At the forefront of the discussions was the City Attorney’s position on the potential for modifying the settlement agreement with MDHR. A council member expressed confusion about the City Attorney’s stance, noting that previous dialogues had suggested a possible pathway for reinforcing the consent decree terms legally. This change in legal opinion was described as a “180,” creating confusion and conflicting information among council members. Despite ongoing dialogue over six months, the City Attorney maintained that there was no legal basis to pursue changes to the MDHR settlement agreement, as the disputes had already been resolved. The City Attorney stressed, “We’ve already fully resolved the dispute between MDHR and the city,” emphasizing that additional terms could not be justified to the court.

Council members sought clarity on the authority to negotiate and modify the settlement agreement, raising questions about the chain of command and the responsibilities of the City Attorney and the Mayor. Concerns were voiced regarding the influence of the Mayor on the City Attorney’s professional responsibilities, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the ethics code. The City Attorney reiterated the independence of her office, stating, “I don’t need to get a directive from anybody to do legal review. That is my job.” She further explained that any changes to the settlement agreement would require a legal and factual basis, as it is a court-enforceable document.

The council’s discussion also touched on the implications of a federal consent decree, with a focus on ensuring the police department operates within constitutional bounds. A council member pointed out that the dismissal of a DOJ consent decree left a void in ensuring the constitutional rights of residents, questioning the City Attorney’s decision not to pursue additional pathways. The City Attorney responded that no conflicts existed between the consent decree and the settlement agreement, as the consent decree was not enforced by federal court.

In a move to regroup and clarify the council’s collective intentions, a motion was made to return the item to a council member as the author. This action aimed to ensure a coherent basis for why the public would not see the city pursuing a legally binding agreement for the 300-plus terms discussed. Several council members expressed appreciation for the City Attorney’s efforts in navigating the complex legal landscape, acknowledging the challenges faced by those without legal expertise.

Beyond the legal discussions, the meeting included various committee reports. The Administration & Enterprise Oversight Committee presented 29 items, including gift acceptance for police employees and contracts for various services. The Budget Committee reported on estimated revenues and expenditures for the upcoming 2026 budget. The Business, Housing & Zoning Committee approved liquor licenses and development agreements, while the Climate & Infrastructure Committee addressed infrastructure projects and stormwater management agreements.

The Intergovernmental Relations Committee provided an update on federal and state actions affecting the city, and the Public Health & Safety Committee highlighted a grant award related to judicial drug court support and amendments to existing grant periods.