In a session crammed with highly controversial issues, Madison City Council members last night took a bold stance in passing a resolution condemning the USA Patriot Act.

The proposal was drafted by Don McKeating of the Madison Area Peace Coalition and introduced by Ald. Brenda Konkel, District 2. Some say no other city across the country has seen any broad political statement of this kind, making the council’s action a drastic new approach to defending citizens’ civil liberties. The resolution was passed by a vote of 17 to 2 with one abstention.

The council also took action on a measure to aid student renters. The measuer shifts the financial burden for carpet cleaning to the rental company, away from the student tenant.

The council’s primary action for the evening, though, was the resolution, which effectively does little more than strongly condemn the Patriot Act in writing. The City Council members who proposed the amendment say they hope the U.S. Congress will take notice and strongly reconsider implementing the act, as many of its clauses could be perceived as unconstitutional. Madison joins a list of distinguished communities across the country that have officially opposed the USA Patriot Act.

The ratification of the resolution has an immediate effect in Madison, as it prevents area law-enforcement officials from engaging in activities condemned in the resolution, which would be legal under the terms of the Patriot Act.

Ald. Mike Verveer, District 4, said the resolution will affect local law officials in that the City Council will advise them to abide by laws that were in effect before the Patriot Act was passed.

“We went on record as instructing [local law enforcement] to continue their current policies of not engaging in profiling and interviewing persons based on ethnicities or race,” Verveer said. “Library lending records will remain confidential.” According to the Patriot Act, library lending records and bookstore purchase records can at any time be demanded by law enforcement.

The USA Patriot Act was put into effect by President Bush Oct. 26, 2001. Last night, it was shot down by many area citizens who said they feel their liberties are at stake.

Kelly Jones, a student representing the group Students for a Informed Response, said she felt the U.S. government is acting against its citizens.

“Since September 11, this treasured freedom of our nation has come under attack, and it’s not some terrorists — it’s from our own government leaders.”

Another Madison resident, Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive Magazine, said Attorney General John Ashcroft is using the Patriot Act to whittle away at the Fourth Amendment.

“Martin Luther King Jr. could have been called a domestic terrorist under the Patriot Act,” Rothschild said. “It allows an officer or FBI agent to enter your home with a warrant, but they do not have to show you the warrant. That is the essence of the Fourth Amendment — to have the warrant shown to you at your door.”

In other business, the council discussed the proposed restaurant-bar smoking ban. If adopted, the ban would force all establishments in the city with less than half of their revenue coming from alcohol sales to implement a nonsmoking policy. The proposal has faced strong criticism from restaurant owners and employees, as well as smoke-free advocates who are hoping for stronger legislation.

Current Madison law states that only establishments with less than one-third of their revenue coming from alcohol sales must be nonsmoking, unless a ventilation system or separate smoking room is available.

Pat Gadow, chair of the Tobacco-Free Dane County Commission, advised the council to carefully consider the implications of the proposed ordinance.

“We’ve learned a great deal in the first ordinance that we passed,” said Gadow. “We’ve learned that our eagerness to have an ordinance and to start making this as healthy a community as we can have sometimes leads us into making compromises and agreements that in the long haul don’t make a lot of sense.”

Restaurant owner Marsh Shapiro also opposes the proposed smoking ban, although his resistance to the ordinance, along with that of other restaurant owners in the city, stems from the potential loss of revenue that his establishment could face.

“For all the people that have come to me and have talked about having a nonsmoking restaurant and a nonsmoking bar, I welcome them to open one,” Shapiro said. “If they think it is so easy to operate a restaurant-bar that is nonsmoking, I welcome them to compete with us, and we’ll see how they do.”

Those who would like to see the current ordinance modified probably will not see changes any time soon. The City Council has postponed voting on the proposed amendment until Nov. 19 at the earliest.