The pattern · the motions themselves
A motion is what the commission actually votes on. Before the 2025 election, a Lapeer motion was usually one sentence, and the details got worked out in the discussion. Now the important ones show up as long, finished legal documents, written before the meeting even starts. So who wrote them?
Two kinds of motion
Same four commissioners, before and after. On the left, a motion from before the election. On the right, one from after. You do not need a law degree to see the difference.
To confirm the Mayor’s appointment of Jeffrey Pattison to the Planning Commission for a term to expire August 1, 2027.
Moved that the City Commission adopt a corrective finding regarding Commissioner Joshua Atwood’s conduct at the June 1, 2026, meeting. The Commission finds that the conduct violated Section D(6) of the Commission Rules and Procedures by speaking without recognition, failing to confine remarks to the question at hand, making personal comments regarding the Mayor’s motives, and continuing to speak after repeated rulings of the chair.
The Commission further finds that this conduct correlates with Charter §C-6.6, which provides that a member who fails to conduct himself in an orderly manner at a meeting is deemed guilty of misconduct in office. This finding is not a final adjudication of misconduct in office.
The Commission also recognizes that a prior threatening statement by Commissioner Atwood to the Mayor, “You want to go toe to toe with me?”, was removed from the record when the related minutes were approved under the Commission’s action-only practice. The Commission clarifies that action-only minutes do not prevent the Commission from taking formal action to preserve a specific conduct concern, transcript excerpt, video reference, or corrective finding.
This action is corrective and record-preserving only. It is not a removal proceeding or final adjudication of misconduct in office. The Commission directs that the relevant transcript excerpts, video references, and this corrective finding be preserved in the record, and provides notice that continued similar conduct may be referred to the City Attorney for formal review under Charter §C-6.6.
What to notice
A motion normally asks the commission to decide something. This one reads like a court ruling that has already decided. Four things give it away:
It kept happening
The same night, a second one hit Commissioner Brady. It is even longer. It lists seven past meeting dates in order and cites two charter sections and a Robert’s Rules rule. Read the one line below, or open the whole thing.
“… a recurring pattern … across multiple meetings: December 1 and 15, 2025, and January 5, March 2, April 6, May 4, and May 18, 2026.”
Move that the City Commission adopt a corrective and record-preserving finding regarding Commissioner Stefan Brady’s recurring use of points of order, appeals, motions, and division requests to obstruct business, personalize debate, repeat matters already ruled upon, or force debate on matters not properly before the Commission. These are legitimate parliamentary tools, and this finding does not diminish their proper use; it addresses Commissioner Brady’s misuse of them.
The Commission finds that its minutes reflect a recurring pattern of such conduct that the chair has had to rule dilatory or out of order across multiple meetings: December 1 and 15, 2025, and January 5, March 2, April 6, May 4, and May 18, 2026.
As to June 1, 2026, the Commission finds that the chair acted in good faith to enforce order based on conduct rather than viewpoint; that Commissioner Brady nonetheless raised a point of order stating no breach of the rules, used it to move to censure the chair, and placed an accusation of “abuse of power” on the record; that the motion rested on a premise the speaker never stated and was made immediately after the City Attorney confirmed the speaker’s conduct became disorderly when she failed to stop after direction; that, during deliberation, the City Attorney affirmed the Mayor’s interpretation of the policy was proper and declined to call the chair’s enforcement an abuse of power; and that the proper remedy for disagreement with a ruling is an appeal, not a censure of the presiding officer.
The Commission finds this an improper use of parliamentary procedure under RONR §39 that functioned as a deliberate attack on the chair. The censure motion failed and established no abuse of authority.
The Commission finds that this conduct, and the sustained pattern of which it is the most recent and best-documented part, falls within the orderly-conduct concerns of Charter §C-6.6 and provides grounds for a charge of misconduct in office. The incidents documented here are representative, not exhaustive. This finding rests on the Commission’s authority under Charter §C-6.7 and is not a final adjudication of misconduct in office.
The action is corrective and record-preserving only. The Commission directs that the relevant minutes, transcript excerpts, video references, and this finding be preserved in the record, and provides notice that continued similar conduct may be ruled dilatory by the chair, confined to the procedural question, or referred to the City Attorney for formal review under Charter §C-6.6.
The motion to hire an outside investigator is the same story: bulleted clauses, a legal term of art, and a citation to the closed-session law.
“… Bodman PLC’s findings be reported to the full Commission in privileged session under MCL §15.268(1)(h) … anything protected by attorney-client privilege may not be disclosed without full Commission action to waive privilege.”
Authorize the engagement of Bodman PLC as outside investigator for the complaint identified in the meeting notice, under an engagement letter to be executed on behalf of the City;
Before, none of it
For the two years before the election, the same core commissioners passed budgets, hired contractors, and argued over appointments, all in plain sentences. Across 57 meetings, not one motion contains a finding of fact. No censure. No “corrective finding.” None of this existed until the new majority arrived.
To give the City Manager Womack a bonus of $5,000 for the cost of living over the last year.
To approve the agreement between the City of Lapeer and Macomb Mechanical to replace the hot water boilers at the Lapeer Community Center not to exceed $57,641.
Who wrote them
A finished legal document does not write itself between the gavel and the vote. Someone drafted these before the meeting: picked the charter sections, lined up the seven dates. Michigan’s Open Meetings Act says a commission is supposed to do its deliberating in public, out loud. The minutes show these motions showing up already finished. So:
Commissioners’ emails, texts, and drafts about city business are public records. Anyone can ask the city clerk for them. The voting pattern these motions lock in is laid out in the full timeline.
Keep digging