney fees in some cases. If a contract or payment approval occurred improperly: * a court could potentially void the action, * though courts often weigh practical harm and timing. ⸻ 5. Possible Citizen / Taxpayer Remedies A. FOIA Requests Michigan’s FOIA law can be extremely important here. Citizens can request: * invoices, * payment records, * emails, * text messages on city devices, * contracts, * purchase orders, * meeting minutes, * approval dates, * and communications between officials. This is usually the first step in proving whether: * payment happened before approval, * discussions occurred privately, * or authority was bypassed. You can submit FOIA requests directly to: City of Lapeer You would want records showing: * date bill was incurred, * date payment authorized, * date payment issued, * date commission voted, * who signed approval, * and internal communications. ⸻ B. State Attorney General / OMA Lawsuits Citizens can sue under the Open Meetings Act. Possible outcomes: * injunctions, * invalidation of decisions, * court orders for compliance, * attorney fees, * civil penalties in some circumstances. ⸻ C. Michigan Treasury / Auditor Complaints If public funds were improperly spent, complaints may potentially go to: * Michigan Treasury, * state auditors, * or local independent auditors. Especially if there are: * unauthorized expenditures, * procurement violations, * or accounting irregularities. ⸻ D. Recall Procedures Michigan allows recall of elected officials. A recall does not require proving criminal conduct. It can be based on: * misconduct, * abuse of authority, * ethics concerns, * or policy disagreement. But: * recall language must be approved, * signatures gathered, * and procedural requirements are strict. ⸻ E. Ethics / Misconduct Complaints Michigan unfortunately does not have a universal local municipal ethics enforcement system for every city. However: * charter violations, * abuse of office, * conflicts of interest, * or misconduct can still become: * political issues, * civil litigation, * audit findings, * or criminal investigations in severe cases. ⸻ 6. What Evidence Would Matter Most? The strongest evidence would usually be: * payment date before vote date, * signed approvals before commission authorization, * emails showing pre-decided outcomes, * contract execution before public approval, * statements indicating the vote was merely procedural, * or commissioners discussing quorum business privately. That is what tends to distinguish: * routine administrative processing, from: * potentially unlawful circumvention. ⸻ 7. One Important Caution Not every “payment before vote” situation is illegal. Cities often process: * utilities, * payroll, * emergency repairs, * recurring invoices, * or previously budgeted expenditures administratively. So the crucial legal question is: Did the commission legally need to approve the expenditure before the city became obligated or funds were disbursed? That answer usually depends on: * the charter, * city ordinances, * spending thresholds, * procurement rules, * and prior appropriations.

  • @RANDYLAWRENCE-p3h · 1 like May 20, 2026

    Commissioner Brady has once again shown his dislike of the Mayor by only offering up a plaque. We should be taking that money and putting it with private donations to take down the courthouse and construct the new Hing Ballroom. We should also remove the water fountain and replace that with a gold statue so the local christians can kiss his ring each time they pass.