By ZEINAB NAJM
Times-Herald Newspapers
HEIGHTS — The City Council super vetoed three of Mayor Daniel Paletko’s vetos July 30 regarding filling an appeal, to sign retainer agreement and a change made to their meeting schedule.
The council voted unanimously to super veto the resolution to amend the council’s regular meeting schedule. At the July 24 special meeting, the council voted to add a July 30 regular meeting to its schedule.
The letter submitted July 25 by Paletko addressed the three motions approved by the city council during its special meeting, and stated he vetoed them because they are part of a “political witch hunt that has and will continue to waste city money and violate the law.”
Council Chairwoman Denise Malinowski-Maxwell said that under city charter, Paletko has the power to veto just resolutions and ordinances and not veto motions. She also said Paletko submitted one veto statement covering all three actions instead of a separate veto statement for each action as required by the charter.
“By vetoing the resolution which amended the meeting schedule, it can be anticipated that the mayor would now claim that this meeting was not properly called,” she said. “However the mayor submitted additional items to be added to the agenda. Additionally, if the mayor were allowed to veto the resolution to amend the meeting schedule, the council would be prohibited from ever meeting.”
Malinowski-Maxwell added that Corporation Counsel Gary Miotke was provided an advance copy of the revised retainer agreement and general resolution.
“He did not raise any concerns with revised retainer agreement prior to the council vote last week and failed to raise a concern with resolution to revise the regular meeting schedule despite actively participating in that discussion,” she said. “To now raise concerns with the retainer agreement to the mayor is a legal conflict of interest and the council was never asked to waive that conflict.
“Under the charter, attorney is supposed to represent the city, council council and mayor — by failing to raise concerns with the city council before our vote, and then to raise concerns to attempt to justify a mayoral veto demonstrates a clear legal conflict.”
During public comment at the end of the meeting, Miotke addressed the issue of conflict of interest, saying he doesn’t have a conflict of interest and that he understands the ethical rules that apply to him.
“The arguments that were put forward by the city council’s attorney — respectfully regarding me having a conflict of interest — were rejected,” he said. “More over, my opinion as stated and reiterated by (Wayne County Circuit Court) Judge (Muriel) Hughes was also upheld in that particular ligation.
“So, it is unfortunate but one of these days I would like to have the opportunity to explain conflicts of interest to you in this context because it’s a little different. I represent the city as an entity as distinct from its officers and employees, and I’ve always tried to do my best. I’ve been doing this for well over 20 years and I have represented the city in three different administrations.”
For the veto to authorize the retention of law firm Ottenwess, Taweel & Schenk, PLC as special legal counsel to counsel to the corporation counsel and to authorize the firm to file actions necessary and revised retainer agreement, Councilmen Dave Abdallah and Robert Constan were opposed, leading to a 5-2 vote.
Abdallah again said he is OK with the forensic audit but disagrees with the cost, especially because the council doesn’t know what the specific cost is going to be. He added that the law firm will have to come before the council for an approval on the bill, but that the work already will be done.
The unknown cost is why Abdallah said he keeps voting against the resolution. Another issue Abdallah said was that the law firm should not be paid for the first lawsuit which was filed without authorization by the council as a body.
In the revised retention agreement, the law firm would still be paid for their legal work on the first lawsuit, Abdallah noted. Constan said he agreed with not paying for the first lawsuit.
Also, regarding authorizing the law firm to file an appeal of the Wayne County Circuit Court’s July 17 decision in the case of the Council v Paletko, the council voted 5-2 in favor with Abdallah and Constan voting against.
In the July 17 opinion, Hughes ruled that Paletko was not required to sign the contract authorizing Ottenwess, Taweel & Schenk, PLC to find an audit firm to complete a forensic audit. Hughes ruled the council does not have the authority to hire an outside law firm when Miotke is employed by he city to provide legal assistance.
The council voted Feb. 26 on a resolution to seek a forensic audit to provide an explanation for almost $1.4 million missing from the city’s Public, Educational and Governmental fund.
Hughes first ruled on May 7 that Malinowski-Maxwell could not sue Paletko on behalf of the entire council, and that a vote to approve the lawsuit would have to take place first. At the May 9 special council meeting, the council voted 4-2 to file a complaint against Paletko after he refused to sign a contract approved by the council to conduct a forensic audit.
Council members Bill Bazzi, Tom Wencel, Lisa Hicks-Clayton and Malinowski-Maxwell, voted yes with Abdallah and Constan opposed, and Ray Muscat abstained.
Paletko said he disagreed with the council’s motion to appeal the July 17 decision for four reasons in his veto letter to the council members.
“First, I am of the opinion that the court’s decision will be upheld on appeal if an appeal is taken,” he wrote. “After all, Corporation Counsel Miotke originally advised that the original, proposed retainer agreement violated the charter. Based on his opinion, I refused to sign the agreement.”
“Second, because any appeal will be unfounded, I am also of the opinion that any appeal will be an enormous waste of taxpayer money and precious city resources,” Paletko continued. “Third, because any appeal will be unfounded, it appears that the motivation of the city council majority in authorizing the appeal is to simply cover itself politically.
“Fourth, the possible appeal is part of the city council majority’s political witch hunt against me as reflected by the city council majority’s unwillingness to even try to resolve issues without litigating them,” the letter read.
During the July 30 meeting, Paletko said he followed the city charter and the city council did not.
“I followed the charter and I went through corporation counsel to hire corporation counsel to protect the mayoral position and my position and that was completely legal,” he said.
Paletko added that Malinowski-Maxwell has not yet admitted to hiring the law firm for the first lawsuit against him.
“Many of the council members have asked who authorized it, you have refused to say you did and I went through corporation council. This council did not follow the charter,” he said.
Malinowski-Maxwell did not respond to Paletko’s comments.
Constan remained concerned about the cost and how much time an appeal could take.
“Regarding the appeal, No. 1, the appeal would take a year or two minimum, and, No. 2, you wouldn’t file now a third lawsuit and also take an appeal of the decision of the second lawsuit,” he said. “You would do one or the other, it’s just duplicate efforts and extra attorney fees.”
Council meetings and special meetings are available on YouTube under the City of Dearborn Heights page.
(Zeinab Najm can be reached at [email protected].)