Clawson council declines immediate contract extension for city attorney, punts decision to next meeting

Clawson — The Clawson City Council debated the status of the city attorney’s contract for nearly three hours on Feb. 3 before rejecting a motion to renew the attorney’s agreement through June 30, 2026.

Resident Jamie Gills opened public comment urging the council to “exclude the conflicted party from the deliberation of his own contract” and to hire an independent interim counsel, arguing the contract expired in January 2025 and continued service without a valid contract creates legal risk. Several other residents and council members urged a cautious, transparent process.

Mayor Moffatt proposed a limited renewal to maintain continuity for active litigation while the city runs an RFP for long-term counsel and forms a three-person committee to manage the search. Supporters said a short extension would preserve continuity for matters "in flight." Opponents, including Councilor Rinkevich and others, said the council needs an independent legal review of whether the charter created a lapse and cautioned that a so-called bridge agreement could weaken council’s position if the contract’s status were litigated.

The motion to extend the contract failed on roll call, with the recorded vote 3 in favor and 4 opposed. Council then voted to place a fuller discussion of the attorney contract and the formation of an RFP committee on the next council agenda. The city attorney said he would provide legal analysis for the council’s consideration.

Council members framed three options: (1) extend or formalize the existing arrangement for a defined short-term period; (2) retain interim outside counsel to handle conflicts and provide independent review; or (3) immediately initiate an open RFP for city legal services. The mayor said her priority was to “put the best interest of the city first” and avoid interruptions to ongoing cases; others emphasized transparency and independent review of prior advice.

What happens next: councilors voted to add the contract-extension discussion and formation of an RFP committee to the next meeting agenda. The city attorney agreed to prepare and deliver a written legal analysis ahead of that discussion. No extension or outside counsel was authorized at the Feb. 3 meeting.

Quotes

“Mr. Noushay is not actually currently a contracted city attorney because he has no active contract and because the subject of this discussion is his own potential future employment, there's a clear and present conflict of interest,” resident Jamie Gills told the council during public comment.

“I believe our first order of business is to stop the bleeding and the potential liability of not having a contract,” Mayor Moffatt said as she urged a time-bound renewal to maintain continuity.

Details and context

- The city’s charter and a fee agreement from 2021 were discussed at length; some council members said the charter’s language does not automatically extend the attorney’s contract, while others cited differing legal interpretations. - A motion to extend the attorney’s contract through 06/30/2026 failed on a 3–4 roll-call vote. - Council voted to place the matter and formation of an RFP committee on the next meeting agenda and requested a written legal analysis from the city attorney.

Next step

The issue is scheduled for the council’s next regular meeting; councilors asked staff to outline options, potential costs for outside counsel and a proposed timeline for any RFP.

(Reporting based on the Feb. 3, 2026 Clawson City Council meeting and direct speaker remarks.)