Present.

Councilmember Mary Walters.

Present.

Councilman Ansley Whitfield Collarway.

Councilman McCole Mignon the second.

Council President Coachim James Tate.

And Council President Mary Sheffield.

Present.

You have a quantum president, Madam President.

There being a quorum present.

There being no care reconsiderations as well or unfinished business.

We will go straight to public comment.

We will start off with public comment.

And we will start with those who have joined us in person.

Okay.

All right.

Everyone will have a minute for public comment.

We will start with Carla Osborne.

And um Caleb, you can just line everybody up.

That would be perfect.

Charles Miles.

Michael Vilgas.

All right, Carla, you can go first.

Good morning.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Um I'm here to speak on Gyanga and the dirty dirt that they continue to put into the properties in the city.

To me, it was negligence, and I don't feel that it is right.

He should be held accountable.

He should have to be made to pay for all these properties that were contaminated.

Me being a worker for Guyanga, I was treated like BS for complaining about it.

I was called the whistleblower.

I was fired because I let known that this contractor was putting contaminated dirt into the city.

I want him to be held accountable because my family are buying properties that Guyanga has filled with toxic dirt.

And when is enough gonna be enough that these contractors are held responsible?

I have seen this man pull a gun in broad daylight on his employees.

He treats us like BS.

He should not be allowed to conduct business in the city anymore.

He needs to put respect on our city when anybody comes and do work there.

Thank you so much, Carla.

Michael Yes.

Yes.

I gotta talk to you about it.

Long as it's uh green at the bottom, and it indicates that it's gonna go right ahead.

My name is Michael Viegas.

I'm the owner of GNM contractor.

I'm here because um I performed uh concrete work for Guyanga on um a little over 200 properties.

Um I was just wondering what was the deal with um which he has I haven't been paid.

Um at the current date, um I'm old uh around 274,000 dollars for work that I already performed and pass inspect and my inspections have always passed.

I just wanted to know what the deal was with that um because I'm being told that there's no bond for this job.

So when I'm my attorney is attempting to go after the bond for the job to go after payment for what payment for the work that was performed, we're being told that there's no bond for the job.

So I want to know if that's the is that true, and if that's if that is true, then who's gonna be accountable for the work that was performed?

That's a lot of money for me.

I'm not I'm not a millionaire, I'm not a big company, I'm a mom and pop shop, and 274,000 that that feeds my family and my employees.

All right, thank you so much.

And we are going to also cut off our public comment for today.

Charles Miles, followed by Sheila.

Hi, my name is Charles Miles.

I came to talk about the dirty dirt and why these uh contractors are not from the city of Detroit.

We have too many Detroiters that could have taken taken on this job and did a better job of making sure that everything was done right because they are Detroiters and they do care about what they're putting in the city where people live, where they live at, per se, calling these outsiders that doesn't live here, and I just don't understand why you continuously not use Detroiters to handle these positions.

And that's it.

All right, thank you.

Sheila Dappermont.

Yes.

Good morning, Yaron.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Sheila Dapramont, owner of 3D Wrecking.

I'm here today because number one, I'm really frustrated and I'm upset because to my understanding, I had to come all the way back from out of town to say what I needed to say about this situation.

I've known Brian for years and years.

I helped Bill Bryan's company up.

I came back, I put my equipment in there, helped him run it.

I gave him dirt from the cemeteries in order to help him bill.

I didn't charge him.

I did everything I could.

And when he was able to build his company back up, he threw me under the bus.

He tore my equipment up.

He didn't help me fix anything.

He had the dirt for free.

And I'm okay with that, you know, because it was helping build another contractor up, which was black, which is my grandfather's legacy to build up inner city black records.

And therefore now I'm caught back up in some mess based off of why we're here today.

And I'm sick of it.

I'm really sick of it.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Charlie Leduff, followed by Leon Petty.

So how badly has Detroit been poisoned?

A random sampling of 50 demo hosts filled by Brian McKinney and his company, Gaianga shows that the dirt is too toxic to touch in 60% of the lots.

My God, McKinney's performed thousands of demos.

How bad is it?

And Flint, people were told not to drink the water, but at least they could bathe in it.

What have you done?

Despite me warning you, four years, you voted for these contracts.

You turned a blind eye.

Some of you did more than that.

And so the mayor's handpicked minority contractor has been suspended.

He wants back in pending a final investigation, and you will vote on that today.

He claims race, but plenty of white contractors have been suspended for toxic dirt.

Denman, for instance, has been banned for life.

They're watching.

McKinney claims he got the dirt from Iron Horse.

Iron Horse is now suspended.

But Iron Horse sold thousands of tons to other contractors.

Is this worse than Flint?

Who pays?

It is your legal and moral authority to find out to the end.

So when you cast your vote today, please speak clearly.

I'm taking names.

Leon Petty, followed by Benny Johnson.

Yes, um.

I'm coming on behalf of City Abatement.

As of right now, Brian owes us $611,000, and which 475,000 of that was owed, uh was paid to him by the city of Detroit.

The other the other 133 was uh some work that we done with Marathon.

And I'm here today to just find out how are we protected.

We've got this much investment into doing this work.

He's been paid, and we have it, and there's no way for us to collect.

That's all I got.

Benny Johnson.

Yes, hi.

My name is Benny Johnson.

I'm a former employee of Diango.

And I would like to say it's a sad day for the city of Detroit to be here to be discussing a minorities' business.

I can only tell you from my experience with working with Mr.

McKinney.

Mr.

McDuff, with all due respect, you're here for a story.

A lot of people was here for a story.

I can tell you that I've never seen Mr.

McKinney engage in any behavior.

That was on that was unethical.

I've even I've even experienced Mr.

McKinney.

His superintendents, people that he had in place, the shady undercuts, the shady underdealings that they was engaged in, that he he truly didn't know about.

Oh, we have some disgruntled employees here now.

Oh, you a damn black.

That want to see a lot of negative that want to see a lot of negative things.

Thank you, sir.

Because they was they was terminated.

That's your time, sir.

Uh, Mr.

McDuff.

Excuse me, sir.

You only have one minute, unfortunately.

Thank you.

That's your time.

All right, Mike Mike Shawtry.

Followed by Peter Kavanaugh.

Yeah, good afternoon, everyone.

Uh, this is Mike Chaudry from uh DMC Consultants DMC Group.

Um, I'm just here to uh figure out because I heard that you know contracts were awarded without bond to him.

And my concern is that you know, we all knew in preposal land there was bond required.

So I'm here to just check uh the stop out, you know, um on behalf of the MC.

Uh as we are out of projects and you know the demolition project, and we have laid off most of our staff, and it is a concern if uh we could have got more work, we could have continued uh residential uh beyond our payroll.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mike Chaudry.

Peter Kavanaugh.

Good afternoon, uh council members.

My name is Peter Kavanaugh.

I'm an attorney that represents Kalo and Sons Construction.

Kayla was a subcontractor to Gianga and provided trucking services in support of the demolition work between March 24 and March 25.

While the council today is considering the subject of Gaianga suspension for contaminated soil, a much larger question is why Gaianga was awarded contracts and paid millions of dollars by the city without furnishing payment and performance bonds.

When Kayla requested copies of the payment bonds from the city, Kayla's FOIA request bounced around different departments without a response.

After Caleb filed suit against Gayenga in June and obtained a subpoena power, we requested payment bonds from the law department.

After another month of delay, the response came back.

There are no bonds.

No bonds were required.

Proposal end contracts plainly require demolition contractors to furnish payment and performance bonds.

Guianga appears to have been given a pass and not required to furnish bonds.

Thank you.

Um Stephen Grady.

Good afternoon, honorable counsel.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Um we talked three years ago about demolition, and we're still back here.

Uh if you remember when I uh retired, I told you about the demolition process, how messed up it was.

But right now, uh far as Gyenga, I'm the one that got him involved in the city.

He moved on forward, he became the mayor's poster child.

But right now, Gango owes a lot of money to a lot of people.

He needs to make those people whole.

As far as the dirt, there's been bad dirt and bad backfill over the years.

That's something that contractors, we had a problem with contractors all the way back to the Archer area.

So, but my question now is the dirt that Gyanger received from I believe Iron Horse.

How many other contractors received that same dirt and contaminated our city and made it like Flint?

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Stephen Grady.

I'm gonna go right into it.

There are three words that we are here today for that is erroneous, unreasonable, and arbitrary, not justified by the facts.

Erroneous.

There were two documents that were placed in the um file today for you to review.

A OIG position statement and a PowerPoint presentation.

Now they did a press release that said that the dirt that they located, there were 33 of 41 sites that were contaminated.

That's 80 percent.

But the PowerPoint and the position statement says 42 of 47, and that's 89 percent.

So which is it?

Is it this or is it that?

That's erroneous.

Unreasonable.

Is it a reasonable expectation for you to expect that you can provide data and facts to respond to OIG allegations?

I'm gonna stop right there.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Grady.

Thank you.

All right, that will conclude our in-person.

We will turn to those who have joined us virtually.

Good afternoon, madam mayor elect.

There were five hands, five people who raised their hand before you would cut off public comment.

And the first caller is owner Papa.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, if you chairman, have you heard?

Yes, you can.

Carolyn Hughes.

Um yes.

It appears that the city is operating um in a way in which is dysfunctional.

Um I would like to know what your plans are of cleaning up the dirt, identifying all the sites, not just these sites, but the site that Detroit Land Bank did.

All of the sites in the city of Detroit, because you you want a downtown district, uh, you want a river town district.

What about the neighborhoods?

What about where our children play?

What about where we live and breathe air?

Um, if this is true, this is an atrocity, and why don't you write an ordinance for this?

You write an ordinance for everything else except ordinance to protect the people.

Every ordinance that you have written over the last four years has been to give the people less and less protections, and now we find ourselves in a position where we were worse off than we were when you came.

That is a shame.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

The next caller is violate the city charter.

Yes, go right ahead.

Yeah.

You know, I let you know repeatedly about the people who mow over garbage constantly, like and your staff, Mary Sheffield does nothing about it.

Also, your staff, Mary Waters does nothing about it.

I have neighbors that clearly don't have proper fill in their side lots.

And you know, you're gonna you claim you care about everybody that you're gonna use eminent domain, take people's property, run around and cut trees down in these neighborhoods to do what carbon capture before you even have all the land, and then here we are about a toxic nightmare that we could have all around the city because you in the past councils.

Uh hey, Mr.

You too, Mr.

Grady under Ms.

Brenda Jones, just enable this demo crazed mayor to run around and destroy this Detroit buildings that could have been saved, and now we got this toxic nightmare we're dealing with.

And I barely hear you guys say a word about it, even though you it's been brought to your attention repeatedly.

The disrespect is the next caller is Cindy Dara.

Good afternoon, Cindy Dara.

Yeah, uh I just want to say that it really is too bad that you tore down so many houses.

People came down and said we don't want these banking houses in our neighborhoods, and then they so they tear them down, and now we don't have enough housing.

Now we've got poison dirt put to put into the ground right next to where people they can't see the poison dirt, so maybe they won't be coming down to complain to you about it.

But it's uh even this whole idea of building uh a uh sports thing for kids on toxic dirt on after you uh put take two feet out and put a uh some kind of plastic down and then put some more good dirt down.

I that it's ridiculous.

We were talking about this in the schools where the schools were built on top of toxic places that they hadn't found out they had to get those.

All right, thank you.

The next caller is Tahira Ahmed.

Yes, good afternoon.

I am against Guyanga and any other uh person or or uh company that has put dirty dirt in our communities, our children are subjected to this poison.

I would like for the council to start a uh program to find out how this dirt is affecting us, or not only a program, but a study, how it's affecting us and put folk in jail that did this to our community, and if you've known about it, we want you to to tell us how you are voting okay for us to be poisoned.

I am against Guyaga and I'm against anybody, I'm definitely against uh Mayor Duggan because all he has done is poisoned our city, even though he wants to poison the state as governor.

Thank you.

Uh the last caller for public comment is phone number ending in 48.

All right, caller 482.

And Mary Sheffield gig is up.

Are you TV being elected officials here in the city of Detroit?

Dianga did what Dianga did because you allowed it.

You're all been cheating in, Dan is been keeping in, y'all been stealing millions, hundreds of millions and billions of dollars for taxpayers in the city of Detroit.

And I'm Mr.

Rue.

I'm fed up with this sugar honey IT.

Right.

All right, thank you.

All right, that will conclude all of our public comment for uh this session.

And um, Mr.

Whitaker, if you can just give an overview of how this hearing would proceed for today.

Madam President, I would be happy to, but in this instance, the law department has the authority to give you guidance.

And I think Mr.

Jim Nosita Deputy Corporation Counsel is here to provide that guidance.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Um Jim Jim Nosita, I'm the deputy corporation counsel.

Um I'm here on behalf of the law department.

I'd like to give just a brief overview of how this will proceed.

We are here for a hearing on the appeal by demolition contractor Gayanga Company LLC and its owner Brian McMinney regarding the interim suspension issued by the Office of the Inspector General on September 11, 2025.

The OIG issued the interim suspension upon allegations that unapproved and contaminated fill dirt was used in residential demolitions.

Under City Code Section 175360, um, it authorizes the OIG to issue an interim suspension upon determination of a need for immediate action prior to any department debarment determination.

Under section 175361 of the code, it allows for an appeal to the city council of the OIG's interim suspension of a contractor.

Gaianga Ellis Company and Mr.

McKinney will be allowed 10 minutes or each or a total of 20 minutes to present oral argument.

They may reserve a portion of their allotted time for rebuttal.

The OIG will be allowed a total of 10 minutes to present its oral argument.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um the count you uh the council president will be the presiding officer for this hearing.

After hearing from the parties, uh the council will vote uh to either uphold or overturn the interim suspension.

Uh you will be asked to vote yes to uphold the interim suspension or no to overturn the suspension.

The suspension will be overturned only upon a two-thirds majority vote.

Uh that decision doesn't necessarily that vote doesn't necessarily have to be taken today.

Um your decision on this appeal must be supported by competent material and substantial evidence on the whole record presented that includes the written submissions that have already been filed and what is presented at today's hearing.

The standard to apply to your decision is whether the suspension by the uh was an abuse of the OIG's discretion.

Um reversal of the OIG suspension is where it warranted, where it falls outside the range of principal outcomes.

An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences the exercise of will, not of will, but of perversity of will.

Um so it's a high standard.

And unless there are questions, I we can proceed with the presentation by the parties.

All right, and if the clerk would know member Young has joined us as well, Councilmember Benson.

Thank you.

This is to the law department.

I just want to verify that I I took this correctly.

It sounds like the burden to overturn the recommendation of the OIG is really upon the uh appeal, the appealing.

Is that correct?

It's the uh the appellent would be uh Gaianga.

I know I always struggle with those terms myself and to write them down.

Um the decision uh in the lack of any guidance in the ordinance, the determination of an interim suspension is is is akin to a matter uh uh of a court determining uh whether to uh sanction somebody uh or make other determinations.

And in general, those kind of decisions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, but it does have to be supported by competent material and substantial evidence.

I I don't know if I can explain that any better.

So then was my takeaway correct then?

The burden is on the appellant.

Is that what you said?

Uh to provide the information for us to overturn.

Is that correct?

Well, the OIG also has to provide information to support their uh interim suspension.

So you you have to weigh that information and then determine whether uh the suspension should be overturned.

I heard two-thirds majority as in a supermajority is needed to overturn.

Correct.

That's provided by the ordinance.

So which would tell me that this is incumbent upon the appellant to convince us to overturn it.

Well, it is a it is a difficult standard to meet, but again, the OIG also has to present evidence to support uh its uh interim suspension.

All right, thank you.

Councilmember Young.

Okay, here.

Uh from my correct me if I'm wrong here.

I'm gonna ask a question.

I need you to just guide me through this, okay?

Before you start, we haven't got into like they haven't presented the cass or anything yet.

No, I was no no no, I appreciate it.

No, I mean am I jumping ahead of time here.

I just want to make sure I'm gonna I like to be ahead of myself.

But um, I just wanted so from my understanding the reason why Gyanga got the dirt that they got was because they were required by the city to be able to go get this dirt from this lot from that specific specific place.

This is a city requirement that led to them getting this dirt.

Is that correct?

I'm not really prepared to respond to that in front of I mean the city the city has been conducting its own investigation along with the OIG.

Okay.

And it's a little it it's not quite that simple.

The reason the reason why I'm asking that, and I'm asking this to you is because my understanding, are there other contractors that potentially will come before us having to deal with this?

Are we gonna have to cancel contracts because of this?

Are we gonna receive lawsuits that are gonna pile up from the contracts that we're going to cancel?

I mean, do you see where I'm going?

This is really a slippery slope here towards where we're going.

And so am I getting ahead of myself here or I'm putting the cart before the horse?

Yeah, we haven't had a chance to hear both sides of uh.

I could just hear the lawsuits.

Your questions coming.

I could just see it.

Yeah.

Hold on, one second, member yet.

Before we even get sworn, I'm sorry, before we get sworn in.

Your inquiry is interesting, but it sees the scope of the hearing uh before you.

Okay.

So you should focus on just the interim suspension of Ganga and Mr.

McKinney.

As being the uh second.

After you hear the after you hear the presentation.

As being the second largest vote getter.

Uh is it possible that we could expand the scope of this hearing?

Is that something that we could vote on?

Because I I just I feel like that has to be addressed here.

Because I think there's a serious environmental concerns, serious health concerns, serious financial concerns that we're gonna have to deal with.

I'm not saying to vote either way.

I'm just saying I would like to see some sort of plan that addresses that long term.

And I feel that it shouldn't just be this company that's paying the bird if that's the case.

Especially if it's something that's for a city requirements, Mr.

Whitaker.

As I indicated, uh your inquiry is interesting.

Okay, and it might require further investigation at another time.

But this hearing has to be focused on the interim suspension by the inspector general.

So you should listen to the facts as presented by the by the parties here, and then make your determination only, not on the on everything that you talked about, but just the facts that just presented on this matter.

Thank you, Mayor President.

All right, no worries.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right, so we will proceed um in the order that you just mentioned.

Who will begin first?

Um representatives or uh persons appearing on behalf of Gayenga.

Okay, you all can join us at the table, those who are representing Gayanga at the table.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt uh council president.

Um if they want to reserve time for rebuttal, they should do so before they begin.

That's typically how these uh they will have 10 minutes total, and if they would like to reserve a time for rebuttal, you could just go over the time requirements again if they would like to use a time for rebuttal as well within that requirement.

That's correct.

Through the chair, I'll give an indication when there's two minutes remaining if you get to that time threshold.

Thank you.

I need to ask the clarifying point before I sure go right ahead.

But just make sure your microphone is on.

All of you, I just press the bottom of your microphone, it should turn green and just state your name and titles um for the record as well.

Certainly, look before I begin uh may it please this honorable body.

My name is Adam Clements.

I appear on uh behalf of Guyan Gong from Perkins Law Group.

I'm joined by attorney Aaron Burrell and by an attorney Miles Baker from Dickinson right.

I'm sorry.

You want to have a seat?

Uh I was I will sit down.

I just wanted to make one clarifying point if I could before I go right ahead.

Um Council, did I hear you indicate that the standard to review in this particular case is for an abusive discretion?

Correct.

The letter that we received, and I would just indicate articulates that pursuant to the ordinance that the the standard of review in this particular case was that of a preponderance of evidence.

And that was a letter that was cemented myself, attorney Burrell dated on October the 7th, 2025.

The reason why I'm asking is it goes directly to the honorable uh council member Scott Benson's question where he inquired as to Hurric, do you mind having a seat so that we can hear you in the microphone as well?

Uh it goes directly to uh the point from the Honorable Uh Councilman Benson where where the inquiry was made specifically as to uh one who the burden of proof was on and two what the standard of review was.

So I just wanted to articulate that the presentation that was expected to be brought forth on behalf of Guyanga was with that standard of review that the letter that was sent to us indicates that it's that of a preponderance of evidence standard, which is significantly different than an abusive discretion standard, and that was sent to us in preparation for this hearing almost a month ago.

If I may, yeah, I I want to point out that um in preparing for today, I reviewed the letter that was sent by the corporation counsel.

And unfortunately, it made reference to a proceeding for an appeal of a debarment, if you look at the language, and this is not a debarment decision, this is an interim suspension, and the ordinance doesn't have a standard for that beyond the decision on the appeal of the suspension shall be supported by competent material and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Okay.

Well, thank you for that point of clarification.

Uh in spite of that, if I may, uh may I please this honorable body again, my name is Adam Clements.

I appear on behalf of the company.

It's a pleasure to be here presenting in front of you today.

Uh I would ask that I be able to reserve three minutes of my time for rebuttal in this particular case.

Uh, what I would submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, is that uh during the second week of September, uh, Mr.

McKinney was notified from the Office of the Inspector General that an allegation was levied against the company in the early month of the early week of June.

At that particular time, the allegation was limited to the fact that uh Gianga had received dirt from the Northland site and was utilizing that backfill at homes and at various sites throughout the city of Detroit.

And as we sit in these seats, myself, nor Mr.

Burrell, nor attorney Baker, are taking the position that we uh turn a blind eye to that or take that um that allegation lightly, but we want to say from the outset that it is irrefutably false and absolutely untrue as it relates to anything that Guianga has done in this particular case, and we'll start with what is a public source.

And a public source is that from our perspective, that it allows contractors to vest, essentially to buy into utilizing insurance, and that's what Gianga did.

And the approved source in this particular case were sources that they were directed to utilize for purposes of backfill from the city.

And I say that with uh with abundance of confidence and also caution to the extent that we have financial documents that can support the position that Gianga utilized this backfill at the sites, not only that are in question, but throughout the time that they had the opportunity to perform demolition work throughout the city.

So that public source is essentially the insurance for contractors that when you have an opportunity to be evaluated in terms of the backfield that you utilized, you can have a certain sense of confidence that the backfield that you're utilizing comes with environmental integrity.

So we would submit to you that the response that you that that I'm sure that you had an opportunity to either read or read the summary from the Office of the Inspector General in terms of the position that Gianga took, is because of the confidence in the fact that Mr.

McKinney is confident that this the backfill that it was utilized comes from that public source.

The financial documents support that, and also if you simply just evaluate the dates upon which the demolition and the work would have been completed and compare those documents to any financial documents in relationship to what was utilized to procure that backfield from Iron Horse, we submit to you that they would match up.

And the importance of that, ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you is that if you're conducting a full and fair investigation, you would not get a PowerPoint simply making allegations.

You would have questions that would have been answered regarding the lack of financial documentation and transparency supporting when backfield was procured and what that backfill was used for.

We were never asked to provide that information as a part of our review.

We were never uh given an opportunity to participate in the investigation at all.

When Mr.

McKinney contacted us about this particular incident, we immediately reached out to the Office of the Inspector General, and we were told that there would be no correspondence with us regarding the issue.

So if we go back to what we started with, was that this allegation was levied during the first week of June.

It's now November the 18th, and still to this date, Mr.

McKinney has not been interviewed on the issue.

There's been no request directly for records or for documents that uh relate to backfill.

And as you sit in your seats and you get ready to make your determination, your decision about whether or not we can meet our burden of proof, it is very difficult.

What the three of us have had to do is to essentially try to reverse engineer a claim that's made against our client for which we've been given no specific information.

We haven't even been given the alleged addresses that are in place to be able to provide you specifically with the information that line up with each address.

Now, had we been given that information perhaps during October, during the month of October, when the hearing was set, our presentation would be different.

But nonetheless, I can still confidently say that each potential site, there's not a single site that Gianga can be matched up or compared to where there's backfill that was not utilized from a public source perspective.

And if we weren't able to say that confidently, I would not say it in an open meeting in this particular manner.

And one of the things I think that that can't be underscored as you have an opportunity to evaluate your position as it relates to your decision in this particular matter, is that after the interim suspension was issued, the uh group executive for construction reached out to Mr.

McKinney directly and inquired as to whether or not he was utilizing Iron Horse.

And very promptly, Mr.

McKinney was able to go into his financial accounts and show the screenshots of the canceled checks from Iron Horse.

The reason why that's important is because we submit to you that if the Office of the Inspector General had conducted a full and fair investigation, that inquiry would be made by them.

But instead, what we have is that an allegation that was levied from individuals who shielded their faces, accusing Mr.

McKinney of using backfill from the Northland site.

And then we know from the investigation that was conducted not by us but by Cranes that individuals from the Northland site who own that particular property vehemently deny that they are ever were in business with anyone from Gianga.

You have no affidavits from anyone that was employed by Gianga that swears that they went to the Northland site and then utilized backfill from those particular locations.

And on top of that, even if those allegations were made, we would submit to you that they were false, but we would still have the ability to evaluate the financial documents in relationship with the dates that the backfill was procured and then utilized to fill the sites that are at issue.

So when we take into consideration that even though our burden is high, the manner in which the investigation was carried out is not an investigation that uh consists of Gianga Gyenga refusing to answer questions, refusing to provide documents, refusing to meet with any investigators.

In fact, as the three of us sit before you thank you.

As the three of us sit before you, we aren't even in a position to be able to articulate to you directly who the investigators were that would have involved themselves in the process on behalf on behalf of the office of the inspector general.

And then finally, I would I would ask you to consider as it relates to the manner in which the investigation, and I'm using air quotes as I sit here, was carried out.

Are there more questions in this particular case that are presented to you that simply don't have answers?

And if that is the case, is that our fault?

Because we did not conduct the investigation.

We're not the ones that were answering the questions.

We're only here to respond to the fact that we can clearly establish that for each site that's in question, and this is only through our own internal vetting process, that we're able to go back through the dates and times that we have where actual construction sites were at issue where we utilize backfill and then compare those to our own internal documents to say we went to Iron Horse on this particular date, that would have been for dirt top's truck to this location.

You still have three minutes to rebuttal.

Very good, thank you.

Thank you.

Did you want to state for rebuttal with that how it works?

Is that questions for us or rebuttal for the other uh the IG?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

The rebuttal is so that the appellant can respond to what is presented by the OEG.

All right, we will now move to the office of the inspector general.

If I may through the chair.

I had said at the outset that there would be 20 minutes for the presentation by Gayanga.

Um of course the council could set its own time limits.

We had proceeded on 10.

So if you would allow it, they can present further make further presentation.

The OIG would like more than the five minutes, so they don't object.

Excuse me.

They want more than the 10 minutes.

The OIG would have had five, so they they would like to get the 10.

It was basically it's up to this body to set the time limits.

We had suggested them.

So if you would allow the OIG more time to present its case.

Just discuss again, if I may, on that point.

Yeah, hold on one second.

Councilmember Benson.

So at this point, on the timing issue, I'm confused.

This is my first time, or it's been quite some time since we've done this process.

Can we just explain the timing and this modification that has been requested?

And I see LPD is has its hand up.

If David would like to respond, Mr.

Whitaker.

That's one of the rules of the road.

That's all I'm going to say.

Just because there are two uh respondents, there's the company and then there's Mr.

McKinney.

And because they are two, typically they've been allowed 10 minutes apiece, which would give more time for the inspector general to present.

I think the inspector general wants them to have as much time as they as they need to take so that it gives him sufficient time to make the argument he needs to make.

Discussion.

Yes, Member Benson.

And I just want to make sure.

So are we now basing the OIG's response time on 50% of the appellants presentation time?

And since there are now two appellants, is what I'm hearing, the company, as well as Mr.

McKinney, the more time that is received by the appellant, then increases the 50 percent of the response time to the OIG.

Is that accurate?

Madam President, I think Mr.

Mr.

Nosita sort of misspoke in the beginning.

It should have been 20 minutes to start with.

Because there are two, we're not increasing the number, the amount of time.

He had there they had 20 minutes to present.

He just misspoke when he said 10.

Okay.

But then I've also now heard that there are two companies and they shall both be given an opportunity.

Am I missing that's where two appellants?

Two appellants, yes.

So yes, that's what I meant.

Yes.

So if there are two appellants, then they're both given 10 minutes.

Which now brings it to 20 minutes.

Right.

Okay.

And then the OIG's response time is based on 50 percent of that.

Is that how that time is based?

Yes.

Okay, all right.

That's very helpful.

Thank you.

Sorry for the confusion.

All right.

So would you all like to proceed?

And the clerk would note member Calloway has joined us as well.

So you would like to respond with the additional 10 minutes.

And then you can also shave off some for rebuttal again.

Is that how that works?

Yes, correct.

Uh and so the arguing of those cases.

Um who argues those cases, I believe they need to be identified uh for the record for those 10 minutes.

Perfect.

If you can please do so, yes, what I would indicate is that we we we're responding jointly.

Um we're taking them as if they are one entity, and we we do not intend to, it would be redundant in terms of our presentation.

It would just be essentially us taking 20 minutes because we can.

We're not we don't intend to do that.

That was never our our our position, just to take the 10 minutes jointly from a uniform perspective, and then what we could do is we reserve three minutes for argument in the initial 10.

Um we could reserve additional time for questions if we had those, we would be open to that as well.

Okay.

Uh when would it be appropriate for questions to the law department after the presentation from the inspector general?

Um after all the arguments are presented, I'm sure the the body is free to ask questions.

Thank you all.

So we will proceed now with the Office of the Inspector General's presentation.

Yes, member Proton Tate, followed by Member Benson.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

So I guess the question is seeing that uh though uh Guyanga and well the two appellants, let me just put it that way.

The two appellants uh have decided to condense the time to ten minutes as opposed to twenty minutes.

Does that now reduce the time for the OIG from the original half mark, half point of 10 minutes, or does it now reduce it to five?

Just for clarification.

If I may see the chair.

No, a party that's given a certain amount of time to argue an appeal, they can use all the time or not.

It doesn't reduce the time allowed for the other side.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President.

So now we it's a bit of a shift, not only in standard of proof, but also in presentation time.

We were told that the OIG would have five minutes.

Additionally, we were also informed that we would receive cross documents one week in advance of today's hearing, which again goes to our prep in terms of our presentation.

We received the OIG's presentation today.

Um submitted one week prior as the terms and conditions outlined as again submitted by corporation counsel.

So from our perspective, nonetheless, in terms of how you want to proceed, this is why you're seeing the presentation that we have.

If the council wants us to present longer, we we pre we prep to make sure that we respected your time and we respected the moves that they as they were submitted to us.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

So we will now move to the Office of the Inspector General, and they will have a total of 10 minutes to present their case.

So I guess they should introduce themselves.

And in the back, we have David Armstrong, investigator for the Office of Inspector General.

Good afternoon, Honorable.

We gotta get our phone.

Uh-oh.

Before you begin, did you also want time for rebuttal to be taken off your time?

No?

Okay, perfect.

All right.

Good afternoon, Honorable Council members.

I'm Kamal Mirable, Inspector General, and I stand here as appellee in this appeal of OIG's interim suspension of Gyenga and Brian McKinney.

As noted, I only have 10 minutes to present my response, so let me get right to it.

We are here to decide if my office abused its discretion in issuing the interim suspension.

This is not about findings or a completed investigation.

Based on the charter, I can only share findings once my investigation is complete.

For the record, this investigation is active and ongoing.

However, this is about if I was justified in issuing the suspension with the standard of abuse, uh abuse if I abuse my discretion based on the preponderance of evidence, which is defined as a ruling that is clearly unreasonable, erroneous, or arbitrary, and not justified by the facts or law.

So let's start with the fact that my authority is vested in the city charter, the city's department ordinance and the very contract the appellant signed when agreeing to do work for the city.

The next few slides would demonstrate our reasoning for implementing the interim suspension.

We rarely share the existence of our investigation before findings and closure.

However, because of the nature of the information that the appellant was placing contaminated backfill into residential demolition sites in the city, and because the potential risk to the health and safety of Detroit residents, we asked the construction and demolition department to test sites that were that were identified in our investigation, that were identified in our investigation.

We did not have the ability and or capacity to conduct the testing ourselves.

Twenty-nine sites exceeded the state's direct contact safety threshold.

This means approximately 60% 62% of the properties filled by Gayenga and tested at that time were found to be unsafe for direct human contact.

The documentation inclusive of low tickets submitted by the appellant to C D, even if truthful and accurate, identify several sources and vendors for the materials used to fill the sites.

The contamination issues cannot be attributed to just one source of backfield material.

Unfortunately, the appellant was led to believe this in a conversation with a public servant held after it was crystal clear that the appellant was under OIG investigation.

The only thing these contaminated sites have in common is they were filled by Gainga.

Let's be clear, there is real world impact for these for uh the citizens.

We wanted to illustrate the proximity of these contaminated lots to homeowners in the city.

This is just two of the sites to show you the proximity of these contaminated sites.

Now I like to bring you back to two short years ago when my predecessor Ellen Ha as IG defended the interim suspension of Denman contracting and David Holman, its owner, under the same constraints and very similar circumstances.

We could not show our proverbial cards because the charter's confidentiality mandate and an ongoing federal criminal investigation.

But at the end of the day, when the cards were on the table, this was the result.

With the assistance of the SIGTAR, which is the Special Inspector General of Troubled Asset Relief Program, we identified properties in which Denmen use unapproved and unknown backfill.

Denman owner David Holman was charged with 12 criminal counts by the Michigan Attorney General for fraudulently invoicing for backfill and using unapproved unknown dirt.

Homan pleaded no contest to felony false pretenses.

He was sentenced to one year of probation and a hundred hours of community service.

He was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of 4.7 million dollars.

Denman and Holman were debarred for 20 years each.

We don't act lightly.

Even outside of the standard of this appeal hearing, if we believe that the grounds to lift our suspension and conclude our investigation were there, we would do so.

We are fact-finders.

I don't get paid by the suspension or the department.

I get paid to ensure honesty and integrity in city government and contracting by rooting out fraud, abuse, waste, and corruption.

So, did we abuse our discretion by issuing the interim suspension?

The answer is no.

We were reasonable and unerring.

We were objective and justified based on the credible information and test results and by the authority given to us by the Charter and the Department Ordinance.

One final note about a concerning narrative spun or perpetuated by the appellant in light of a conversation held and documented by the appellant.

This office, under its previous leadership, and definitely this Inspector General has always conducted all of its investigations fairly and has never been motivated by race.

And the very suggestion is blatantly ridiculous and offensive on its face.

I will not have a reputation built on faithful service not only to this city government as a whole, but to the African American community questioned by anyone, professionally or personally.

So that being said, thank you for your time and attention.

Once again, I believe wholeheartedly that the preponderance of evidence bears out our interim suspension and it is justified.

I think I had some time, so I just want to note the appellees kept talking about an investigation.

Our investigation is ongoing.

The charter does not allow me to divulge that information.

So this is the interim suspension.

It ends, it's a 90-day suspension.

I can extend that for three 30-day.

So this is so all of the things that were indicated by the appellant that hasn't happened because we are ongoing.

We haven't gotten around to doing interviews of the appellee yet.

Um, but we are working this case actively.

It is active and ongoing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

So do we move into the rebuttal portion now, attorney?

Ask me to come up.

Madam Council President, if I may.

Yes.

Thank you for again having an opportunity to be heard on behalf of the appellant in this particular matter.

Again, we are the moving party, we are the appellant.

And as I had an opportunity to sit and listen to the presentation, again, I reviewed it this morning, just received it.

What I would say is that there's absolutely no response to our position that we have documentation that clearly establishes that we've only utilized backfield from a public source.

So when we talk about abuse of discretion, if your investigation uh began with a complaint that started about a Northland site, and we have documentation that's provably false that can refute that assertion, covered with the fact that the CEO of the Northland site, the owners of the property have indicated that they've never done business with Gianga and that they don't have any information to suggest that that's ever taken place.

How is it then that that complaint be can't began or should perceive to be credible?

And then you have to ask yourself as you go to the next stage regarding differential treatment.

Now I appreciate the officer, the office of the inspector general is offended by the assertion that as a black contractor, Mr.

McKinney is being treated differently.

Well, then we have to ask ourselves why is it acceptable for Mr.

McKinney to utilize Iron Horse, a public source that he was steered towards and he gets suspended, but other contractors are not.

So that's a question that was not answered at all during the presentation that was brought forth.

And again, if the response is simply well, our investigation is ongoing, how is that acceptable?

So when I think about an abusive discretion, I think about an incomplete investigation, not necessarily in terms of where we are now, five months after the allegation would have been levied.

You still haven't had an opportunity to speak with anyone from Gianga.

Now, for the OIG to suggest that well, our investigation is ongoing, we just haven't had an opportunity to make any requests of the company, speak with any employees, or get any affidavits to be able to substantiate our position, but we'll get to it later on down the line.

When will that be?

Perhaps maybe when uh the year ends and the administrations change.

So what we submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, is that this was never a true investigation, and it was never about getting to the truth.

It was about a way to uh tap Mr.

McKinney and a way to steamroll the admirations or the aspirations of other political uh appointees as they pursued higher office.

That's what this was about.

And if we don't see it for what it is, then how do we have the question marks that loom over the investigation?

As we sit here in this particular position, I would not be able to say confidently that we could provide documentation that supports that we utilize Iron Horse if we didn't have it.

We attached it to our written response, we provided it in advance, unlike the OIG, and even though they had an opportunity to get that information, they don't respond to it at all.

They just simply say this could not have come from one source.

We didn't say that Iron Horse was the only source that we utilized.

We said that every source of backfield is a public source that we were guiding directed toward from the city, and the financial documentation that we have supports that premise.

And that will never change, regardless of the way that the allegations are levied, regardless of where the investigation is conducted or lack thereof.

So for all of those reasons, I submit to you that when you conclude and you have an opportunity to assess this, ask yourself was this a self-fulfilling prophecy levied by the OIG, or was it truly the product of a full and fair investigation?

And the timeline that we are now, 90 days have passed.

These questions that I'm asking, he just essentially there was a concession.

We haven't gotten around to it yet.

And I submit to you that that's unacceptable.

So for all of those reasons, and then on top of that, and I I would be remiss if I didn't make this argument.

You have an entire uh written section of our our of our presentation that outlines all of the steps that Gianga has taken to make sure that this does not happen.

We created an entire staff loaded with former city employees that they've hired to make sure that the backfill is of a quality, is of a quality that we can confidently utilize in properties throughout the city, and that is to make sure that we utilize public sources, and that's why we have the documentation at our disposal to be able to support that position.

For all those reasons, I'm asking that you immediately overturn the suspension of Gianga and allow them to get back to work.

Thank you.

All right, do we do another response or is that a turney Anderson?

Through the chair, uh council now has opportunity to ask questions.

All right, we will open it up to questions from our colleagues.

I'll start with Pro Tim Take, followed by Member Callo.

I don't have a question just yet.

I got a few things.

I was just going to say I think it would be appropriate for all to join up front for the questions.

Yeah.

Okay, all right.

Um Member Calloway.

Followed by Member Johnson.

Thank you.

Um Madam Chair.

Um good afternoon, everyone.

Just a real quick question.

Um to the attorney's um point regarding not having received the document or the report from the OIG in a timely fashion.

He just received it when today or was it yesterday?

We received it today by checking the public documents available for the meeting.

Okay.

When were the documents uploaded so they would have access to it?

We we sent the documents out uh last week at the deadline.

Um so I'm not quite sure why they didn't receive it and who was responsible to for getting it to.

But at the same time that that uh council's information was sent out, it was sent to the clerk.

So I'm not sure who was responsible for getting it.

Um it's never been our responsibility to directly send information um to an appellee.

Um in the in the same letter that we we've mentioned several times that kind of laid out our our rules for this, it was we were to turn both parties' side or letters into the law department and they would disseminate them.

Okay.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Member Callaway.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Madam President.

And Mr.

Whitaker, please stop me if I am going down the wrong path here, because my question is not necessarily about an abuse of discretion, but it is to ask the appellate, uh, the representative of the appellate, whether or not it is it was Guyanga's responsibility to test the soil.

I understand that it was coming from a quote unquote approved source, and I'm not sure what that entirely means.

Um, but do you believe that it was your client's uh responsibility to test the soil prior to using it or periodically?

So uh thank you for that question, uh uh Madam Councilmember.

What I would submit to you is that's one of the first questions that I asked Mr.

McKinney when I had an opportunity to meet with him and when make sure you speak to the microphone.

That was one of the the things that I stressed, or that I asked my client when I first had an opportunity to meet with him and why it was so important for me, although in my limited time to be able to articulate the difference between a public source and a private source.

I would submit to you that the you that essentially buying into the private source is buying into the insurance that the backfield is of an integrity, is of a quality, it's more expensive for a contractor.

So I would say that if we utilize, if we attempted to cut corners, if we attempted to utilize backfield that was cheaper, then it would be our responsibility.

But in this particular case, we want clean dirt to be utilized too, and that's why we essentially pay the the the cost.

We bought into the insurance to make sure that we were utilizing backfield that's of a quality, so I don't believe that um that the Gyonga was responsible for doing that at being that they utilize the public source to acquire that backfield.

To further clarify, um publicly approved backfield sources are tested and maintained by the city so that contractors can use them with the certainty that those places have been already tested and are approved for their use.

So it is not upon the contractor to have to test any dirt when using an approved source.

Okay, thank you.

I I'm sure I'll have questions for the department.

Thank you, Madam President.

Through the chair.

Um I I just want to say this.

Like I said, uh my arms are literally tied behind my back on what can be said, but I I want to be clear that this is a self-reporting mechanism.

And if we are doing an investigation, I understand what the appellee is saying in terms of the validity of what was supplied, but our information suggests that that that one the backfield did not come from Iron Horse, and two um that um the information listed on the backfield uh load tickets are incorrect.

So that's when I when I'm when I'm saying as directly as I can say that this is a part of an ongoing investigation that I cannot speak uh directly speak to, but I want to be clear so council understands that when speak people speak with confidence about oh we submitted this and we submitted that.

It wasn't as if we we um somehow um decided to, oh, let's check these properties.

Our information came from somewhere, and when we had um C D D check it, a separate organization, a separate contractor, it came back the way that we demonstrated that it came back.

And that was the concern of the interim suspension.

Once again, this is not a final debarment.

We are not finished.

But in cases where health and safety of residents are involved, we are we we need to take immediate action, and we did that.

Were you done, Member Johnson?

Okay, member Member Durhaw.

Thank you, Madam President, uh, and good afternoon to you all.

Uh that was going to be the crux of my question to you, uh, through you, Madam President, uh, to our OIG.

Uh in your experience or the deputy OIG's experience, when we talk about temporary uh uh and we're not talking about disbarment.

Again, we're talking about suspension.

Have there been cases in the past where this temporary suspension was issued only to come to find out uh after the investigation has been completed, uh as you know, there was no disbarment that occurred after that.

No.

Council President, uh, if I may.

Uh in response to uh uh council member uh Durhaw's question, I would be remiss if I did not mention that my firm represented Gianga in a OIG investigation in the fall of 2023 uh for a similar inquiry, and on the contrary to the manner in which this investigation has uh unfolded, we were given the opportunity to respond directly to inquiries from the OIG.

We were given the opportunity to provide documentation, and we were given an opportunity to participate in the process, and it certainly uh did not take three months for that to happen, thereby uh causing the business to suffer potentially catastrophic delays in terms of being able to get subs paid in terms of being able to pay their employees in terms of being able to survive.

And I'm not trying to to shy away from the fact that environmental safety should be of the utmost importance and that it trumps financial concerns, but nonetheless, similarly situated investigations from prior um inspector generals that my firm participated in directly have not gone like this.

And that is why we're taking the position that we're taking in terms of um uh advocating in this particular manner that there's been differential treatment.

So this is not something that we recognize.

Through you, Madam President, just as a response, that was going to be my next question to you.

Very familiar.

I was around here in 2023.

Were the allegations against Gayanga as serious for and or cause potential harm to residential health uh as this case possibly does?

I would say that um that these are more serious.

I I I can say that pointedly.

It would be disingenuous for me not to, but I'm not trying to underscore the severity of the investigation.

Um but I am emphasizing the fact that the procedure was totally different, and that it appears from our perspective, and I appreciate they have a different position.

From our perspective, it appears that the cart was put before the horse, especially when a press release was released into the media suggesting fraud on behalf of Mr.

McKinney.

And that's what changes it.

That's what makes it different.

Is that not that it's just about the health and safety, but that his actions were fraudulent, deliberate, and purposeful.

And three, Madam President, to our uh inspector general, uh, upon your investigation without getting too deep into your investigation, uh, because what is being stated today by counsel is that you are providing different treatment uh as you were as you would to any other uh person who has faced suspension.

Uh in your opinion, is this consistent with other cases that we have seen come in front of us regarding interim suspension?

We did see uh your example uh but others in the past.

Uh and how in your opinion is it not different based off of your procedure uh and investigation?

It it is exactly the same.

So what what's being discussed?

First of all, um I'm not new to the office.

Uh I was here when the other investigation uh went off.

I was part of the approval process for that.

So I want to make it clear, just because we did not substantiate does not mean that we cleared.

Just because we didn't substantiate does not mean that we did not clear.

But the information that we received, the allegations that we received were of a more direct nature, allowing us to give addresses, and I'm um I'm trying to bring it home as much as I can uh to C C D D uh for testing, and those came back that.

Now, if those would have came come back at 10%, do I do an interim suspension?

Probably not.

If they come back at 30 percent, do I um do an interim suspension?

But if you're talking about 80 percent of the test coming back bad, I would be negligent in my duty not to do an interim suspension.

Uh and I stand on that.

Thank you, madam president.

Thank you, Member Durhaw, member uh Benson.

Thank you.

Um two questions.

One for the law department.

This is the rules of the road.

So we are here, we would we should well, the ability is to overturn based on an abuse of discretion by the OIG, correct?

That's the standard, yes.

I'm sorry, pardon me.

Okay.

And so now this is directed towards the appellant team.

I haven't heard, maybe I just missed this.

Where is the abuse of discretion by the OIG in your professional opinion?

Well, how much time you got?

How much time the rules of the road allow?

What I would say uh the abuse of discretion is not being able to re to rebut any of the positions that we're levying before you here today, that we utilize the public source, that we were directed to a public source, and that we have financial documents that support our position that the properties in question, and again, this is us reverse engineering the properties that we believe are in question, because uh the gentleman uh our brother counsel has not provided those yet, and they may come at a later date, they may not ever come.

But what I can tell you sitting here now from an advocate's perspective is that when you make a when you levy an allegation of fraud, and when you say that these type of allegations are deliberate and specific, and then we're five months since the the accusation was been has been made, and then you say, Well, we don't have any specifics, I think that is an abusive discretion, right?

Because what we're talking about is from our perspective, as you sit in the the seat and you're suffering the score of the or the burn of the interim suspension now, and then not being given an opportunity to rebut that because you're not being given the specifics of what you've done wrong, other than your letter, which says that you got dirt dirt from Northland.

When Northland says that that never happened.

So upon what basis are you acting, is what my would be my response to say, even though the burden for abusive discretion is high, as we sit here now, it appears that the investigation is moving at a snail's pace, and or a critical portion of it would be it would be tantamount to arresting an individual and not asking them what happened after an officer places them under arrest until five months after you place them under arrest.

This is the first thing that happens is that an individual is given an opportunity to make the statement if they want to.

And I appreciate that someone could say, well, Mr.

Clemens, this is not criminal.

Well, essentially the allegation that's been levied of an illegal dumping is that.

So the texture in terms of how you can you should evaluate the allegation that's being levied in relationship to an abusive discretion, is that the the individual that's facing the burn of this suspension is not being given an opportunity to rebut any of the assertions, and you're not telling us specifically what the assertions are.

And to the law department.

What is the definition of an abuse of discretion?

I'd like to clarify.

What is the definition of an abusive discretion?

Well, yes, it's it's been defined variously by the courts, but generally speaking, let me find my notes.

Pardon.

It's uh it's where a decision falls outside the range of principled outcomes.

And in further explanation of that, our courts have explained that it occurs when a decision is palpably and grossly violated of a fact and logic that it exercises that it evidence is not the exercise of will but perversity of will.

Not the exercise of judgment, but defiance thereof, not the exercise of reason, but rather passion or bias.

So it's it's really a very tainted, it would be a very tainted decision.

Um and to be clear, your decision on whether to overturn the department must be based on the evidence that's presented to you.

But you're reviewing the inspector general's exercise of discretion for an abuse.

Because the decision to issue an interim suspension is a discretionary action.

So we are not here on based upon the issue before us, how terrible it could or could not be.

We are here to decide if the OIG is inappropriately acting.

Correct.

That is our charge today.

Am I correct?

Yes.

That is that is that is that is a proper that is in a correct statement.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Member Benson.

Member Pro Tem Tate, followed by Member Durha.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh to the uh appellants counsel.

Uh so are can you define, I mean, you you mentioned public source that the dirt was acquired by the public source, all of the dirt.

And and correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying that all of the dirt uh that is in question has been acquired from public source?

I'm saying sources.

I'm saying at the residential properties where Gianga has utilized backfield, it is that of a public source.

Yes.

Okay.

Can you define uh public source?

Um it basically it's an approved city.

Well, I'll turn to attorney baker.

I think you can better answer that then.

Yeah, actually, the the construction department provides contractors with a list of approved sources.

So it is a document created by the construction department and given to contractors for where they can source backfield dirt.

Uh list of companies that they can utilize for that service.

Okay.

And so I know that it was indicated that uh to the and this is to the Mr.

IG, uh you indicated that there is a um timeline, if you will, for interim suspension, and you can't have the ability to uh request additional uh 30-day incrementals of I believe you said three.

Where are we at currently in the timeline of those uh initial 90 days?

So we're we're at a about 60 days in.

So I'm I'm not understanding the time frame that the appellant keeps giving of five months.

Um we're by our um so and and I just once again won't want to say um the appell you know throwing the information out there as if it's fact.

We have evidence to the contrary in terms of of the source um of and and the validity of that information.

May I clarify one point?

Uh as it relates to the time, what I indicated in a uh excuse me if I was not clear.

What I was saying regarding the five-month timeline is that the letter of suspension that's issued by the OIG indicates that the allegation was received on June the fifth.

So when I said five months, I'm saying that five months has transpired since the allegation was levied.

The suspension itself was levied on September the 10th.

But nonetheless, given the severity of the allegation, what I'm saying is that over the five months since the allegation was made, no one from uh Gianga or in its in or on its leadership or administrative team has been interviewed and or been uh asked to come in with information.

So that's where the five-month time frame came from.

Thank you, Madam President.

And so uh still had the floor.

I I know that it's indicated that uh through uh Mr.

IG that the uh investigation is still ongoing.

Uh the appellants uh representative indicated that the appellant has not been interviewed at this point through this investigation.

Is there a um and I'm trying not to get into the the strategy, um that's not my role, but is there the thought to um interview the appellant through the investigation that is currently still in process?

No, that that absolutely has to happen.

It absolutely has to happen.

Um, but generally um when you run an investigation, your target of the investigation, and I think just using um playing language here is interviewed at the end.

Um in terms of the time that it's taken um or the five months that it's taken since we started the investigation.

I uh included in my narrative um that we reluctantly went to C D D to help with the testing.

That's that's how alarmed we were.

We got information that that said, hey, I don't want to say, so we got information that turned these addresses.

We went to C D D and asked them to have have it tested.

It took that long to have those properties tested.

Uh apparently it is a a long process.

The day uh after those results came back in is the day um that we did the interim suspension.

So um at the point of of uh that period of time that we noted in the letter, um C D D was having um the lots tested.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Member Pro Tim Tate.

Uh Member Durha, followed by Member Callaway.

Thank you, Madam President.

So I guess what I'm trying to wrap my mind around, we are here today to see if the OIG has violated their discretion in regards to the suspension.

What brings in some of my mind are a couple things.

One from what I hear from your argument, one is kind of a basis of uh starry decisives, if you will, or precedent that has been set from the OIG, and the other is would sound some something similar to a Brady violation, uh, which none in this body we have uh the jurisdiction uh even to state that that has occurred because this is not a court of law.

I think we're bounded by acting within the charter and what is expressed under the charter of what the OIG's duties are, particularly as it relates to these suspensions, and if there again was a violation of abuse of that decision or that discretion.

My simple question to you is what is it uh that you can state, throwing out these other things that we're not bounded by.

Uh this is a current investigation.

So Brady doesn't apply here.

We're not in a court of law.

Uh you may have an argument on precedent or or start decisives if that is the case, but what is your argument that the OIG specifically violated their discretion uh in regards to to this decision?

I I guess I would start with one, what I believe is out which should always be at the forefront, uh uh Councilmember Durha would be fundamental fairness.

And when when I think about what fundamental fairness requires, what it entails, is that regardless of whether we're in a a court process or whether or not we're in a court of law, is that the charter, your ordinances do outline a uh a standard of due process, right?

So even as we prepare to come before you here today in terms of our presentation, what we know is that Iron Horse was suspended, and it's our position that Iron Horses is suspended essentially after we put in our response that we were utilizing Iron Horse to procure backfill.

And then if you consider that in tandem with the fact that uh the uh the honorable uh inspector general just indicated specifically that we were waiting for C D and D to do the testing, this is who puts together the list of the approved sources or the public sources for uh uh uh Gianga to rely upon, for contractors to rely upon.

So, and and also we've we we don't seem to have been given any information today in terms of this hearing from a clarification perspective regarding the validity of the fact that Ianga was supposedly procuring backfill from Northland.

And if if that's still protected, if that's something that that is gonna come out later, I would submit to you that even as you sit here in your seat now, when the presentation is what it is from the OIG, regardless of it, the standard changes, regardless of the fact that we're not in a court of law, the nature of the allegation should at least be able to be supported to some extent.

Otherwise, that would take the position that an individual can never win an appeal from an abusive discretion from an abusive discretion standpoint.

And through you, Madam President, as a long-term long-time legislator, I would love to see fundamental fairness uh in the charter uh or state law.

Uh, but is it is simply not in there uh in which it outlines, and as we talk about due process, what my mind thinks uh as we are talking about this specific process, and who knows, maybe it's broken, uh, that he has not been disbarred.

If he was disbarred without a decision or the opportunity to be investigated without counsel approval, I believe that is a violation of due process.

Uh and I raise this example, even though these are different examples.

If there is an officer involved shooting, oftentimes here in the city of Detroit, we will find that officer gets temporary suspension until the investigation is complete.

And I draw that contrast because they're two similar things.

Uh until that investigation is complete and whatever the nature of that investigation finds out, it's stating that this officer, we cannot put him back in there because we don't know if he's right and we don't know if he's wrong.

And that's what the investigation is for us to find out.

And I believe I I didn't put that in the charter, but I believe that the intent of an interim suspension up to that allotted time was to allow for the investigation to play out so this council can make the proper decision in regards to what is ultimately the most aggressive uh decision we can make, which is disbarment.

Uh and so uh I'm not you know, and and I I'm trying to get the opportunity to hear it today of saying how did he violate that.

Uh again, we mentioned fundamental fairness, you mentioned due process, uh, but again, none of those are violated, particularly as I was in my opinion, under what the charter uh states, and so I'm trying to get there.

Do we do we say that um you know it'd be different if we're like, hey, we have proof that uh uh uh Inspector General Mirable had it out for Mr.

McKinney.

Uh or you know, we have proof uh that you know no one saw you know saw the dirt.

I know we keep going back and forth about the dirt, but even that is part of the investigation really not subject to what we're here about today.

Uh the burden of proof is for you, uh counsel is to prove that this temporary suspension was placed in a I don't want to say unfair, was was issued uh and at the abuse and discretion of the OIG uh may I respond now?

Or counselor.

So uh what I would say first, uh I believe is the easiest part of your hypothetical, which is I guess more in my direct and direct real house would be that in the in your example of an interim suspension for an officer and officer involved shooting is that he's is he's still able to um to do um he's taken off the street, but he's still able to work.

In this particular case, the sting for Kianga and for Mr.

McKinney is that number one, his public reputation is smeared significantly because there's an allegation of fraud levy, two, his both private contracts that are tied to his dealings with the city and public dealings are both suspended.

So although he has not yet been disbarred, the sting is the same.

And the sting has really been the same since September 10th when the public release was was laid out.

And then it it would be different had we not had a prior investigation to compare and contrast what this investigation, how it's unfolded.

And I now I've already conceded the point that the allegations, um, anything that involved involving environmental safety is of the utmost importance, I wouldn't be able to sit in this chair and passionately argue were I not to make that that concession.

But where I do think that that it's important to be able to highlight is that if we're 65 days in and it's been conceded that there's been no request made of the individual that's suspended, no request made of the company, and the the response is just that well, we're we we've got 25 days and and the ordinance allows for us to continue to roll that over.

So at the conclusion of that, as we sit in this position now, and nothing has happened, we're still being harmed the same as if the suspension was at the 90-day mark, at the 100-day mark.

It the the sting is the same for us.

Council member, if I may add an additional point.

Um it is also that the law department has reached out to cancel all the city of Detroit contracts with Guyanga.

So they have not yet been disbarred, but the city of Detroit contracts have been canceled.

And it's my understanding that during the process of other similar companies, although they were suspended, their contracts were not terminated based on the allegations.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um thank you, Madam Chair.

Why is that?

Why is that?

That's interesting.

Why are the contracts um for the city suspended?

I'm not understanding that.

That's so I don't know who can answer that.

Why is that happening to this company?

And not to not to other companies who have been investigated for a similar complaint or matter.

Oh, go ahead.

Yeah, I'm I'm not sure what what companies you're referring to, but the the immediate action of an interim suspension is that all contracts are are canceled.

And I don't know who so that would be paramount that folks could work during an interim suspension, and you can't.

So I'm not sure when when counsel references that who he's referring to.

And once again, that would not be our office responsible for that.

Um if there was a lapse um from OCP or but the required action of a suspension is that contracts are are canceled.

I think that what what my my co-counsel uh was speaking to directly uh uh madam is that it's tantamount to the same, which is why that he was mentioning the fact that that the response was that we haven't been disbarred, or we have there there has not been a di a debarment.

And what we are attempting to articulate is that the effects are the same.

And then to further substantiate that point, what my co-counsel was articulating is that we've received letters canceling various contracts and dealings that that that the company has, not only just with the city, but in private dealings as well, because once you get that reputation, once you get that stain as someone that that uh operates and in in a nefarious manner, you won't be able to do business.

Because once you get that reputation, once you get that stain as someone that that uh operates and in in a nefarious manner, you won't be able to do business.

And um, thank you, thank you, thank you, sir.

And madam chair, um, my last question is, and I don't know if this goes to um OIG abusing their discretion, but I just I just want to make sure I understand what's happening with the soil.

May not go to what we're here for, but for my own understanding, what I'm it's a public source approved by the city.

The list is furnished by our um demolition and construction company um division.

Is that true?

Is that accurate?

So the soil that they're getting comes from an approved list provided by the city, and that has gone through demolition and construction.

Is is that my is that is that true?

That is our position.

Uh oh.

Madam Councilmember, yes, uh resounding yes.

Our position is that that's a part of our investigation.

Um I want to also note that it's self-reporting, it is self-reporting the tickets that are required to go in that says where dirt came from comes from the vendor.

There's no independent source of that.

So when I say that that's a part of our investigation, that's a part of our investigation.

Um I'm not here to speak to the integrity of the demolition project or or that process, but I would say that from our understanding of having dealt with it for over the years, it is a complicated process.

It is one that quite frankly, and this is just me speaking, and I don't mean to um cast any aspersion that that it is difficult to wrangle um in terms of managing as a city.

So it's self-reporting, and it it is upon it is the honor system.

And sometimes we have seen that um people take advantage of that honor system.

And that's part and parcel of our uh investigation.

Thank you.

Through the chair, it looks like um our new mayor will have another assignment because if what you're saying is true, that it's self, it's like the honor system is broken, it's broken.

And so, like you just indicated, you can't trust everyone to be honorable and be honest.

Um, so um the self-reporting may not be working for us.

We probably probably gotta look at something else.

And um, with our new administration, I am sure, since she is sitting here, that that's going to be um top of the list for her.

I'm hoping it will be.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much, Member Callaway.

Uh, Councilmember Johnson.

Thank you, madam president.

So, as we have this discussion, it makes me feel as though the request for an appeal was filed perhaps prematurely.

Um and it sounds like it may have been because of the loss of the ability to obtain additional city contracts for the contractor.

And I say that because we have supported numerous contracts for Gyanga.

Um and I'm not sure how many residential lots in total we have approved of for them to either demo or to provide backfill.

The OIG indicated that there were 51 sites that were identified.

Do you know to the appellants council how many in total Gaianga has provided backfield for in the city of Detroit?

And in total, we'd have to file a uh a written memorandum or follow-up so that we could give you a specific number, otherwise it'd be an estimation it's a high number.

I I did want to also say that too that we're we're time limited in terms of when we can file our appeal.

So if you don't get it filed, I believe it's 45 days.

I could be mistaken within when the interim suspension is levied, it then you don't have the opportunity.

So after that 45-day mark passes, I I guess we could write a letter requesting uh seeking special accommodation to receive appellate consideration, but I didn't see anything in the in in the interim suspension ordinance that allows for that.

So we waited nearly until the the last day that that we could uh madam council member, but the time frame is what the ordinance says that it is.

Thank you.

Through through through the chair, um our information shows that Gayenga has filled approximately 2400 residential sites across the city, 2400.

Well, I believe the question was where we provided the backfield, not how many sites that we've there are sites where we've demoed that we're not directly responsible for we this is field.

in the the in in the interim suspension ordinance that allows for that so we waited nearly until the the last day that that we could uh madam council member but the time frame is what the ordinance says that it is thank you through through through the chair um our information shows that guy has filled approximately 2400 residential sites across the city 2400 well i believe the question was where we provided the backfield not how many sites that we've there there are sites where we've demoed that we're not directly responsible for we this is filled okay yeah very thank you thank you member johnson any additional questions comments yes i i i just wanted to to note you know by way of process um that if this plays out um and a a debarment it will we to we talk about due process if a department is levied um the the complaint if the uh appellant uh has the opportunity one to appeal with our office um and then two to city council and that's a different that's where all the findings are out there and that's when I'm defending my investigation that is that is not this is is me defending once again um the abuse of discretion um and and and that's the difference so I just wanted to to provide that all right thank you anything else from the law department nothing further okay all right colleagues uh moving to uh under resolutions madam clerk council member johnson the resolution item three point one council member john uh thank you madam president um discussion I I know that we have had this discussion I'm not sure if my colleagues are ready to move forward or if you'd like to um postpone the item for a future date for a vote any discussion I know we have one session left which would be next Tuesday so member Durha discussion madam president uh so as we are talking about um this interim suspension uh we're talking about how many days we have left uh on council I guess my question is if we postponed it for one week what do we gather uh in that week that we have not heard today uh that that is the question uh there is not going to be another special session had before we voted on the resolution we're not gonna hear anything different uh and so I I believe that taking action uh today uh and in my hopes because I will state this for the record it will allow the uh OIG to do their investigation but hope you know hopefully swiftly uh again uh I don't think today is stating that guyanga or Mr.

McKinney is right or wrong it is stating that the OIG didn't violate their power uh and their discretion uh but in that same vein very sensitive to business and contractors as well uh and and time is money uh and we understand that um but I think taking swift action today madam president uh seeing that we will not have another hearing in of this sort uh and nothing will change uh by postponing it I think is the appropriate thing to do thank you all right thank you member Durha member young yes um I respectfully disagree I think the question and maybe I'm just simple minded but the question that I had was from my understanding was that guyanga received this dirt from a from a city a public source from a city approved source from a third party from my understanding and the question I had was was the dirt that they received from a public source I think that's a simple question and it has not been answered.

And so I don't feel that I have all the facts that that that is a crucial question about liability and about why we're here and if we can't answer that for me I don't think that we should be voting on this at all thank you.

Thank you so much is there anyone who can provide an answer to that question from from our perspective from our perspective no not from you are from from either the law department from the city right um who can just answer the question the representation has been made by Gayanga that they only used an approved source the inspector general's position is is that they have evidence that suggests otherwise it's a question of fact that can't be determined at this time there are investigations ongoing both by the OIG and by the city um so that that's the situation we're in I can't give you an answer.

And in this situation could the director of the uh one counts come on and provide any context or that's not appropriate.

That wouldn't be appropriate it's beyond the scope of what we're doing today.

Okay so it sounds like you wouldn't even be able to get that information if we postponed it either so how can I make a decision without go right ahead Mr.

Madam President.

Discussion.

Uh I think what the inspector general is saying is that has he presented sufficient evidence to allow him to suspend further activity with this and allow him to continue his investigation.

That's all you're doing.

Okay.

You're just saying, is the facts that has been sent it, been presented to you today sufficient to allow him to stall any particular uh further activity from these appellates until he has completed his investigation.

Because I assume he's going to complete his investigation anyway.

But whether or not you can you can suspend the activity of that's what you're being asked.

So this is just basically we are just make sure I got this clear and I'll make sure I'm clarifying.

Forgive me for being the slow kid in the class here.

But I just want to understand.

So we are basically saying that if we vote, you know, to um to uphold the suspension, that we are allowing the OIG to be able to continue their investigation.

That's what they're saying.

And if we don't vote for this, then we're saying that we shouldn't allow that process.

Because from what I'm from what I'm hearing is they have the facts, but they can't disclose those facts or evidence because that would hinder the investigation, right?

Mr.

Whitaker, oh go ahead.

Please.

I'm sorry, if I may, the the inspector general is not going to disclose and and can't disclose any aspect of his investigation until it's complete.

Okay.

So whether a Gayenga is suspended or not, the investigation will continue.

Okay.

And the the Inspector General has determined that it's in the public interest that the suspension be in place because of the nature of the allegations.

Okay.

Correct.

Good.

Okay.

Okay.

Member Callaway, followed by I'm not sure who went first.

Santiago Ramiro, followed by Benson.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In the meantime, does the city owe any money to this company?

Because if they do, if we do, I want them to be paid.

While they're being investigated, if they've already performed the work for other demolition.

Again, I don't know if we let me finish.

If I'm sorry, if the city owes this company any money while this investigation is still in progress, we should pay them so they can pay their workers.

They can pay their subcontractors.

Because to not do that, you're putting them out of business, right?

They're out of business.

A lot of folks that they employ live in our city.

So they're not gonna have a Thanksgiving because they're not being paid.

So the fair thing to me would be for the work that they performed outside of these 47 properties that are being looked at and investigated.

Are there any prior contracts that we owe them for?

And if we owe them any money, so they can pay their workers, so they're not just totally wiped out as a small business that we're proud of.

I can't speak on behalf specifically of the construction and demolition department, but it's my understanding that all approved invoices or the majority of them have been made, have been paid, uh substantial sons, sums have been distributed to Gianga.

Uh and I don't know that there are any pending requests for payment that have not been made.

Um but I I don't have personal knowledge of that, but I believe that to be the case.

So the suspension doesn't prevent processing of payment for approved work, but it begs the question of whether or not payments should issue on sites that were contaminated.

But I'm that payment probably occurred long ago, in all likelihood, because they're pretty expeditious about processing payment.

Okay.

Um thank you, madam chair, but I certainly would want to know outside of these 42 um sites that we have been talking about.

That would be a question to pose to the uh OCP or the uh construction and demolition department.

I simply don't have that.

So that would be a question that we will pose to OCP because I certainly will want this company that employs so many um detroiters to be um properly compensated outside of the 42 that are under investigation.

And I and I agree with you wholeheartedly, and I can tell you from my own experience with another contractor that we we didn't suspend, we just terminate them because we found out that they had serious debts to subcontractors, so we held the payment and lots of litigation ensued and it was resolved, and the contractors were made as whole as possible.

So I mean we do try to act in the interest of people that have provided services in support of the program.

In my experience, I mean I was directly involved.

And through the chair to yourself, um sir.

I just don't want the company um not treated fairly in the process of being investigated, and anyone who's done work outside of the 42 properties that are under investigation should be properly compensated.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam, chair.

Thank you, Member Callaway, Member Santiago Ramiro.

Thank you, Madam President.

Through you to the OIG, are the lack of payments part of your investigation, or is it just the dirty dirt?

Because we've heard of a few issues with the company and concerns, and I quite frankly would like information on what was just shared.

What's the problem here?

Because I know we have approved contracts and we've gotten better with payment and procurements.

So I'm trying to figure out what the issue is with these payments.

If it's not the city, then is this going to be a part of the investigation?

Can it be?

So once again, this is a tight tight rope.

I I will say that um we have received multiple complaints um from subcontractors.

Um ideally, more than likely that would um be included in our investigation.

I think I can safely say that we've received those complaints.

Okay, Madam President, thank you.

Um, because I I also want people to get paid, but there seems to be again, we need to go through this investigation process.

I think that I've I I know that I've heard enough to feel comfortable making sure that you're able to do your job.

I think you have enough evidence to be able to do so.

I just really want to get to the bottom of answers, and we won't be able to do that without this investigation.

Um, so I do not think that we should push this forward um anymore.

We can vote it out to continue to do the investigation and then get down to what the problems are because the problems I'm also worried are within the administration, because there's a lot of there's a lot of rumors going around.

I don't know where this dirt is coming from.

What are the approved sites?

We for we I would like to make sure we get that we get that information, but I don't think that we will get the questions by just dismissing or um by not allowing this full process and and the pause um with with the company at the moment.

Thank you, Madam President.

All right, thank you so much, Councilmember.

Member Benson.

All right, thank you.

I'm going to reference the letter from LPD or the memo October 20, 2025, regarding the process.

And so uh under Section 17 Tech 5 Tech 361 Echo.

We have to hold the appeal by 24 November.

This being the 18th, we've accomplished that.

But it doesn't say that we have to vote today.

And I also heard earlier we do not have to vote, but the rules indicate we have to proactively overturn.

So can you LPD talk to the process here, please?

Yes, madam president.

Yes.

Uh you have to make your decision known within 10 days, and you have to let the appellate know what decision you made.

So that the last date would be the date that you go on recess, so that would be uh the 25th of next would be next Tuesday.

That would be your last voting session.

So you would take action by the 20 by the 25th.

Okay.

So I want to make sure I'm clear.

It doesn't say we have to, but inaction is also an action in this situation, because it indicates we have to proactively overturn the appeal.

Is that accurate?

Madam President.

Yes.

In my opinion, you have to you have to act.

You have to decide the the the issue whether or not you're you're uh continuing the interim suspicion or agreeing not to overturn it.

Okay.

So you should act by there needs to be a motion to overturn, is what I'm hearing.

Right.

You should you should act one way or the other.

That's what we're talking about now.

So there's a proposed resolution before us now, Member Johnson.

I think you just move for discussion.

So we're discussing it now.

Um, and I think Member Durha some have indicated that we can move forward today on um that so I'm not sure, Member Durha or Member Johnson if you want to make a motion to move forward.

Thank you, madam.

So sorry.

Yep, you had something else.

Just really briefly.

The resolution in front of us.

We're voting in if we vote in oh, thank you.

I will I will be affirmative.

It is an affirmative.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Madam President.

I was just going to share what it says.

Um, but move for approval on the resolution.

Um to support a finding of no abuse of discretion.

Right.

And I will leave it there.

Move for approval.

Discussion on the motion.

Member Benson?

For clarity.

I just want to make sure a vote of agreeing does not overturn a vote of no.

Six votes of no would overturn the findings.

The uh suspension, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

So we would have to vote in the negative to end the suspension, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

A motion has been made for the approval.

Are there any objections?

Okay.

Hearing no objections, the one resolution will be approved.

All right.

And that will conclude the hearing today.

And if there is no further business to come before us, is there a motion to adjourn?

No, just come on.

Committee will stand adjourned.