Atlanta council opens probe after city attorney halts six-figure police consulting contract

Council President Marcy Collier Overstreet convened a committee-of-the-whole discussion Feb. 16 after councilmembers raised questions about outside consulting contracts tied to police-related work and a recent referendum. The council voted to move into committee of the whole to examine the contract and related payments.

The item at the center of the discussion was a communications consulting agreement (item 26-0-1110) that had been pulled from the consent agenda. Councilmember Kelsey Bond, who asked that the item be removed, said the recent disclosures had raised “questions about transparency and how these decisions are being made.” Bond added, “I don't think it's appropriate to spend taxpayer dollars on PR for the police department or controversial projects like cop city.”

City Attorney: discovery via records request and termination

The city's chief legal officer told the council she learned of the engagement through an open-records request. "I discovered the agreement as a result of an open records request," she said, and reported that she had terminated the agreement after learning the contractor had submitted a final invoice in October 2025. She said the agreement predated her tenure and that her office would put controls in place — including caps and clearer approval steps on open-ended contracts — to limit similar exposures going forward.

Council reaction and next steps

Councilmembers expressed frustration over the timing and the fact that the expenditures had become known through the press and open records rather than internal briefings. Councilmember Liliana Bakhtiari called for transparent answers about who signed off, what the consultant was paid to do and whether billing was appropriate. Bakhtiari told colleagues she wanted answers "instead of speaking quietly about it behind closed doors."

Several members proposed a two-track follow-up: detailed financial and contractual review in Finance Executive Committee and related scope/procedural questions in Committee on Council or Public Safety Legal Administration. Council voted to go into a committee of the whole and directed staff to prepare joint reports and to convene the appropriate committee chairs to "divide and conquer" inquiry tasks; the body then exited committee of the whole by unanimous consent.

What the council asked for next

Council members asked the city attorney and the mayor's office to provide a written accounting of the contract's scope, invoices and approvals and to explain whether any part of the work continued after legal advice made it appear unauthorized. Several members asked that a representative from the mayor's office participate in follow-up briefings. The council did not make a final factual finding at the meeting; members instead directed the city attorney to prepare documents and recommended a coordinated review in finance and public-safety committees within the next 30 days.

The council's action at the Feb. 16 meeting was procedural: it created an investigatory path and required joint reporting. Councilmember Kelsey Bond said the disclosures had "shock value" and reinforced the need for stricter contracting guardrails; the city attorney said she would recommend measures including contract caps and closer vetting of open-ended agreements.