Metropolitik is a recurring column featuring the Scene’s analysis of Metro dealings.
In the weeks following retired police Lt. Garet Davidson’s 61-page complaint detailing systemic misconduct within the Metro Nashville Police Department, the city’s Community Review Board (formerly the Community Oversight Board) has spent almost as much time discussing the conflicted Metro Law Department as it has amplifying allegations against city police.
The competing interests of multiple Metro parties — the CRB, the mayor’s office and police — disqualify in-house lawyers, argue community members and some CRB commissioners, most notably chair Alisha Haddock. When Metro Legal is an actor in itself, as is the case here, attorneys forfeit the credibility necessary to evaluate a city matter.
Since the complaint arrived in late May, the body has sought independent counsel from Nashville firm Brazil Clark. Haddock has drawn particular attention to Metro’s decision not to sue over a 2023 state law gutting police oversight bodies. The city leaned on home rule protections in multiple successful lawsuits in the fall protecting the Metro Sports Authority, a NASCAR-related voting threshold and the Metro Council itself. After a June 12 press conference discussing the complaint, Community Review Board director Jill Fitcheard told the Scene that independent CRB counsel would in part assess whether Metro Legal had acted improperly. The prevailing legal opinion at the time (including from outside lawyers) was that the state law gutting the COB passed constitutional muster. Leading advocates for the CRB, like MTSU professor Sekou Franklin, have complicated this story, alleging that Metro Legal failed to do proper due diligence in exploring avenues for legal recourse.
City attorneys are currently helping draft a memorandum of understanding between the MNPD and the CRB to legally define the relationship between the bodies.
“The Department of Law is making sure i’s get dotted and t’s get crossed and that the MOU is a valid legal document,” Mayor Freddie O’Connell told the Scene last week. “The Department of Law is not really there to be part of the discourse. They’re trying to make sure they keep Metro’s liability intact and that they keep our constitutional options intact.”
City attorneys, often called upon for legal opinions about various government positions or actions, play mediating roles in Metro controversies by the nature of their profession. Several city dustups over the past year, though, have invited direct criticism of the department at large. Aggrieved parties call foul when they see lawyers working with opponents. Lawyers’ opinions carry gravitas and authority, especially on volunteer boards and commissions.
Human Relations Commission releases report that concludes Metro Arts change in grant making was 'discriminatory'
Earlier this year, Metro legal director Wally Dietz personally took flak from Metro Human Resources Commission executive director Davie Tucker for his role adjudicating the nonpayment of grants promised by the Metro Arts Department. Late last summer, former Metro Arts Commissioner Will Cheek appeared to commission a legal memo from Dietz and fellow city attorney Lora Fox supporting Cheek’s position as grantmaking drama built to a crescendo. Cheek resigned as a commissioner in March.
While the names — Dietz, Fox, fellow Metro attorney Nicki Eke — have recently become folk symbols of institutional stubbornness, the city’s lawyers serve under the mayor and have long reflected administrative will. Just days into his short-lived mayoral term, David Briley relied on scant legal grounds provided by Fox to set the date of the next mayoral election — a move that was struck down in court.
One councilmember, speaking to the Scene on the condition of anonymity, described the city’s relationship to its lawyers as discretionary: “We do generally take their input under advisement, and most of the time we do what they recommend. But we do also ignore them sometimes.”
