Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Billing And Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lapeer commission clashes over special‑counsel billing, approves small payment after procedural fight
Summary
A heated, hours‑long procedural dispute over a $776.26 invoice from outside counsel Bodman PLC exposed tensions about transparency and how the mayor handles privileged communications. A motion to postpone payment for fuller accounting failed; the commission voted to authorize the modest payment while asking for fuller documentation at the next meeting.
A contentious exchange over an outside‑counsel invoice dominated the Lapeer City Commission meeting April 6, ending with approval of a $776.26 payment but little resolution on larger governance questions.
Commissioner Brady moved to postpone item G4 — the Bodman PLC billing — until the April 20 meeting so the commission could be provided “with a full accounting of the work performed and the authorization for these services,” saying no supporting information had been included in the packet. He repeated the motion publicly: “I move to postpone item G4 until the next regular meeting so that the commission can be provided with a full accounting of the work performed and the authorization for these services as no supporting information was provided in our packet.”
The motion touched off more than two hours of procedural disputes about interruptions, points of order, and appeals of the presiding officer’s rulings. The chair repeatedly requested a citable authority when members raised points of order; commissioners pressed that the rules of order were not being consistently enforced. At one point the chair read the commission’s own rules to justify rulings about interruptions and decorum.
After debate and a failed motion to postpone, the commission took a second course: Commissioner Petri offered to approve the specific invoice for $776.26 and authorize the finance director to process payment. The roll‑call vote carried, while an earlier motion to postpone until April 20 failed.
City staff said some of the dispute stemmed from prior authorizations (a $10,000 authorization for counsel had been approved earlier) and a desire by some commissioners for fuller line‑item detail and the names of the staff members who authorized the work. The mayor and the city manager both said correspondence from Bodman PLC is on file with staff and available for inspection; the mayor defended the liaison process used to engage special counsel and noted that some materials are attorney‑client privileged and not suitable for public packet distribution.
What happened next: commissioners asked staff and counsel to prepare clearer, centralized documentation of special‑counsel engagements and to bring Bodman PLC to the April 20 meeting if the commission wants a briefing. The payment approved covers a single small invoice; the larger questions about who authorizes work, how privileged communications are handled in packets, and how the commission is informed will be the subject of follow‑up.
