Post in State says Roseville Council violated open meeting law

Jul 16 23:02 UTC

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.