►
From YouTube: Dearborn Heights Special City Council Meeting: 12/7/20
Description
Special City Council Meeting taking place Monday, December 7th 2020 via Zoom.
A
C
B
F
A
H
A
I
A
A
Now,
therefore,
be
it
resolved
that
the
city
that
the
the
dearborn
heights
city
council
hereby
approves
entering
a
closed
session.
Pursuant
to
section
8
of
the
michigan
open
meetings
act
to
consider
material
exempt
from
disclosure
under
existing
statute,
namely
the
attorney
client
communication
from
mr
shank
dated
december
2nd
2020
related
to
mayor
paletko's,
lawsuit
against
the
city
council
support.
C
E
A
F
F
E
A
F
E
B
A
B
A
H
A
F
C
H
Yeah
I'd
just
like
to
make
a
brief
statement.
I
was
forced
to
file
my
lawsuit
to
stop
the
council
chair
and
the
city
council
majority
from
doing
even
more
damage
to
the
city
and
its
reputation
at
this
time.
I
can
see
no
alternative,
but
litigation
to
stop
you
from
continuing
to
engage
in
a
pattern
of
misconduct
that
violates
the
open
meetings,
act,
the
city
charter
and
michigan
constitution.
H
Still
at
some
point,
I
hope
that
more
reasonable
and
cooler
heads
will
prevail
on
city
council.
At
that
point,
I
hope
that
we
will
be
able
to
talk
things
out,
as
I've
always
tried
to
do
with
all
of
you.
For
this
reason,
I
must
bring
to
your
attention
and
to
the
public's
attention
one
thing
that
I
doubt
the
public
knows
about,
and
I
doubt
most
of
you
know
about,
I
made
a
settlement
proposal
to
resolve
last
year's
litigation
way
before
the
court
of
appeals
had
made
its
ruling.
H
Yet
it
appears
to
me
that
the
council,
chair
and
mr
shank
decided
amongst
themselves
to
hide
the
settlement
proposal
for
most
of
you
and
from
the
public,
since
there
was
never
a
closed
meeting
conducted
by
the
city
council
to
discuss
this
proposal,
and
this
is
part
of
the
reason
I
had
to
file
this
lawsuit.
You
have
regularly
let
the
council,
chair
and
mr
shank
make
decisions
for
you
as
a
city
council
that
you
can
only
make
as
a
body
at
public
meetings.
H
I
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I'd,
be
interested
in
hearing
council
matthew
shanks
opinion
on
this,
but
I
I
I
think,
instead
of
adopting
the
whole
resolution
because
there's
some
findings
here,
particularly
regarding
the
scope
of
representation
and
amendment
to
an
existing
engagement
letter
and
then
the
language
about
filing
a
grievance
with
the
attorney
grievance
commission.
That's.
E
I
don't
know
that
that
is
something
that
we
really
even
need
to
vote
on.
The
attorney
has
a
duty
if
they
feel
there's
a
violation
of
the
code
of
ethics
to
file
the
grievance
and
it
can't
be
threatened
to
gain
advantage
in
the
civil
action,
but
to
just
a
resolution:
hiring
the
law
firm
of
shank
and
brucette
to
defend
us
in
this
action
and
also
to
tender
the
defense
or
offer
the
defense
to
the
mmrma.
D
Turning
us
down,
I'd
like
to
go
with
shank
mb,
I'm
sorry
for
just
this
one
session
only
and
then
after
that,
I'd
like
to
have
something
official
come
in
from
mmrma,
because
that's
who
represents
us,
that's
who
represents
us
for
free
and
and
then
go
from
there
now
there's
another
thing
that
I'm
concerned
about.
If
we
hire
the
shank
law
firm,
it's
going
to
cost
us
a
lot
more
than
25
000
that
we
are
being
sued
for
with
that
being
the
case,
and
I'm
just
thinking
out
loud
here.
D
If
we
were
to
go
with
mrma
and
let's
say
we
don't
get
as
good
of
representation
hypothetically,
it
still
would
cost
us
nothing
and
at
the
worst
case
scenario,
it
would
cost
us
the
25
000
fee.
That
would
go
that
the
mayor
is
suing
for
versus
paying
to
the
shank
law
firm,
a
lot
more
money,
I'm
not
an
attorney.
It's
just
my
personal
opinion.
Thank
you.
I
So
the
council
is
clear:
the
request
in
the
lawsuit
would
exceed
over
150
000.
If
the
mayor
were
granted,
everything
that
he
is
seeking
in
terms
of
invoices
that
he's
seeking
payment
on,
we
don't
have
a
full
amount,
because
they're
seeking
payment
on
invoices
that
have
yet
to
even
be
submitted
to
them,
but
the
amount
at
issue
is
significant
in
terms
of
it
being
over
150
000.
D
But
the
invoices
would
be
a
whole
separate
issue,
he's
actually
suing
where
he's
actually
suing
the
city
council
for
specifically
twenty
five
thousand
dollars
plus
paying
those
invoices.
Those
invoices
can
still
end
up
being
paid,
whether
you're
presenting
us
or
mmmrma
is
representing
us
either
way.
D
A
D
I
hate
how
many
letters
they've
got
in
this
thing
would
be
able
to
pay
a
council
matthew,
shanks
law
firm
or,
if
not
on
a
condition,
if
they
do
not
pay
that
we're
paying
for
that
one
session,
because
it's
rightfully
so
his
right
to
be
paid
for
that
one
session,
I'm
hoping
and
praying
that
by
that
point,
we'd
have
an
official
answer
from.
Thank
you.
Michigan.
F
Is
councilman,
abdullah
and
all
the
other
council
people?
This
emergency
meeting
is
on
wednesday
right
we're
not
going
to
get
anything
from
mmra
before
it
wakes
up.
Okay,
this
is
the
big
problem
and
I
don't
want
to
be
left
without
an
attorney,
and
this
is
not
just
about
the
25
000.
This
is
all
the
other
hard
work
that
we've
done
to
un,
uncover
things
in
the
city
that
we
feel
that
we
feel
is
wrong.
Okay,
and
I'm
not
going
to
give
that
up.
I'm
not!
D
But
that's
like
madam
chair,
but
that's
why
councilman
musket
with
due
respect?
That's
why
I
said
no
matter
what
matthew
our
count,
the
council,
matthew
shank,
would
be
paid
for
the
one
time
by
that
point,
we're
hoping
to
have
an
answer
or
we
can
make
it
until
such
point
that
we
have
an
answer
from
mmrma.
D
I
would
not
expect
anybody
to
work
for
free,
which
is
precisely
the
reason
why
I
said
in
all
likelihood
we're
talking
about
the
twenty
five
thousand
dollars,
because
some
of
the
attorneys
that
did
the
work
and
I'm
not
the
final
decision
maker
on
this
I
mean
obviously
we'll
see
how
that
plays
out,
but
because
they
did
a
lot
of
the
work.
While
we
were
on
council
still
allowing
it
to
go
on.
I'm
talking
about
the
other
attorneys
that
were
involved,
they
more
than
likely
I'm
just
not
again.
I'm
not.
D
An
attorney
are
gonna,
probably
end
up
getting
paid
anyways,
whether
it's
with
we
deal
with
council
matthew,
shank
or
we
deal
with
mmrma,
because
they
did
the
work
like
people,
for
example,
the
the
the
sub
firms
that
are
part
of
gary
miyati's
circle
of
attorneys.
They're,
probably
gonna
end
up
getting
paid
anyway.
So
that's
why
I'm
saying
I
personally
don't
see
it
at
a
hundred
as
a
150,
000
lawsuit,
correct,
okay,.
A
D
F
C
D
A
A
A
D
G
Thank
you
at
this
time,
I'd
like
to
acknowledge
and
recognize
december
7th,
as
pearl
harbor
day
of
the
the
soldiers
and
sailors
that
lost
their
life
in
1941.,
our
heads
off
to
them
and
their
families,
and
also
like
to
acknowledge
all
the
veterans
out
there
today,
listening
and
in
our
in
our
community.
God
bless
all
of
you
for
your
service.
Thank
you.
A
E
The
reason
I
voted
no
on
the
prior
resolution
was
just
to
make
sure
that
we
turned
over
the
lawsuit
first
to
the
michigan
municipal
risk
association,
to
see
if
there
was
coverage
and
they
do
have
attorneys
there
that
do
almost
nothing
but
defend
these
open
meetings
act
cases.
I
know
we
got
into
some
discussion
about
the
lawsuit
in
general
and
I'm
I'm
not
agreeing
or
disagreeing
it
just
as
a
threshold
issue
about
the
council
retaining
an
attorney
in
this
unusual,
difficult
unfortunate
situation.
A
A
A
J
Go
ahead
very
good.
Well
then,
I'm
going
to
give
some
remarks
with
regard
to
11a
and
what
I'm
saying
is
not
meant
to
be
for
purposes
of
giving
legal
advice
and
perhaps
in
the
future
there
will
be
some
more
discussion
with
regard
to
this,
where
I
am
able
to
do
so
in
an
appropriate
form,
but
I
cannot
do
so
now,
regardless.
The
resolution
contains
clearly
false
information
related
to
me.
It
says
that
the
city
council
was
my
client
based
on
the
city
charter.
J
J
A
of
these
rules
makes
it
quite
clear
that
the
city
council
has
never
been.
My
client
where
it
says
a
lawyer
employed
or
retained
to
represent
an
organization
represents
the
organization
as
distinct
from
its
directors
officers,
employees,
members,
shareholders
or
other
constituents,
and
this
rule
makes
it
very
clear
that
it
also
applies
to
governmental
bodies.
J
A
K
A
K
No,
what
I
was
gonna
state
is
that
the
city
did
turn
this
into
rma
and
the
insurance
company.
We
are
waiting
for
water
to
say
what
they
will
cover
and
what
they
won't.
There
was
some
discussions
from
certain
council
members
that
stated
that
they
were
looking
for
the
city
to
do
that
and-
and
that
has
been
done
already.