Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget And Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dearborn Heights council amends claims list after heated debate over legal invoices
Summary
Councilman Saab moved to withhold multiple ACH/wire claims, triggering a lengthy exchange about legal risk, contracts and a federal injunction. After amendment, the council voted to remove line item 13 from the payment list, while administration warned unilateral withholding could expose the city to litigation.
Council members clashed Sept. 23 over whether the administration should be ordered to pay a set of outstanding checks. Councilman Hassan Saab proposed removing several ACH/wire claims from the payments list, saying the council must ensure an "equal playing field" and that the administration should not selectively choose which vendors get paid.
Administration and the city—s legal advisers pushed back. Roger (identified in the meeting record as representing administration/legal counsel) warned that withholding payment of vendors who had already performed work could violate the city charter and an existing federal injunction, saying the move put the city at risk of litigation and would prevent the corporation counsel from carrying out duties to protect the city. He told the council that some legal vendors were representing the city in ongoing litigation and that stopping those payments would interfere with those defenses.
Councilman Robert Constant and others urged a more targeted remedy. Constant suggested adopting a resolution directing the administration to pay outstanding legal invoices immediately and pursue other remedies if the administration failed to comply. Several councilmembers proposed and debated amendments to Saab—s motion; after exchanging objections and clarifications, Saab amended his motion to remove only line item 13 from the claims list. The council then voted to approve the amended motion; the clerk recorded the outcome as "motion carries." The meeting record does not show a roll-call tally for this final votes but indicates the motion carried.
What it means: The outcome leaves the city with a narrowly drawn instruction to withhold payment for the single item identified as "13" while administration and council remain sharply divided about the proper process for paying vendors and handling disputed invoices. Administration repeatedly said unilateral withholding could result in more litigation and leave the city without necessary legal representation; council members emphasized accountability and questioned prior contract approvals and oversight.
Next steps: Council members requested better backup documentation for future claims and asked administration to provide clearer invoice itemization. The dispute was recorded as part of the claims-vetting discussion; councilmembers indicated they may pursue further clarifications and potential policy changes to prevent similar disagreements.
