Mayor Andre Dickens shifts responsibility for $910,000 clerk consultant contract as Atlanta Council demands accountability

Nearly $1 million in payments draws scrutiny inside City Hall

Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens has told City Council members that his office should not be held responsible for a consulting arrangement that resulted in $910,000 in payments to former Atlanta Municipal Clerk Foris Webb III, a contract now under intensified scrutiny for lacking clear controls and continuing even after the underlying work stalled.

The payments stemmed from a consultant role created to support signature verification for a petition drive seeking a citywide referendum on the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center, a project that became the subject of prolonged legal disputes. Although the verification work never began, the city still issued 26 monthly payments of $35,000 each, with the final invoice submitted in October and the contract later terminated after it resurfaced during a records request process.

How the contract was structured — and why it is being questioned

The consulting agreement was executed in August 2023 and was signed by then-City Attorney Nina Hickson. Questions have centered on why the contract continued to generate monthly payments while the petition verification process was effectively frozen by litigation, and how the arrangement went largely unnoticed across multiple administrative checkpoints.

Dickens, in a memo sent to council leadership and members, argued that continued payments after the referendum effort was paused raise oversight concerns in the office responsible for supervising the clerk’s functions. He also acknowledged the need for a detailed accounting of what work was performed, when it was performed, and at whose direction.

Council members push back, pointing to the city’s legal and payment processes

Several council members have rejected the idea that the matter can be attributed to a single office. During recent public discussions, some council members argued that invoice review, accounting, and payment execution are handled through processes associated with the city’s Law Department and broader executive-branch operations, and they have called for a formal investigation to determine how the arrangement was approved and administered.

The dispute has added pressure on City Hall to clarify lines of responsibility in situations where the City Council, the clerk’s office, and the mayor’s administration each play roles in governance, contracting oversight, and departmental supervision.

City attorney says contract has been terminated, controls tightened

City Attorney Marquetta J. Bryan, who took office in December 2025 and was not involved in originating the contract, has said she terminated the agreement after learning of it and has begun implementing policy changes intended to strengthen financial controls and consultant oversight. She has also indicated that, because the contract predated her tenure, she could not immediately identify who authorized the arrangement or why it persisted for as long as it did.

Key unresolved questions City Hall is now confronting

• Who approved the contract terms, including the absence of a clear end date or stop mechanism tied to the status of the verification work.
• Who reviewed monthly invoices and confirmed deliverables during periods when verification was not underway.
• Which internal controls failed to flag nearly two years of recurring payments from the city’s general fund.

City officials have indicated that a full accounting is necessary to determine what work was performed and who directed it.

For now, the central facts are clear: the referendum-related signature verification did not proceed, the payments continued regardless, and both the mayor’s office and council members are publicly disputing where responsibility lies as calls grow for a documented, public explanation of how the contract operated.