Sheriff won’t pay suing protesters
Published 12:00 am Wednesday, April 26, 2000
DANIEL TYLER GOODEN / L’Observateur / April 26, 2000
CONVENT – There will be no monetary reward paid to the Concerned Citizens Committee of St. James in its civil suit against the St. James Sheriff WillyMartin Jr. and the St. James Parish School Board. “I will not agree to any monetary reward settlement. My officers did nothingwrong,” said Martin.
Recently Martin, the school board officials and the Concerned Citizens Committee, with their attorneys, have met with U.S. Magistrate Judge LanceM. Africk, and on his recommendation all parties are looking to settle the suitand put the problem behind them.
The civil suit was filed last year after 20 members of the Concerned Citizens Committee were arrested while protesting at a St. James High football game.The citizens claimed their civil rights were violated by the sheriff’s department in their arrest during their protest of the transferring of St.
James High’s Principal Ridgely Mitchell to the St. James Alternative School.The arrests were made after the some of the group protested on school property formerly agreed upon with the citizens as off limits, said Martin.
“We were holding the line for the school board. They asked us to keep theprotesters from interfering” with school functions, Martin added.
Looking to settle the dispute between the parties, Africk recommended a clarification in the language of the suit to keep it from going to trial. Withthe wording to be changed the group feels its attorneys need to be paid by Martin or the school board.
“If the judge recommends we pay their lawyer fees, we’ll consider the recommendation. If that settles the issue, if that is the best thing to do, I’llswallow that pill,” said Martin.
Martin reiterated to the citizens that the settlement with the language in the suit and the attorney fees is not at all a monetary reward.
“It’s not a fine or a penalty for violations,” Martin said.
The sheriff hopes the conclusion of the suit will leave both parties with clear understandings of what can and can’t be done in protest marches.
Martin also added the civil suit holds no bearing on the protesters’ May 15 trial.
“We never took a ‘no protest’ stance,” Martin said, adding the citizens were arrested because they violated the law, not because of the protest.
Return To News Stories