Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dearborn Heights council narrowly removes one invoice amid fight over paying legal bills
Summary
A heated council debate over selective payment of legal invoices led to council removing one invoice from a claims list after members argued administration had withheld other legal checks; administration and legal counsel warned that halting payments could violate a federal injunction.
Council members on Sept. 23 engaged in a heated debate over whether to authorize payment of several legal invoices, ultimately voting to remove one line item from the current claims list.
The dispute began when Councilman Hasan (Moe) Saab moved to remove several claim line items from the list of payments the council was being asked to approve. Saab said the administration had been choosing which legal invoices to pay and which to withhold and argued the council must ensure equal treatment: "So it's either you pay everybody or nobody's gonna get paid," he said.
Administration leaders and outside counsel pushed back. Special legal counsel told the council that halting payment to lawyers who had performed work risked violating a federal injunction and could impede legal protections for the city. On the record, counsel said the council’s action could expose the city to legal liability and litigation. In response to those warnings, Saab amended his motion to remove just item 13 from the claims list. The motion to remove item 13 passed by voice vote.
Why it matters: The exchange exposed a broader tension between council members and the administration over control of contracts, legal spending and transparency. Council members who opposed withholding payments argued vendors had already provided services and should be paid; others said some contracts had been executed or paid outside council-authorized limits. Legal counsel and administration officials repeatedly cautioned that selective nonpayment could prompt additional lawsuits or be out of compliance with a court order.
What was argued: Supporters of the removal characterized the action as a tool to force consistent, council-directed payment practices. Opponents said that refusing to pay attorneys who had already worked for the city would be unfair and legally risky. Special counsel said the council was "in violation of the federal injunction" if it unilaterally stopped paying lawyers under active engagements.
What happens next: Council instructed staff to follow up on the specific invoices and requested updated back-up documentation for removed items. The administration and counsel said they would convey any legal implications in writing and recommended that the council consult the city charter and the court orders governing the litigation.
Attribution: Quotes and positions in this article are drawn from statements by Councilman Saab and remarks from city legal counsel and administration made during the Sept. 23 council meeting.
