Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate Bodmin PLC invoice as confidentiality and scope of work are questioned
Summary
A protracted debate at the May 18 Lapeer City Commission meeting centered on an invoice from outside counsel Bodmin PLC and whether the firm’s work and invoices included privileged personnel matters; commissioners split over whether staff and the mayor had authority to handle the invoice without full commission review.
At the May 18 meeting, commissioners spent more than two hours debating an invoice from outside counsel Bodmin PLC and whether its contents and scope had been appropriately handled by staff and the mayor.
The dispute began when Commissioner Brady asked that the Bodmin invoice be removed from the general bill listing for separate consideration. Brady said the invoice appeared to include work related to a personnel matter and that portions of invoices had contained privileged or confidential information. “This is a public bill with taxpayer money. It belongs in the public,” Brady said while arguing the commission needed to scrutinize the work and scope before approving payment.
City Manager Womack and the city attorney disagreed on procedure and disclosure. Womack said staff had followed what he understood to be prior direction and that the mayor had been the point of contact with Bodmin; he said staff relied on the mayor’s verification that work was done. City Attorney Francis advised caution about reading privileged invoice material in public and explained that privileged invoices might be supplied in both confidential and nonconfidential versions. He cautioned against waiving privilege inadvertently.
Commissioners pressed several factual and procedural questions: whether the mayor had exclusive authority to verify certain invoices, whether written opinions required by the charter had been submitted by Bodmin, and whether Bodmin’s engagement letter authorized the types of work now appearing in invoices. Brady asserted the firm’s engagement was narrow and limited to specific labor‑related advice and that recent invoices indicated work outside that narrow scope. “We are outside the scope,” Brady said, urging the commission to end the relationship with Bodmin PLC.
Other commissioners and staff pushed back. Several members noted the commission had previously authorized payments up to a threshold (referenced as a $10,000 preapproval) and that staff had processed bills per existing practice. Commissioners also said that although some invoices contained sensitive information, the commission had not formally waived privilege and that inadvertent disclosures would not necessarily forfeit privilege going forward.
A formal demand to separate the Bodmin item from the bill listing failed on a voice vote. The commission then proceeded to a roll‑call vote and approved the full bill listing. Commissioners recorded a range of positions on whether staff or the mayor ought to be the single point of verification for invoices, and the city attorney recommended follow‑up steps, including obtaining any outstanding written opinions and clarifying the firm’s scope in writing.
The commission did not take a separate formal vote to terminate Bodmin’s engagement during the meeting. Commissioners asked staff and the mayor to resolve outstanding questions about scope, any required written opinions from Bodmin, and the procedures for handling privileged invoices going forward.
