Ethics plan dead

Last week, Lansing City Clerk Chris Swope refused to approve the measure. And Tuesday, Lansing Citizens for Ethics Reforms said it will not sue to force the city to place the measure on the November ballot.

Its head, Walt Sorg, expressed confidence the group would have prevailed in court. But he said:

“The cost of overturning the city’s administrative decision would have meant massive legal fees for both our committee and the city. We have therefore reluctantly decided not to litigate the city’s decision.”

Swope was presented with nearly 6,700 petition signatures, 4,000 of which needed to be validated to put the proposal on the ballot. But Swope refused to certify the initiative following a legal opinion issued by City Attorney Janene McIntyre. That 11- page opinion found the initiative would violate state laws as well as the Michigan Constitution.

“I applaud the goal of transparency in government,” Swope said in a prepared statement. “However, the City Attorney Office’s review documented a multitude of conflicts with the Michigan Constitution, state law and the City Charter. Per the City Charter, I cannot accept these petitions as ‘proper.’” Sorg said his group believes Swope did not have the legal authority to refuse to certify the petitions.

“The objections raised by the Mayor’s legal counsel fall outside of the city’s authority regarding ballot proposals,” he said, also in a prepared statement. “The city is limited by law to reviewing only the number of valid signatures, and that the petition complies in form with the technical requirements set by statute. We filed more than enough signatures, and the petition form fully complied with statute. That is where the city’s discretion for placing the issue on the ballot ends.

Any review of the substance of the petition can only be made by a court.”

But the legal opinion addressed that issue. “Legality is necessary for all ordinances to be proper i.e. Council should not pass an illegal ordinance, and the Clerk should not allow an illegal ordinance to be placed on the ballot,” McIntyre wrote in her opinion.

McIntyre’s legal opinion argued that the initiative violated a prohibition in the Michigan Constitution against using city credit or coffers for “any private interest.” She argued the public financing action in the initiative —up to $25 reimbursement per election cycle for campaign contributions — violated that provision.

She also argued the initiative included three specific issues under one general heading: public financing of campaigns, lobbyist registration and review and a tightening of the ethics ordinance. Michigan law requires that initiatives address only one issue at a time.

In addition, McIntyre argued the city is prohibited from regulating or registering lobbyists under state law.

The initiative, while represented by local political players, including Sorg, was being funded by the national group Represent.us. That agency said it had already spent $25,000 on the initiative, largely to pay a California-based petition circulation company to collect the necessary signatures to qualify for the ballot. Dan Krassner, a spokesman for the organization, said the group was prepared to spend up to $50,000 to push the initiative in Lansing. He was unavailable for comment Tuesday.

The group financed a lawsuit in Tallahassee, Fla., last year when that municipality sued to prevent an initiative backed by Represent.us from being placed on the ballot.

The group prevailed in a Florida court and the initiative won the backing of 67 percent of voters in November.