Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Controls topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rebuked over procurement policy gaps after split training invoice and public complaints
Summary
Public commenters and some council members challenged administration practices after a mayoral-office training invoice was split into two claims. Auditors listed procurement as a repeat finding; administration said prior procurement policy proposals were denied by council and urged a policy revamp.
Resident speakers and elected officials pressed Dearborn Heights administrators on procurement controls during the March 18 study session after a training engagement and its invoicing drew public scrutiny.
Zohar al Hadid, a resident who addressed the council during public comment, said the city received an invoice for leadership training that was split into two claims and accused officials of hiding information. “There wasn't any document of the attendees of that meeting... They refused to give any information,” al Hadid said, adding later, “that was a lie and that was a forgery.”
Mariana, the city's chief of staff, told the council the training was a team-building session attended by city directors and that the split claims reflected a down payment for supplies and a subsequent final payment. “The only reason it was paid from the mayor's department is because the HR department didn't have a budget that particular year,” Mariana said, explaining why the mayor’s office handled payment. She urged residents with questions to meet with her privately to review the documentation and said the event was held at a city facility and presented by the contractor to council when the purchase was approved.
Auditor Jay Wild flagged procurement policy as one of two repeat findings in the fiscal 2024 audit and told the council that the city’s charter thresholds and internal policies are not fully aligned. Wild said procurement was a repeat item and recommended the city adopt clearer documented procedures consistent with statutory and federal guidance for grant-funded purchases.
Council members and staff noted the city previously considered procurement updates. Mariana and staff said procurement policy drafts and sample templates, including models recommended by Plante Moran and the Michigan Municipal League, were presented to council in prior years and were not adopted; council members said versions were rejected because proposed dollar thresholds were higher than the charter’s $1,500 signing limit. One council member noted the federal procurement requirement (CFR 2 C.F.R. 200) applies when federal funds are involved, which can impose additional documentation and competitive-solicitation requirements.
Administration and several council members recommended restarting the procurement discussion with fresh templates and clearer thresholds. Mariana said Plante Moran had recommended the Traverse City model and provided sample language to the council for consideration. Several council members also called for monthly transparency reports listing all vendor payments to make low-dollar payments visible to council and the public.
The public debate over this single invoice triggered wider calls from residents and some council members to revisit procurement limits, check-signing authorities, and the city’s claims reporting practices so similar questions do not recur.
