Dearborn Heights council holds closed session on Swope litigation after dispute over counsel

The Dearborn Heights City Council voted Feb. 25 to meet in closed session to discuss pending litigation, Swope et al. v. Dearborn Heights, after several council members said they were uncomfortable with certain attorneys attending the session.

Why it matters: The dispute during the special meeting centered on who should participate in privileged attorney–client discussion about active litigation and whether the city should follow the recommendation of its assigned municipal insurance counsel (MMRMA). Council action to enter closed session and a later vote to “concur in part” with city counsel set the council’s formal position while the litigation proceeds.

At 5:37 p.m., Councilman Hassan Ahmad moved that the council go into closed session “so the city council may discuss the pending litigation, Swope et al. v. Dearborn Heights,” naming possible attendees including the chief of staff, corporation counsel (at the request of Monica Hunt, the MMRMA-assigned attorney), and special legal counsel Miyake; the motion was seconded and approved. The council returned to open session at 6:23 p.m.

Several council members voiced objections to having administration attorneys and certain outside counsel in the closed session. Multiple members said they were “not comfortable” with those individuals participating and expressed concerns about conflicts of interest and charter authority over appointment of special counsel. The transcript records council members urging adherence to the MMRMA-assigned attorney’s request while also stating personal discomfort with particular counsel being present.

After returning to open session, Councilman Robert Constance moved that the council “concur in part” with the recommendation of the city attorney, Monica Hunt; the motion was seconded by Councilman Tom Wenzel and carried by voice vote. The council did not publish the full text of the recommendation in the meeting record; the motion as recorded indicates the council agreed in part with counsel’s recommendation but does not specify which portions were adopted or any implementation steps.

Votes at a glance - Agenda approval: Motion to approve the Feb. 25, 2025 special meeting agenda. Mover: Councilman Hassan Ahmad; second: Councilman Hassan Saab. Outcome: approved by voice vote. - Closed session on Swope et al. v. Dearborn Heights: Motion to enter closed session at 5:37 p.m. Mover: Councilman Hassan Ahmad; second: Councilwoman Bridal. Roll-call vote recorded as: Hassan Ahmad — yes; Moby Du — yes; Nancy Briar — yes; Robert Constance — yes; Denise Malinowski Maxwell — yes; Hassan Saab — yes; Tom Wenzel — yes. Outcome: approved; council entered closed session at 5:37 p.m.; returned to open session at 6:23 p.m. - Concur in part with city attorney recommendation: Mover: Councilman Robert Constance; second: Councilman Tom Wenzel. Outcome: approved (voice vote); specific text of adopted portions not specified on the record. - Adjournment: Motion to adjourn the special meeting. Mover: Councilman Hassan Saab; second: Councilwoman Bridal. Outcome: approved by voice vote.

What the record shows and does not show - The transcript documents repeated concern among council members about the presence of particular counsel in the closed session and references to potential conflicts of interest; it records references to city charter sections related to counsel authority but does not include a formal legal ruling in the minutes. - The council approved entering closed session and later approved a motion to “concur in part” with the city attorney’s recommendation; the meeting record does not include the full written recommendation or any follow-up implementation steps.

Context and next steps - The item discussed in closed session is active litigation (Swope et al. v. Dearborn Heights). The council’s public actions on Feb. 25 set a procedural posture (closed-session discussion and partial concurrence with city counsel) but do not, on the public record, disclose detailed legal analysis or instructions that may have been given in private. - The council’s votes indicate unanimous support on the motions recorded; the record lists one member as absent earlier in the meeting but shows roll-call yes votes for seven members on the closed-session motion. No schedule for further public action on the litigation was announced during the special meeting.