Post in State says Roseville Council violated open meeting law

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Dan Roe <dan.roe@comcast.net> wrote:

> Let me begin by saying that I completely support making information
> available to the public in accordance with the MN Open Meeting Law.
>
> As a member of the city council, I know of no effort to purposely suppress
> the information in the email in question, or to make the information
> "secret."  In fact, the city council openly discussed the city manager's
> recommendation and its merits during the meeting, and ultimately voted for a
> harsher penalty than the city manager recommended - double suspension period
> and fine (60 days and $2000 rather than 30 days and $1000).  [60 days and
> $2000 are the maximum penalties allowed by state law in these instances,
> short of revocation.]
>
> It is absolutely fair to ask the question about why the recommendation to
> reduce the penalty was made, and to expect an answer.
>
> My personal sense is that it was a professional judgment on the part of the
> city manager based on reviewing the impact of revocation as compared to the
> violation for which it was proposed as a punishment.  It is completely
> reasonable that the original packet contained strictly the code provisions
> as laid out, and the city manager thought about it some more on Monday, and
> wanted to supplement the original report with his own suggestion, in
> consultation with the police chief, as the email states.
>
> That being said, it is my opinion that to ask the "why?" question couched
> in significant speculation as to the direst and worst possible reasons and
> motives is where the asking of the question goes too far.
>
> If we always suspect the worst from people, how can we ever expect their
> best?
>
>
>
> FYI:  More background on the liquor violation issues related to this Open
> Meeting Law case:
>
> In Roseville's city code, the current mandatory minimum penalty for
> Davanni's for being caught serving to minors 2 times within 3 years (their
> original violation that began this most recent chain of events) is a 1-day
> license suspension and a $500 fine.  That penalty was imposed by the city
> council without being questioned by anyone at the time as being too lenient.
>  Davanni's had violations in 2007 & 2005 (within 3 years of 2007), and
> previously in 2001, according to the staff report at the August 13, 2007,
> meeting where that action was taken.
>
> [It should be noted that Davanni's would have to have been caught serving
> to minors 5 TIMES in 3 years to be subject to a mandatory minimum penalty of
> license revocation on the basis of serving to minors.  For 4 violations in 3
> years, the minimum is a $1000 fine and 5-day suspension.]
>
> Davanni's was subsequently found to have violated their original 1-day
> suspension by serving to an adult on that day.  The mandatory minimum
> penalty in our code for violating a suspended license is revocation.  What
> the city manager recommended in his email as this penalty was considered was
> for the council to consider whether the step up in penalty from 1-day
> suspension for serving minors up to license revocation for violating that
> 1-day suspension is the most appropriate penalty.  I found that a 60-day
> suspension and $2000 fine seemed more appropriate of a penalty for violating
> a 1-day suspension than a complete revocation.
>
> In no way do I consider imposing a penalty of 60 days suspension and a
> $2000 fine to be a sign of me not taking violations of our liquor laws
> seriously, or that Davanni's got (or deserves) some kind of kid glove
> treatment.
>
> The issue that I am personally trying to make sense of is why we
> theoretically allow SERVING TO MINORS 5 TIMES in 3 years before mandating
> license revocation, while we go immediately to revocation for violating a
> 1-day license suspension by serving to an otherwise legally purchasing
> adult.
>
> It seems to me that we should consider ramping up to stronger penalties for
> frequently serving to minors, and at the same time be fair and provide a
> middle-ground (but still very significant) penalty for violating 1-day
> suspensions.
>
>
> A final note:
>
> You will probably not see the mayor or other city councilmembers add their
> perspectives on this topic here in the RIF (as much as they may want to)
> because there are analyses out there that for us to conduct a back-and-forth
> discussion in this forum, even indirectly, rather than at a posted and open
> public meeting, can be considered a violation of the MN Open Meeting Law.  I
> don't believe that any of us are interested in being the test case for that,
> so please forgive and understand the RIF silence of my colleagues.
>
>
> Dan Roe
>
> Info about Dan Roe: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/danroe
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/MJnDHmt65wHnYaO5V6qPF
>  -----------------------------------------
>  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>  More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues
>
>  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at
http://OnlineGroups.Net<http://onlinegroups.net/>
>
>  Roseville Issues Forum
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html
>



--
Ken Yokanovich
Roseville, MN
http://reflectorcollector.blogspot.com