Tuesday, January 05, 2010, 7:55 AM
News, Opinion, Politics
By Stephanie Ramage
ATLANTA CITY COUNCIL AND THE EAGLE RAID LAWSUIT
“What’s the dumbest thing a city council could do?”
That question unlocks a whole universe of possibilities, but certainly one possibility would have to be this: To pass a resolution that essentially admits to the allegations in a lawsuit against the city.
That almost happened Monday thanks to newly elected Atlanta City Councilman Michael Julian Bond, who previously served on the council during the 1990s. Bond introduced a resolution requiring that the council apologize to those arrested in the raid of the Atlanta Eagle bar last September for the actions of officers of the Atlanta Police Department. The resolution also states “no criminal activity” happened at the bar.
It was a milestone in regrettable legislation for a number of reasons, first and foremost because, also on Monday, the City of Atlanta was served with the lawsuit brought by about two dozen Eagle employees and patrons detained in the raid.
Secondly, because sworn police officers—“sworn” means they take an oath and can be disciplined, including fired, for untruths—submitted statements in the case against the Eagle detailing observations of alleged criminal activity, including lewd behavior, sexual acts, and unlicensed exotic dancing on the premises of the gay leather bar during several visits by undercover police beginning last May.
The crux of the lawsuit is not the illegal activity police claim to have observed, but the treatment of bar patrons and employees by Atlanta Police officers during the raid. Some of those detained have alleged the officers treated them roughly, subjecting them to more than an hour of lying face down on a hard floor amid broken glass, cursing at them, making anti-gay slurs, and generally making them fear for their safety and humiliating them.
However, as is true in any such lawsuit, there is a bit of trade off regarding the allegations on both sides: What the APD allegedly did to some of those detained would look much worse if the alleged illegal activities the cops say they observed didn’t happen. So as long as the undercover officers’ observations stand and are, for the most part, not disputed, there’s at least some blame to go around. It could be looked at like this: It’s bad when cops abuse their power during a raid, but it’s worse when they abuse their power during an unjustified raid. So far, the allegations involving illegal activity at the Eagle, which culminated in minor charges of dancing without a permit and some business-license related violations, have stood without much dispute.
However, Bond’s proposed resolution on Monday not only stated that no criminal activity occurred—something which is at odds with the City’s official reason for ever initiating the raid, it also required an apology of the City Council for APD officers’ behavior during the raid, which essentially would be an admission that the officers used improper force and abused their authority, the very basis of the lawsuit brought against the City by the patrons and employees.
This sort of unthinking pandering by Council could put the City at a disadvantage in the lawsuit and it was such a glaring example of irresponsibility that comments like “Are they stupid?” could be heard in the audience.
No, not all of them.
The citizens of Atlanta can thank Councilwoman Felicia Moore, a woman of sharp focus and steely resolve, for slamming on the brakes and stopping passage of Bond’s resolution. Moore pointed out that there was a lawsuit against the City involving these very charges. She wanted to dismiss the resolution then and there, disposing of it until the lawsuit has been resolved. Hers was a smart and responsible proposal; after all, when the city is sued it is the taxpayers whose pockets are on the hook. Any money that goes to pay off a lawsuit or to pay for attorneys’ time is money that isn’t spent on police, fire, public works and other necessary services, and right now the City desperately needs every dime it can scrounge. Moore has a track record of remembering that the money the council oversees is the taxpayers’ money and she acts accordingly.
After Moore proposed dispensing with Bond’s resolution until the lawsuit is resolved, Roger Bhandari, an attorney in the City’s law department, confirmed that the City had been served the lawsuit that “very day.” He also explained that any public discussion of the case by the City Council could indeed be used by the plaintiffs, and that the resolution could, therefore, be a liability for the City.
Councilman Bond said he was unaware of the lawsuit, which certainly gives one pause since I can link to at least half a dozen local news stories about the pending litigation. Lambda Legal, a gay legal aid organization, has held well-publicized press conferences regarding plans to bring the lawsuit.
As Councilwoman Moore pointed out, no one is saying concretely what did or did not happen during the raid, but the court should be given an opportunity to look into allegations without the Atlanta City Council playing judge and jury against its own interests.
Councilman H. Lamar Willis is to be commended for reading aloud two statements from Bond’s resolution which Willis said worried him, the first being that there was “no criminal activity” and the second being a reference to the court’s review of the case. This latter part seems puzzling given that Bond said he did not know about the lawsuit. It frankly made me wonder if Bond was the author of his resolution.
Councilwoman Natalyn Archibong asked Bhandari about the legal exposure of merely discussing the case without voting on the resolution, which prompted Bhandari’s opinion that discussion itself could prove a liability.
Councilman Ivory Lee Young, Jr. who officially became the head of the council’s public safety and law committee on Monday recommended the resolution be referred to his committee. Willis spoke in support of this. Once again, Moore spoke out against having anything to do with such a measure. She reiterated that her concern was not what did or did not happen at the Eagle, but rather that the City Council has no business doing anything on the matter until the lawsuit is resolved.
Young, however, said he wanted to refer the matter to committee to “keep the issue before the council in a substantial way.”
But what could be more substantial than a lawsuit?
A vote was taken on referring the resolution to the public safety committee and it passed 13 to 2. Those two wise votes against the measure were cast by two tough council veterans, Felicia Moore and Joyce Sheperd.
Editor's Note: A malfunction with City Hall's vote board resulted in Councilwoman Yolanda Adrean and Councilwoman Keisha Lance Bottoms being credited with votes against the measure. In fact, they voted for it. SP
I would like to correct an inaccuracy in Ms. Ramage's editorial piece regarding the resolution which I introduced on Monday.
Ms. Ramage writes that, "Bond introduced a resolution demanding that the officers of the Atlanta Police Department apologize . . ." for the Eagle Raid. However, the resolution contains no such language. Rather, the resolution is offering an apology from the City Council.
Thank you for the opportunity to makes this important correction.
Sincerely,
Michael Julain Bond
Councilmember, Post 1 At-Large
Atlanta City Council
mjbond
Wednesday, January 06, 2010 at 1:07 PM
Councilman Bond,
Thank you for the clarification. As you know, the officers act on behalf of the city and an apology from the City Council would serve to show a rift between the council and the police department while the guilt or innocence of the officers has not yet been determined. Will the council thence-forward apologize to everyone detained, inconvenienced, made uncomfortable or embarassed by the APD?
Out of curiosity, what purpose would an apology from council serve other than looking good to voters? The issue at stake is one for the courts. I can see the merit of opinions from both the Eagle and the APD, but the court has to determine what happened. To pass a resolution putting any kind of pressure on the court (which no doubt already feels the political heat from council) is inappropriate and robs the court of its right to seek justice without meddling from City Hall.
If you would kindly make a copy of your legislation available to me, I'd be grateful for the opportunity to read it first hand. -- Very best, Steph
Stephanie Ramage
Wednesday, January 06, 2010 at 1:27 PM
Also, to be clear, even in lieu of the court's involvement, the negotiations between attorneys are affected by such statements by public officials, particularly those who have authority over police budgets, policies and procedures.
--Steph
Stephanie Ramage
Wednesday, January 06, 2010 at 1:47 PM