Residents press commission on transparency and alleged First Amendment concerns during public comment

Several residents used the meeting’s public‑comment period to press the Lapeer City Commission on meeting conduct, First Amendment rights and the choice to engage Bodman PLC for an investigation.

Karen Boscho of Metamora said she had watched a Deerfield Township meeting and urged the commission to consider different meeting practices. She disputed a statement that attorney‑client privilege had been violated and said local policy cannot override First Amendment protections: “the First Amendment trumps all of it,” she said, and added she is preparing a detailed complaint and that outside organizations are watching the commission’s religious‑aspect concerns.

Gerald Jakey asked why the city would hire Bodman PLC again when the firm was already engaged on other matters, calling the arrangement potentially conflicting. Bridget (Gigi) Griffith voiced similar confusion about rehiring the same firm and applauded downtown volunteer efforts. John D'Angelus said labor attorneys are specialized and that dual engagements are not necessarily a conflict.

Those public comments foreshadowed the commissioners’ debate during the administrative agenda, where questions about perception of conflict, the source of referral, whether the city attorney had issued written opinions, and whether the city’s insurer had been consulted featured prominently.

The commission went on to authorize Bodman PLC’s engagement and to add a friendly amendment protecting attorney‑client privileged materials; questions from public commenters about First Amendment and conflict concerns were recorded but not resolved in the meeting transcript.

The commission’s authorization requires a budget amendment at the June 1, 2026 regular meeting; public commenters indicated they may pursue outside review or legal action if they believe their rights or procedural norms were violated.