Committee forwards Dykema Gossett invoice and contract question to formal after tax-clearance and timing disputes

The Committee of the Whole moved contract number 6006481, a city contract with Dykema Gossett (listed on the agenda as a Dykema/Dykemagossett entry) for help obtaining telecommunication services and connectivity, to the council's formal session with a recommendation to deny after extended questioning about timing, invoicing and tax-clearance delays.

Crystal Rollins Weggum, a database administrator in the law department responsible for contracts, told the committee that the law department first received engagement documents in January 2024 but did not receive fully executed contract documents until June. Tax-clearance was initially denied because Dykema owed roughly $1,200; Rollins Weggum said Treasury worked with the vendor and tax clearance was granted on October 22. Because of those delays, the contract’s expiration date was extended from January 5, 2025, to January 5, 2026.

Corporation Counsel Conrad Mallett said the matter began as a potentially large federal/state opportunity tied to broadband/cable funding and that the governor’s actions reallocated most of the funds to rural programs, which reduced the city’s need for the firm’s services. “No one is supposed to do work on any contract. No one is supposed to incur any bills associated with a contract until the Detroit City Council has voted on that contract,” Mallett said; he added he did not intend for the matter to become lengthy and that the work ultimately was limited.

Council members flagged inconsistencies in the paperwork and invoice. Committee members referenced a contract ceiling of $25,000, an asserted earlier figure of about $15,000, and an invoice figure described in committee as roughly $19,500. Member Mary Waters asked why the contract covered through January 2026 if the firm had already performed the work; Rollins Weggum and Graham Anderson of the law department said the extended date was a procedural accommodation required by procurement once the paperwork delay occurred. Several council members pressed staff to simply pay the invoice for services rendered and not keep an open multi‑year contract that could permit additional work without a fresh council vote.

After discussion, a motion was made to send line item 7.5 to formal with a recommendation to deny; the motion carried by unanimous consent ("hearing no objection, that action shall be taken").

Clarifying details recorded in the meeting transcript: the contract listed a total amount of $25,000, the outstanding invoice discussed in committee was described as about $19,500, and the vendor’s tax clearance initially failed for approximately $1,200 before being cleared on Oct. 22. Committee members asked that the law department consider shortening the contract term or paying the invoice directly if appropriate.

Why it matters: The discussion raised recurring oversight concerns about legal procurement and outside counsel billing. Council members emphasized that vendors should not perform billable work before final council approval and asked staff to tighten the process.