Dearborn Heights council holds closed sessions on Swope lawsuit after insurer objects

The Dearborn Heights City Council voted on Feb. 11 to convene a closed session to discuss the pending federal lawsuit Swope v. Dearborn Heights and to review attorney-client privileged communications, despite an objection from the city's insurer, Michigan Municipal Risk Management Authority (MMRMA).

MMRMA notified council members by email that it objected to the closed session and said it had not been included in planned discussions that relate to the insurer's coverage and legal representation. At the meeting a council member said MMRMA had advised the council "you do not go forward with this closed session," and that the insurer had asked special counsel to call the council chair and advise against proceeding. The speaker also cited the city charter, section 5.13(j), and a December court opinion addressing when a council may hire separate counsel in litigation.

Councilman Hassan Saab moved to go into closed session at 5:29 p.m., specifying the council would discuss Swope v. Dearborn Heights and that special legal counsel Miyake would be included. Councilman Hassan Ahmad seconded. The clerk conducted a roll call: Hassan Ahmad (yes), Moe Bay Doon (yes), Nancy Bridal (yes), Robert Constant (absent), Denise Malinowski Maxwell (yes), Hassan Saab (yes), and Tom Wenzel (yes). The motion carried.

The council recessed to closed session and returned to open session at 6:14 p.m. After returning, Councilman Hassan Ahmad moved that the council "take in care of the recommendation of the special legal counsel with regards of item 15a," and later moved that the council "concur with the recommendation of the special legal counsel in regards of item 15b." Both motions were seconded by Councilman Hassan Saab and were approved by voice vote. A council member stated for the record a standing objection to items 15a and 15b.

The council identified the specific motions discussed in closed session as relating to motion 25-058 and stated the second closed session would address written attorney-client privileged communications exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Meeting remarks said MMRMA pays the legal bills for the city in this matter and that proceeding without insurer involvement could raise contract and open-meetings concerns; the council nonetheless approved the closed-session motions and later accepted the special legal counsel's recommendations on the two items. The meeting record did not disclose the details of the legal recommendations or of privileged communications discussed in closed session.

The council adjourned the special meeting shortly after the votes. No further public details were released at the meeting about the substance of the litigation or the recommendations adopted.