The Seattle Nightlife and Music Association, the lobbying organization for Seattle’s clubs, met at J&M Cafe in Pioneer Square yesterday afternoon. It was a meeting to discuss the “Saturday Night Massacre,” as club workers are now calling the SPD’s recent undercover sting where 17 bar workers were hauled off to jail (and 28 warrants issued) for failure to appear after getting warrants for violations like serving a minor and admitting a minor.
68 people showed up to the meeting, including many of the workers who were arrested on Saturday night.
The point of the meeting, according to Seattle NMA’s lobbyist Tim Hatley, was to hear everybody’s stories and to connect workers with lawyers.
What came to light at the meeting was this: People felt the arrests were unfair because the warrants—mailed to workers’ homes—didn’t show up at their homes until Friday or Saturday. (You can only appear Monday through Friday.) The implication being: The SPD wanted to be able to make a show of the Saturday night arrests at the clubs as a PR stunt on behalf of the mayor.
People also felt unduly abused because the sting officers got workers’ home addresses by showing up at the clubs and pretending they were working on a child predator case. They’d show the bar worker a photo—saying they thought the suspect might be in the bar—and then they’d get the worker’s contact info and address in the ruse that they might need to contact the worker to help them bust the predator.
All this aside, the workers were still caught, according to the SPD, serving minors.
The alarming gun charges—the city’s smoking gun, if you will—are another story that seems to be falling apart: Tabella, the one club facing gun charges, says it let the gun owners in because they recognized the gun owners as cops. Tommy’s was also slammed in the press for allowing a gun in, but as I reported already, the press failed to read the police report. No gun got in at Tommy’s.
But ultimately, if bar workers are found guilty of allowing minors into clubs, the sting simply proves what opponents of the Mayor’s push for a club license—like the SNMA—have been arguing all along: The rules already exist to hold clubs accountable; there’s no need to give the mayor’s office the sole authority to shut down a club—which is what the licensing proposal now pending before council would do.
The city argues that they need a licensing scheme because they currently can’t hold the club accountable, they can only hold workers accountable. But that’s not true. Violations like the ones the SPD uncovered through their sting can be used as evidence to the state liquor control board to fine clubs and revoke their licenses.
The council is voting on the license proposal on Monday. (Nice timing with that sting. Pretty expensive campaign move by the SPD on behalf of the mayor.)
The vote count is reportedly: 2 strongly against the license (Peter Steinbrueck, Richard McIver); 2 leaning against the license (Tom Rasmussen, and Jean Godden); 3 for the license (Jan Drago, Sally Clark, and David Della); and 2 unsure (Nick Licata and Richard Conlin.)
Licata is floating amended legislation that attempts to appease the clubs by giving less power to the mayor’s office and more power to a commission made up of neighbors, clubs, and SPD when it comes to granting licenses and revoking them. However, Hatley reports that Licata’s legislation doesn’t go far enough to water down the mayor’s ultimate authority to shut down clubs in his membership’s opinion.