City of Lapeer City Commission Meeting - December 1, 2025 - Part 2

The meeting was characterized by intense interpersonal conflict and significant procedural breakdowns among the commissioners. The primary point of contention was a dispute regarding whether the Mayor has the unilateral authority to direct staff to implement seating changes for the dais. This led to a lengthy debate involving interpretations of the City Charter, Robert's Rules of Order, and the distinction between executive and legislative powers.

The tension escalated into a debate over the conduct of Commissioner Stefan Brady, eventually leading to a motion to censure him for "dilatory behavior." While the commission struggled to maintain order, they did manage to pass a motion establishing that the Mayor shall have the authority to assign seats on the dais, subject to an appeal process. The meeting also addressed the reappointment of Kathy Melrose to the Board of Review, despite some commissioners expressing concerns regarding the lack of a formal interview or vetting process for such appointments.

• Authority over meeting logistics: Debate over the Mayor's power to direct staff regarding seating and meeting structure.
• Seating arrangements: Implementation of a new rule for dais assignments.
• Commission Conduct: The censure of Commissioner Stefan Brady for disruptive and dilatory behavior.
• Board Appointments: The reappointment process for the Board of Review and the DDA.
• Legislative vs. Executive Power: Disputes over whether the Mayor can make motions or issue directives without commission approval.

• Jeramy Hing, Mayor: Presiding officer; involved in the dispute regarding his authority to issue directives.
• Stefan Brady, Commissioner: The subject of a censure motion; accused of disrupting the meeting.
• Lynne McCarthy, Commissioner: Moved the motions for the new seating rule and the censure of Commissioner Brady.
• Melissa Petrie, Commissioner (Mayor Pro-Tem): Supported several motions and emphasized the need for teamwork.
• Linda Glisman, Commissioner: Supported several motions; expressed concern regarding the lack of vetting for appointments.
• Joshua C. Atwood, Commissioner: Opposed the new seating rule; moved the motion for the Board of Review reappointment.
• Mike Womack, City Manager: Mentioned regarding his role in executing meeting directives and his recent memorandum.
• City Attorney: Referenced throughout regarding legal opinions on seating and the Mayor's authority.

• Seating Rule Adoption: The commission voted to allow the Mayor to assign seats on the dais, with the requirement that assignments be announced 24 hours in advance and are subject to appeal to the full commission by a majority vote.
• Censure of Commissioner Brady: The commission voted to censure Commissioner Brady for the remainder of the meeting due to dilatory behavior.
• Board of Review Reappointment: The commission voted to reappoint Kathy Melrose to the Board of Review.
• Procedural Dispute: A significant portion of the meeting was spent debating the legality of the Mayor's emails and directives issued prior to the meeting.

• Next Scheduled Meeting: December 15, 2025.
• Deadline for Seating Announcements: At least 24 hours prior to the next scheduled meeting.
• Board of Review Term Expiration: January 1, 2029 (for Kathy Melrose).

• Motivation for Seating Motion: Commissioner McCarthy stated the goal was to "put a nail in the coffin" of the dispute to prevent future delays and high attorney fees.
• Reason for Censure: Commissioner McCarthy and the Chair cited "dilatory behavior" and the disruption of the meeting process as the basis for censoring Commissioner Brady.
• Concerns Over Appointments: Commissioner Atwood and Commissioner Glisman expressed hesitation regarding appointments because they had not personally interviewed the candidates.

• Mayor Jeramy Hing: Attempted to maintain order; argued that his directives were intended to be organizational rather than punitive and defended his right to preside.
• Commissioner Stefan Brady: Highly argumentative; argued that the Mayor was usurping legislative power and that the commission's authority was being undermined by unilateral mayoral directives.
• Commissioner Lynne McCarthy: Acted as a primary driver of the meeting's agenda; sought to establish clear rules to prevent future procedural disputes. able
• Commissioner Melissa Petrie: Advocated for unity and professional cooperation between the commission and city staff.
• Commissioner Joshua C. Atwood: Strongly opposed the shift in seating authority and raised concerns about the lack of transparency in the appointment process.
• Commissioner Linda Glisman: Focused on the need for proper vetting of appointments and expressed frustration with the level of division on the board.

• Motion to change seating rules: "That the city commission seating on the dais shall be under the authority of the duly elected city mayor to be assigned now and at future dates with no limitations with assignments announced at least 24 hours prior to the next scheduled meeting, allowing any city commissioner to appeal the seat assignment to the full commission for a majority vote, while the mayor retains the default power for a tie vote but lets the commission overrule in extreme cases."
  • Moved by: Commissioner McCarthy.
  • Seconded by: Commissioner Petri.
  • Result: Passed.
  • Roll Call: McCarthy (Yes), Petri (Yes), Glisman (Yes), Brady (No), Atwood (No).
• Motion to censure Commissioner Brady: "That Commissioner Brady be censured for the remainder of this meeting [for dilatory behavior]."
  • Moved by: Commissioner McCarthy.
  • Seconded by: Commissioner Glisman.
  • Result: Passed.
  • Roll Call: Atwood (No), Brady (No), Glisman (Yes), Petri (Yes), McCarthy (Yes).
• Motion to reappoint Kathy Melrose to the Board of Review:
  • Moved by: Commissioner Atwood.
  • Seconded by: Commissioner Brady.
  • Result: Passed.
  • Roll Call: Atwood (Yes), Brady (Yes), Glisman (Yes), Petri (Yes), McCarthy (Yes).

• The "Seating Dispute": A lengthy debate over whether the Mayor's email regarding seating was a "directive" or a "proposal," and whether such a change required a two-thirds vote or a simple majority.
• The Legality of the Mayor's Authority: Whether the Mayor has the power to instruct the City Manager to retract memos or change meeting structures.
• Appointment Vetting: A debate over whether the commission should "blindly" reappoint members to boards based solely on the recommendation of the boards themselves without conducting independent interviews.

• Manual Update: The new seating rules are to be added to the rules and procedures manual.
• Distribution of Manual: The updated manual must be provided to all commissioners by the December 15, 2025, meeting.

• Public Reaction: The public comment period revealed a divided community. Some residents criticized Commissioner Brady for being disruptive and causing the meeting to stall, while others expressed a desire for the commission to find unity and move past political differences.

• Commissioner Brady: "I am convinced that there is a usurp of power... I am not willing to hand over anything as stupid as a seat and who gets to pick the seats."
• Commissioner McCarthy: "I thought the white noise that was created, the division that was created was from people not really willing to accept change."
• Public Comment (Jacob Loy): "Mr. Stefan Brady, you have frustrated this meeting at every opportunity... it is ridiculous."

• Commissioner Atwood: "How is this transparent? How do we operate through email and then make motions at public meetings?"
• Commissioner Glisman: "Why would we [reappoint] if we don't know this person? I don't know this person. Why would I put my seal of approval on somebody that I don't know nothing about?"
• Commissioner Brady: "Is it the two-thirds question or is this not the two-thirds question?"

Overall Sentiment

The audience appears critical and derisive, using hyperbolic language to express dissatisfaction with the commission's proceedings and questioning the commitment of those in office.

Chat Timeline

[11:26 – 30:50] The chat expresses derision regarding the ongoing discussions about seating.

[30:50 – 50:42] The tone shifts toward much harsher political criticism, including accusations of tyranny and questioning the dedication of officials to their roles.

Notable Messages

[11:26] "Still on seating....a bunch of children." — @TheIsaiahPLG

[30:50] "ladies and gents this is what tyranny looks like." — @austinwilbanks9582

[50:32] "if you dont want to stay up late to do your role stop running ladies" — @austinwilbanks9582

Community Sentiment on Key Moments

• The audience reacted with mockery toward the time spent discussing seating arrangements.
• There was significant pushback against the perceived lack of effort or late-night commitment from those running for office.