From:
John Kysylyczyn
Date:
Jul 16 03:30 UTC
Short link
Today, the State of Minnesota, Department of Administration, Information
Policy Analysis Division, posted an advisory opinion on their website
stating that the Roseville City Council violated the open meeting law at
their meeting of February 11th, 2008.
Basically the City Council stated that they only needed to comply with the
Open Meeting Law if the public documents were "printed", like printed on
paper. But since the documents in question were "e-mailed" to the city
council members shortly before the council meeting, the Open Meeting Law
didn't apply.
The state found this argument by the city to be "absurd".
The letter issued by the state is pretty self explanatory. It can be found
at the following link:
http://www.ipad.state.mn.us/opinions/2008/08015.html
But there are still some outstanding questions that the city council and
city manager have refused to answer.
The original report on Davanni's Pizza called for a revocation of their
license due to their selling of alcohol to kids and selling alcohol on a
suspended liquor license. The secret report which was drafted Monday just
prior to the meeting and emailed ONLY to the council members called for
reducing that revocation penalty by 99%, only calling for a small $1000 fine
and 30 day suspension.
Note that Roseville City Code is crystal clear that if you sell on a
suspended license, the penalty is revocation. An administrative law judge
also made it clear that having a liquor license is not a right, it is a
privilege and the council can set the standards for penalties. Also note
that this decade, Davanni's has violated Roseville alcohol laws more often
than any other Roseville business. Yes Davanni's is #1 at something other
than having the best hoagies.
Something happened Monday morning, just hours before that council meeting,
which caused a new report to be issued recommending a 99% reduction in
penalties. Also noteworthy is that Mr. Klausing led the charge to make this
reduction of penalty happen.
What happened? Was there a phone call made to the city manager that
morning? What did it say? Was there a secret meeting held? We know Mr.
Klausing has received substantial financial benefit from his relationship
with the Saint Paul Chamber of Commerce in the form of fundraisers and
independent expenditures. We also know that developer Danny Commers spent
$65,000 in independent expenditures to get him reelected. Does he own an
investment interest in Davanni's? Were they involved? Did somebody get
paid off?
I just can't figure out why this secret Monday morning meeting that resulted
in a major benefit to Davanni's Pizza is such a state secret. I can't
figure out why you would break the Open Meeting Law in order to cover this
up.
While City Manager Bill Malinen offered an apology at Monday night's meeting
on the Open Meeting Violation, he still has not explained what happened the
morning of Monday February 11th, 2008.
John M. Kysylyczyn
K Solutions LLC, owner
3083 Victoria Street
Roseville, MN 55113
email: <email obscured>
home office: (651) 484-1384
www.ksolutionsllc.com
Mayor of Roseville, MN 2000-2004
From:
Ken Yokanovich
Date:
Jul 16 14:24 UTC
Short link
John, I think you did a fine job of raising the issue and posing the
question wondering why? You should have simply left it at that. I think you
cross the line when you began your "questions" formed more
like inflammatory accusations. I think your comments below, cross the line.
"Was there a phone call made to the city manager that
morning? What did it say? Was there a secret meeting held? We know Mr.
Klausing has received substantial financial benefit from his relationship
with the Saint Paul Chamber of Commerce in the form of fundraisers and
independent expenditures. We also know that developer Danny Commers spent
$65,000 in independent expenditures to get him reelected. Does he own an
investment interest in Davanni's? Were they involved? Did somebody get
paid off?
I just can't figure out why this secret Monday morning meeting that resulted
in a major benefit to Davanni's Pizza is such a state secret. I can't
figure out why you would break the Open Meeting Law in order to cover this
up."
You've raised the issue of Davanni's multiple times. My understanding is
that they have violated the law, received a reduced penalty. So, what does
anyone else think of the situation?
From:
Dick Houck
Date:
Jul 16 18:20 UTC
Short link
If Mr. Kysylyczyn's questions crossed the line, then why not have the city
council answer his initial question and that would answer all of the rest.
The city council needs to be up front on this one if they expect to retain
the trust of the public.
Dick Houck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Yokanovich" <reflector.collector@gmail.com>
To: "John M. Kysylyczyn" <john@ksolutionsllc.com>
Cc: "Roseville Issues Forum" <roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: [RIF] State says Roseville Council violated open meeting law
> John, I think you did a fine job of raising the issue and posing the
> question wondering why? You should have simply left it at that. I think
> you
> cross the line when you began your "questions" formed more
> like inflammatory accusations. I think your comments below, cross the
> line.
>
> "Was there a phone call made to the city manager that
>
> morning? What did it say? Was there a secret meeting held? We know Mr.
>
> Klausing has received substantial financial benefit from his relationship
>
> with the Saint Paul Chamber of Commerce in the form of fundraisers and
>
> independent expenditures. We also know that developer Danny Commers spent
>
> $65,000 in independent expenditures to get him reelected. Does he own an
>
> investment interest in Davanni's? Were they involved? Did somebody get
>
> paid off?
>
>
>
> I just can't figure out why this secret Monday morning meeting that
> resulted
>
> in a major benefit to Davanni's Pizza is such a state secret. I can't
>
> figure out why you would break the Open Meeting Law in order to cover this
>
> up."
>
>
> You've raised the issue of Davanni's multiple times. My understanding is
> that they have violated the law, received a reduced penalty. So, what
> does
> anyone else think of the situation?
>
> --
> Ken Yokanovich
> Roseville, MN
> http://reflectorcollector.blogspot.com
>
> Ken Yokanovich
> Roseville
> Info about Ken Yokanovich: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/kenyokanovich
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5fZHCTRqefHN1qUy3EDCvB
> -----------------------------------------
> 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
>
> Roseville Issues Forum
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html
From:
Erik McKnight
Date:
Jul 16 19:53 UTC
Short link
I find Kysylyczyn's questions, albeit pointed, completely valid. And a simple
"why?" question is too broad. If the city council is going to avoid answering
the direct questions, it leaves the public grounds ripe for the seeds of heresy
and innuendo.
I don't think Davanni's deserved a reduced penalty. It's really that simple.
It's also becoming evident that the city council refuses to address the very
real questions of their own integrity in the matter.
From:
katie Engman
Date:
Jul 16 20:50 UTC
Short link
No establishment that has repeatedly violated the law, should receive a
"reduced" fine. If businesses knows that they don't have to face the
penalties in the end, why follow from the start? The reason we have these laws
it to keep our
community a healthy and safe place. Serving alcohol to someone underage, does
not make our community a safe place.
One of the many jobs of our elected officials is to keep the community a safe
and healthy place to live.
Katie Engman
Roseville
--- On Wed, 7/16/08, Erik McKnight <nichoman@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Erik McKnight <nichoman@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RIF] State says Roseville Council violated open meeting law
To: "Roseville Issues Forum" <roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.org>
Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 2:54 PM
I find Kysylyczyn's questions, albeit pointed, completely valid. And a
simple "why?" question is too broad. If the city council is going to
avoid answering the direct questions, it leaves the public grounds ripe for the
seeds of heresy and innuendo.
I don't think Davanni's deserved a reduced penalty. It's really
that simple. It's also becoming evident that the city council refuses to
address the very real questions of their own integrity in the matter.
Erik McKnight
Roseville
Info about Erik McKnight: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/CsLIlQtkdr1dMd9sQeTEB
This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/48Xl5yMAOWU83QTsNqyzYu
-----------------------------------------
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
Roseville Issues Forum
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html
From:
Dave Shove
Date:
Jul 16 22:21 UTC
Short link
I followed the majority (3 of 5) on the Roseville CC for several years re
Twin Lakes. My impression was of total lawlessness - they'd bend over
backwards, ignore plans and rules and laws, anything for the developer. It
was sickening to see and watch; almost impossible for me to sit in the
hall and watch then high-handedly override all opposition. Finally a
group of citizens had to sue; to court for $14K (I recall); and finally a
victory strong enough to get the developer to go away. What I felt was
that the Bush lawlessness was filtering down to the city level - every
pirate knows the government is on their side, so why not go for it.
The Davanni's miscarriage of justice only confirms the sorry picture. If
you're rich and powerful, you can get what you want out of the CC
majority; if you're just a citizen, you have to go to court.
All praise to those who brought the Twin Lakes case; all praise to those
who expose this CC once again. Evernal vigilance is the price of liberty
and effective community.
-David Shove
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Erik McKnight wrote:
> I find Kysylyczyn's questions, albeit pointed, completely valid. And a simple
"why?" question is too broad. If the city council is going to avoid answering
the direct questions, it leaves the public grounds ripe for the seeds of heresy
and innuendo.
>
> I don't think Davanni's deserved a reduced penalty. It's really that simple.
It's also becoming evident that the city council refuses to address the very
real questions of their own integrity in the matter.
>
>
> Erik McKnight
> Roseville
> Info about Erik McKnight:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/CsLIlQtkdr1dMd9sQeTEB
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/48Xl5yMAOWU83QTsNqyzYu
From:
Dan Roe
Date:
Jul 16 23:02 UTC
Short link
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.
From:
Ken Yokanovich
Date:
Jul 17 01:53 UTC
Short link
Thank you Dan for taking the time to contribute and share feedback.
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
From:
John Kysylyczyn
Date:
Jul 17 02:51 UTC
Short link
Thanks Dan for having the backbone to respond. It shows leadership in my
opinion.
I thank you for stating that you know of no effort to purposely suppress the
information in the email in question. But we also have to disclose that the
council has NOT investigated the issue. The council has the power of
investigation of the administration of the city and to date they have chosen
NOT to use it. Up to the point that the State of Minnesota stated that the
council violated the Open Meeting Law last Friday, the council had completely
ignored this email issue.
While you are correct that the council ended up voting for the 60 days and
$2000 fine, let's be clear that the laws on the books called for a penalty of
revocation which means that they cannot reapply for a license for 5 years.
Let's also be clear that the city ordinance, written primary by Deputy Chief
Tom Alleva, stated clearly that penalties could be raised or lowered from the
recommended levels provided there were findings to do so. The law goes on to
give clear examples of what some of the findings could be for doing this.
While I won't go into detail, the bottom line is that the examples given in the
city ordinance supported RAISING the penalty, not lowering it. Certainly not
lowering it by 97%.
I do appreciate you recognizing that it is fair to ask the question as to why
this drastic action was taken. But I question your GUESSING of what the city
manager was doing. I don't believe that council members should be covering for
the actions of the city manager and vice versa. There is an appearance of this
when a council member guesses what a city manager was doing, while at the same
time the city manager refuses himself to comment.
To date, no explanation of the actions of the city manager have been given by
the city manager himself. No clarification has been made to the involvement of
the council members in this effort. It is widely known by insiders that Mr.
Klausing plays a significant role in decisions like this. Some people would
like some answers.
The actions I outlined above are why we are left with the worst possible
reasons and motives as to what happened. How can we expect the best from
people when they voluntarily choose to act in this manner as a government
official?
----------------
Thanks for the FYI information and background on the liquor violation issues
related to this issue.
While you have accurately noted the violations of Davanni's over the last three
years, if you take a look at their entire record this decade, it is a series of
constant failures. When looking at reducing a fine by 97%, you don't put on
blinders and focus on the last three years. You look at the entire history of
the business.
You ask why there is a different penalty for selling alcohol to kids versus
selling alcohol on a suspended license. I wish you or any member of the
council would have asked me that prior to your taking action on this issue back
in February. If you recall, I was the only one present in the room who
actually served during the time this law was passed, and in fact, I was the
deciding vote on the passage of this law back in late 2000. I would have been
more happy to educate the council on this issue, since clearly the staff failed
to do so. If you wanted to seriously get an answer to this question from
several sources, Mr. Klausing could have been prevented from ramming this thing
through like he did. All it takes is three other members to direct staff to do
this work. There was no legal reason the vote couldn't have been delayed a
meeting or two until the information was made available.
To answer your question, the reason I see as to why there is a big difference
between the two penalties is because one is indirectly the responsibility of
management, and the other is DIRECTLY the responsibility of management. One is
a general law on the books that applies to all alcohol license holders, and the
other is a violation of a DIRECT ORDER to a SPECIFIC business by the Roseville
Police Department. Read the ordinance and you will see that the other
violations that call for a revocation of a business's license also fall into
that category.
The action of selling alcohol to children typically is done by minimum wage
employees and not by management, and it is a general law that applies to all
alcohol license holders. What we have with Davanni's is a different scenario.
Davanni's management chose to ignore a direct order from the Roseville Police
Department that suspended their license for a day, due to previous alcohol
violations.
One of the major issues discussed when the alcohol laws were debated throughout
the year 2000, and cumulated in the passage of a new ordinance in late 2000 was
how we needed to penalize those groups of people who were actually violating
the law. Public testifiers asked the council to penalize the servers and give
a break to business owners when they did all they could to act in a responsible
manner and provide proper training to their employees. That is why when a
business participates in optional server training, we waive the owner's first
penalty in a 36 month period. We don't waive the fine to the person actually
doing the selling.
Let's be clear that selling alcohol on a suspended license or even selling with
the incorrect type of license, or selling alcohol without any license at all,
is solely on the management and owners of the business.
Davanni's chose to ignore a direct order of the police department. It was an
assistant store manager who actually sold the alcohol to the plain clothes
officer who came into the restaurant that day. The officer noted that nowhere
was it posted that they could not sell alcohol that day. Then on top of this,
let's remember that Davanni's has not participated in the free city provided
optional server training program provided by the Roseville Police Department
until very recently, after they had gotten caught selling alcohol to kids a
couple of times. These actions clearly show that Davanni's has a serious
management problem.
Should we have a lower penalty and ramp up to something else? Well Davanni's
is already the biggest violator of alcohol laws this decade. They are the only
business I know of that has ever sold alcohol on a suspended license, ignoring
a direct order of the Roseville Police Department.
Why this burning desire to only slap Davanni's on the hand?
Why the keeping of the report from the public?
Why the "absurd" explanation given to the State of Minnesota as to why the
recommendation of a massive reduction of penalties was kept from the public?
-----------
In reply to the final note about why other council members may not respond, let
me clearly say that this excuse is complete B.S.
The open meeting law talks about a quorum of elected officials coming to a
decision about an issue before them. Excuse me, but the council already voted
on this issue and gave Davanni's the largest penalty break probably ever seen
in the history of the city. You can't go back and revote on it.
Residents want an explanation. Giving that explanation in no way breaks the
open meeting law.
If anyone uses this as an excuse, then they are just deceiving the people and
using it as cover so they can duck the issue.
John M. Kysylyczyn
K Solutions LLC, owner
3083 Victoria Street
Roseville, MN 55113
email: <email obscured>
home office: (651) 484-1384
www.ksolutionsllc.com
Mayor of Roseville, MN 2000-2004
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Roe [mailto:dan.roe@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 6:06 PM
To: Roseville Issues Forum
Subject: Re: [RIF] State says Roseville Council violated open meeting law
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
Roseville Issues Forum
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html
From:
Erik McKnight
Date:
Jul 17 14:49 UTC
Short link
I have to again concur with John on his point about this supposed silence of
the City Council being somehow related to not wishing to violate the MN Open
Meeting law.
Firstly, to Mr. Roe: You've hardly been silent in your response above. As much
as I appreciate your response, indeed any response from the City Council, you
can't make it and then claim none of you can.
Secondly, I've received a couple responses from the Mayor directly because of
my post. Why he chose to respond directly to me rather than explaining his
decisions to a questioning public is between is beyond me. In answering public
questions made in a public forum, it would seem to me that it would help to
defuse this situation.
Thirdly, I find it a little ironic that the claim of not wishing to violate the
MN Open Meeting Law by answering questions in a public forum was made in a
topic that is about the City Council violating the MN Open Meeting Law in the
first place. You reasoning was called "absurd" for wishing to keep things
secret, not for being too open. It would seem you've learned nothing from that.
From:
Daniel Boerigter
Date:
Jul 17 15:58 UTC
Short link
I suggest everyone carefully review the Opinion from the Commissioner of
Administration. It makes clear that the City Manager did provide the
email to Mr. Kysylyczyn after he asked if additional documentation was
provided to the council. What was called absurd was the justification
provided by the Council's attorney that the email in question was not
subject to the open meeting law requirement because it was not a
"printed material". Nothing in the Opinion suggests that the Council
intended to keep this information secret.
Dan Boerigter
From:
Erik McKnight
Date:
Jul 17 16:32 UTC
Short link
Nothing in the opinion states as much, but the act itself suggests secrecy. If
it was a simple oversight, it has certainly not been communicated as such.
Oh, and I have carefully reviewed the opinion.
From:
Bob Willmus
Date:
Jul 17 17:38 UTC
Short link
Early each year, sometime late January to mid February the city council will
review and renew or reject liquor license applications. I am assuming that
Davanni’s will apply for a liquor license in early 2009 for the year.
If you feel like I do, in that Davanni’s Management Culture has complete
disregard for the laws which govern their establishment, you will voice your
concerns to the council and speak in opposition to their being granted a
license. I plan to do just that.
Mr. Shove
A footnote regarding your link between Twin Lakes and the Davanni’s. The two
members of the council that often found themselves in the minority on twin
lakes items, they where in the majority on the Davanni’s item on 2/11/08.
Bob Willmus
From:
John Kysylyczyn
Date:
Jul 17 19:05 UTC
Short link
In response to Mr. McKnight, personally I find it troubling that Mr. Klausing
has chosen to go off the forum to reply to various citizens who have posted on
this issue. What this does is allow the elected official to give different
excuses to different people. More importantly, it sort of violates the checks
and balances nature of this forum. In many cases, going off the forum prevents
the truth from coming out in many cases.
I post my comments on the forum directly for everyone's consumption. I put my
information out there and many times clearly state that I will stand corrected
if my information is incorrect. Sometimes I even preface a comment or two with
the request that if someone knows something different, let me know. I'm not
afraid to stand corrected. I'm not scared of a debate, like some others
apparently are.
-----------
In reply to Mr. Boerighter's comments, carefully reading the Opinion from the
Commissioner of Administration is ONLY HALF of the issue. You ALSO have to
carefully read the background material surrounding the whole issue to get the
FULL picture.
To directly answer Mr. Boerigter's comments, yes the city manager did provide
the additional documentation when requested. But with all due respect, that
has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue is WHEN it was produced.
It came the day AFTER the meeting and well AFTER the vote was already taken.
At that point, the information is pretty much worthless.
The point is that someone had to GUESS that something fishy was going on in
order to get a copy of the report. The request was first inquiring whether
there was a secret report floating around. Only after that question, was the
report produced the next day.
The next point is that the document wasn't some meaningless page that had
little to do with the decision making process to reduce Davanni's penalty by
97%. It was a second full blown report with a brand new recommendation from
staff, emailed hours before the meeting.
Mr. Boerigter is correct that what was called absurd was the justification
provided by the Council's attorney, that the email in question was not subject
to the open meeting law requirement because it was not "printed" material. As
the commissioner stated, this justification was "absurd" because the council
could just have everything emailed to them and avoid giving the public
anything, including even a copy of the meeting agenda.
Mr. Boerigter is correct that nothing in the opinion suggests that the council
intended to keep this information secret. But the FACT is that the State never
investigated this issue because it is NOT their job to do so. Their charge is
to determine if the Open Meeting Law was complied with, not to determine the
intentions of the council when they took the actions that they did in this
case. That question is for an independent investigator to answer.
Absent of the independent investigation I called for at last Monday's council
meeting, all we have before us is the information that has been brought to
light, and the city's refusal to provide any kind of explanation of their
actions.
But I do have some food for thought for Mr. Boerigter.
As a member of the Roseville Planning Commission, how often is one report with
one recommendation put in the planning commission packet, and then a different
report with a different recommendation is emailed to you hours before the
meeting? Then if you answer that it has, we go to the next question.
How many times has this new report and new recommendation been kept from the
public at the meeting? When I talk about being kept from the public, I mean
not providing copies of it, and not even mentioning that it even exists.
I would guess that you answer is NEVER. Because if your answer is yes, then we
have several more Open Meeting violations to investigate.
This is the scenario we have before us with the 97% reduction in the penalties
to Davanni's.
My point is that in my 10 years of attending city council meetings, I have
never seen the actions with Davanni's as being anything close to standard
operating procedure. I'm sure there have been emails flying around with bits
and pieces of information from time to time, but a complete report with a new
drastically changed recommendation not provide to the public on an issue that
is being voted on right then? Sorry, but not standard operating procedure.
Then we have the city's reply. It wasn't sorry, we made a mistake. It was we
did nothing wrong and see no reason to stop doing it. I find the council's
reply to be alarming.
The city council's reply was that by emailing the new report and new
recommendation to the council without printing it on paper, they could avoid
the Open Meeting Law requirements that require a copy to be provided to the
public WHILE the issue is being discussed at the meeting.
I can't even to begin to explain the lack of ethical values you must have to
actually think that this is acceptable.
John M. Kysylyczyn
K Solutions LLC, owner
3083 Victoria Street
Roseville, MN 55113
email: <email obscured>
home office: (651) 484-1384
www.ksolutionsllc.com
Mayor of Roseville, MN 2000-2004
From:
Roger Toogood
Date:
Jul 17 19:35 UTC
Short link
My appreciation to Council Member Dan Roe for presenting the facts on the
Davanni's liquor license situation. It is obvious that the information shared
in a number of the e-mails is based on a lack of factual data or
misunderstandings. It is great to have someone that really knows what has
happened to take the time to keep us accurately informed.
Also- Thank you Dan for explaining why the rest of the City Council Members can
not reply. That is helpful to understand- Roger ----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Roe<mailto:dan.roe@comcast.net>
To: Roseville Issues Forum<mailto:roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: [RIF] State says Roseville Council violated open meeting law
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<http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/danroe>
This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/MJnDHmt65wHnYaO5V6qPF<http://forumse-democracy.org/r/topic/MJnDHmt65wHnYaO5V6qPF>
-----------------------------------------
To post, send your message to:
<email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>>
To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
in subject line and send to:
<email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>>
More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues<http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues>
E-Democracy.Org rules:
http://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<http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html>
From:
John Kysylyczyn
Date:
Jul 17 19:58 UTC
Short link
Roger, with all due respect, it is rather specious to claim that the facts
surrounding this case is based upon a lack of factual data or misunderstanding.
First we have the analysis of the open meeting violation from the state.
Second, we have the initial filing of the complaint which was several pages
deep. Third, we have the response from the city which was several pages deep.
Fourth, we have the information in the packet from the council meeting which
was several pages deep. Fifth, we have a dvd of the meeting in question.
Mr. Roe made a GUESS as to what he thinks could have happened.
There is NO violation of the open meeting law for the council members to
explain their actions on an issue that has already been decided and cannot be
revisited. Read the Open Meeting Law for yourself, it is in Minnesota Statutes
13D.
This issue is not a joke. Starting a misinformation campaign in order to
defend some elected officials whose campaigns you have worked on is not putting
the community first in my opinion.
John M. Kysylyczyn
K Solutions LLC, owner
3083 Victoria Street
Roseville, MN 55113
email: <email obscured>
home office: (651) 484-1384
www.ksolutionsllc.com
Mayor of Roseville, MN 2000-2004
-----Original Message-----
From: ROGER TOOGOOD [mailto:rtoogood@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:36 PM
To: Roseville Issues Forum; Dan Roe
Subject: Re: [RIF] State says Roseville Council violated open meeting law
My appreciation to Council Member Dan Roe for presenting the facts on the
Davanni's liquor license situation. It is obvious that the information shared
in a number of the e-mails is based on a lack of factual data or
misunderstandings. It is great to have someone that really knows what has
happened to take the time to keep us accurately informed.
Also- Thank you Dan for explaining why the rest of the City Council Members can
not reply. That is helpful to understand- Roger ----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Roe<mailto:dan.roe@comcast.net>
To: Roseville Issues Forum<mailto:roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: [RIF] State says Roseville Council violated open meeting law
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<http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/danroe>
This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/MJnDHmt65wHnYaO5V6qPF<http://forumse-democracy.org/r/topic/MJnDHmt65wHnYaO5V6qPF>
-----------------------------------------
To post, send your message to:
<email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>>
To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
in subject line and send to:
<email obscured><mailto:<email obscured>>
More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues<http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues>
E-Democracy.Org rules:
http://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<http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html>
Roger Toogood
Info about Roger Toogood: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/rogertoogood
This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/52T4WqI1ZOeQDZnq6wBJBP
-----------------------------------------
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
Roseville Issues Forum
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html
From:
Mike Boguszewski
Date:
Jul 17 20:40 UTC
Short link
As a longtime Roseville resident, I have to ask a simple question: doesn't the
fact that all this brouhaha has occurred over this issue DEMONSTRATE that there
indeed IS A PROBLEM here? And that problem is a very basic one: trust in our
elected council members. If that trust had been earned and maintained over the
years, then maybe we could take explanations and excuses at face value. But
having followed the council as a bystander for years, I have to say that
actions and votes are often, to me, suspect as being in the best interest of us
the residents of this city, vs. having an overiding goal to either further a
personal agenda on the part of council members, or at least merely to appease
and assuage any dissatisfactions we may have in order to keep us complacent
enough to keep voting the incumbents in terms after term. Frankly, I am
thankful for rabble-rousers and eye-pokers -- what did we all learn in our
civics classes about an unwary and undiligent electorate? If, indeed, these
kinds of shenanigans -- e.g., the Davanni's decision -- are totally on the up
and up, then why fear disclosure? THAT is the simple question here. By the
very act of keeping ANY of that material hidden -- and then boosted by all the
apologia flowing through the RIF and emails -- the council has FAILED in its
mission of open and honest government. I certainly appreciate Dan Roe's
comments and perspective. Mr. Roe, from what I've seen, does demonstrate that
he cares about this community, and has done nothing in his term to suggest that
he, individually, has anything other than our best interests at heart. But the
actions, or lack thereof, of the council in general, the city manager, and the
follow-up to this issue still begins to make one wonder if that attitude is
shared by all who are entrusted with our civic governance. I, for one, would
appreciate a FORMAL response to this issue, getting a little more deeply into
the whys and wherefores, and not simply lip service or "tsk tsk"-ing to get
this to go away. How can one not call to mind all the "good old boy" stories
and "back room deal" stories that we've all read and heard all of our lives? I
would certainly hope Mr. Roe and others on the council can realize that this is
not a "gotcha" thing -- it's a serious questioning into what is a VERY serious
issue. The open meeting law is there so that this kind of thing will NOT
happen -- to even know that the council was TRYING to avoid the law by being
PLEASED that they thought that an email communcation could get around the law
is more than disappointing. Thank you.
Mike Boguszewski
1840 Merrill Street
Roseville, MN 55113
612/963-2431
From:
Bill Malinen
Date:
Jul 17 22:22 UTC
Short link
There has been a lot of innuendo and erroneous speculation put forth regarding
what transpired with an e-mail that I sent to the City Council. Let me provide
you with the facts. First of all, here is the entire email along with Mr.
Kysylyczyn’s request and my response to him, so there’s no mistaking what did
or did not go to the City Council, and when:
From: Bill Malinen
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:21 AM
To: 'John M. Kysylyczyn'
Cc: Carolyn Curti
Subject: FW: Davanni's 5 Year
John:
This is the email sent to the City Council, per your request.
From: John M. Kysylyczyn [mailto:john@ksolutionsllc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 1:14 AM
To: Bill Malinen
Subject: information request
Bill,
I have an information request but I’m not sure exactly to ask
for so I will do my best to try to spell it out.
On the issue of the Davanni’s liquor license suspension, I had
the distinct impression that there were some documents or emails that the
council received on this issue which was not in the council packet. The
comment was made that the Police Chief had made a recommendation on the penalty
at 30 days and a $1000 fine. Now maybe I missed this in the packet, but I do
not recall seeing any letter from the Chief with any recommendation. There
were also comments that led me to believe that you may have submitted a
recommendation also, but this wasn’t 100% clear to me. Bottom line is that I
would like to get this additional information that was not in the packet. I
presume there are reports, emails, letters, etc.
In addition, I also would like a copy of the findings the
council established in making their decision as is required by our ordinances.
Thanks,
John M. Kysylyczyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Malinen
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 8:45 AM
To: *RVCouncil
Cc: Carol Sletner; 'Scott T. Anderson'; 'Jay T. Squires'
Subject: Davanni's 5 Year
Mayor and Councilmembers,
At your meeting this evening, you will consider whether to apply the
presumptive penalty for Davanni's Alcohol License Suspension. The presumptive
penalty for selling alcohol with a suspended license is revocation. As the
City Attorney has advised, under MN Statutes 340A.402 subd. 2 No retail license
may be issued to:".....a person who has had an intoxicating liquor or 3.2
percent malt liquor license revoked within five years of the license
application"
While the Council has full discretion to apply the presumptive penalty or not,
staff wants to make the Council fully aware of this provision of state law, and
to also bring into question whether the state reapplication prohibition was
fully understood when the City ordinance setting the presumptive penalty was
enacted. This is the first case of it's kind before the Council that we're
aware of, so the research regarding the reapplication has not had to have been
done. Perhaps in light of the severity of the state statute regarding
reapplication the Council should revisit the intent of our ordinance.
Although serving alcohol to a minor and disregarding the license suspension are
serious offenses, revoking a license would result in the business not being
able to apply for a license for at least five years. The loss of alcohol
revenue could force a business to close. An alternative is suspension of a
longer period of time. State law provides a maximum suspension period of 60
days and a maximum penalty of $2,000.
Chief Sletner and I have discussed this, and the impact to this local
restaurant. We recommend that the Council consider not revoking the license,
but instead consider giving a 30 day suspension and a fine of $1,000. This
penalty would provide a serious consequence for this small business, but would
not irreparably damage the business.
In any event, we would also like to do further research on the presumptive
penalty background and comparable community laws.
Bill Malinen
City Manager
City of Roseville, MN 55113
2660 Civic Center Drive
651.792.7021
By now, everyone knows that the City goes through a process for checking on
sales of alcohol to minors, which Davanni’s failed. They were fined $500 and
their license was suspended for a day by the City Council. On that day of
suspension, they sold alcohol to a police officer (not a minor). So, they were
scheduled to appear before the City Council on February 11, 2008.
As we reviewed that upcoming City Council meeting agenda at our weekly
Department Head meeting on Tuesday, February 5th, I asked about how the process
goes afterwards, because there hadn’t been any revocations in Roseville before.
Would Davanni’s just have to pay another fee and go through an application
process to sell again? Chief Sletner was tasked with finding out. (Remember
that no Roseville business, City Staff or City Council had ever been in this
situation). The City Council agenda packet goes out on Thursday. By that
time, the City Attorney had responded back to us that under state statute, the
City’s presumed penalty of revocation would trigger a 5 year revocation that
would bar Davanni’s from getting another license for 5 years. This was news to
everyone. We were able to get that piece of information into the Council
packet. The Police Chief and I discussed how that type of penalty could
seriously affect the businesses ability to remain viable. It was particularly
significant in light of the lesser penalties for selling to minors on a repeat
basis. After discussion with Chief Sletner, we felt that the presumptive
penalty of revocation would result in an overly harsh penalty, given the new
information about the 5 year state revocation, and the question of whether or
not that aspect of the presumptive penalty was understood at the time of the
ordinance passage.
I had hoped to put my thoughts (5 year penalty, other penalty options, lack of
background on presumptive penalty component of ordinance and an alternative
consideration) together and forward to the City Council on Friday, but didn’t
get it completed. I finished it on Monday morning and emailed it out to the
City Council, Attorneys and Police Chief that morning, with the hope that they
would have time to review it before the meeting. That’s it.
I didn’t make a printed copy of the email, unfortunately, and that was the
mistake that the requested opinion addressed. The lack of a printed document
is at issue. The content of the email was disclosed during the Council
meeting. I have apologized for not having printed a copy of it, as that was MY
mistake, not the City Council’s. I believe that by my response to Mr.
Kysylyczyn, I demonstrated that there was nothing to hide, as I willingly and
promptly provided the document to him.
I hope this answers questions regarding why the email was sent, and conveys to
RIF members and the public that I have not denied the existence of the email,
nor withheld it from anyone.
From:
roger hess jr
Date:
Jul 18 13:06 UTC
Short link
i want to thank the city manager and everyone on both sides of this issue for
their insight into this issue.
i do think that the city council should have tabled this item that night
because of the major change in the report brought to them, which the public was
not aware of ahead of time. how are we, the citizens of roseville, suppose to
know when to come to a council meeting if we do not have all the information
ahead of the meeting? if this information had been in the packet, possibly many
citizens would have come to the meeting to express their views. we have to rely
on the packet so that we can pick and choose which items to talk with the
council with before they make a decision. i feel that any time vital
information is missing from a packet and is brought to the attention of the
council at the meeting, that, if time permits, the council should table the
item until the next meeting, thereby giving the public a chance to comment at
the next meeting. otherwise, every citizen of roseville is going to have to
attend every council meeting in person in order to make sure they can comment
before the council votes.
i also find it a bit troubling that senior city staff were not aware of all
aspects of state liquor laws, especially the 5 year rule. i would think the
city attorney would have been aware of this long ago. it seems like a very
basic law that any city attorney should be aware of.
i seem to remember that liquor sales at davanni's is a very tiny percentage of
their sales, and i don't believe the absent of alcohol at davanni's would make
a noticable different in their overall sales. there are many outlets in
roseville selling similar food that do not sell alcohol. davanni's is a rather
large chain and one location not selling a few thousand dollars worth of
alcohol is not going to close them down.
finally, the city should require that when a location can not sell alcohol for
one or more days, that the location has to remove all alcohol from the premises
on that day, and that they have to post a sign at their entrance stating that
they can not sell alcohol on that day because they violated the city liquor
ordinance. this inconvenience and possible embarrassment would go a long way to
help prevent liquor violations. in my opinion, the reason davanni's sold
alcohol on the day of their suspension is because they were too embarrassed to
admit to their customers that they had screwed up and were prevented from
selling alcohol that day, and they just didn't want their customers to know.
roger b. hess, jr.
From:
Dick Houck
Date:
Jul 18 17:59 UTC
Short link
I don't think that there was "a lot of innuendo or erroneous speculation put
forth" on this issue. The fact is that the open meeting law was violated
(either intentially or accidently) and as such it would have been
appropriate to table the item for the following meeting and provide anyone
the opportunity to attend and comment. That's what the law is for. However,
I think that the explanation and apology are sufficient considering what and
how the event happened. Having said that, I do not agree that the penalty
should not have been a revocation for several of reasons. Number one,
apparantly liquor sales are not a prime part of this business and a
revocation would not have seriously affected the business. Number two, this
business refused to take the free employee training that was offered by the
city regarding this issue. Number three, the final offense was not by some
misinformed or noninformed employee, but by one of the managers of the
business thus increasing the seriousness of the offense. And number four,
this is a most serious offense against the whole community, every parent and
family, and most importantly against our young people, who do not need any
further bad influence or opportunities from outside the home. Consequently,
I believe that their license should have been revoked. However, it is now
over and hopefully lessons have been learned. Let's move on.
There is one final question though. Just what would now trigger the
revocation of a license?
Dick Houck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Malinen" <bill.malinen@ci.roseville.mn.us>
To: "Roseville Issues Forum" <roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: [RIF] State says Roseville Council violated open meeting law
> There has been a lot of innuendo and erroneous speculation put forth
> regarding what transpired with an e-mail that I sent to the City Council.
> Let me provide you with the facts. First of all, here is the entire email
> along with Mr. Kysylyczyn’s request and my response to him, so there’s no
> mistaking what did or did not go to the City Council, and when:
>
> From: Bill Malinen
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:21 AM
> To: 'John M. Kysylyczyn'
> Cc: Carolyn Curti
> Subject: FW: Davanni's 5 Year
>
> John:
>
> This is the email sent to the City Council, per your request.
>
> From: John M. Kysylyczyn [mailto:john@ksolutionsllc.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 1:14 AM
> To: Bill Malinen
> Subject: information request
>
> Bill,
>
> I have an information request but I’m not sure exactly to
> ask for so I will do my best to try to spell it out.
>
> On the issue of the Davanni’s liquor license suspension, I
> had the distinct impression that there were some documents or emails that
> the council received on this issue which was not in the council packet.
> The comment was made that the Police Chief had made a recommendation on
> the penalty at 30 days and a $1000 fine. Now maybe I missed this in the
> packet, but I do not recall seeing any letter from the Chief with any
> recommendation. There were also comments that led me to believe that you
> may have submitted a recommendation also, but this wasn’t 100% clear to
> me. Bottom line is that I would like to get this additional information
> that was not in the packet. I presume there are reports, emails, letters,
> etc.
>
> In addition, I also would like a copy of the findings the
> council established in making their decision as is required by our
> ordinances.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> John M. Kysylyczyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Malinen
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 8:45 AM
> To: *RVCouncil
> Cc: Carol Sletner; 'Scott T. Anderson'; 'Jay T. Squires'
> Subject: Davanni's 5 Year
>
>
> Mayor and Councilmembers,
>
> At your meeting this evening, you will consider whether to apply the
> presumptive penalty for Davanni's Alcohol License Suspension. The
> presumptive penalty for selling alcohol with a suspended license is
> revocation. As the City Attorney has advised, under MN Statutes 340A.402
> subd. 2 No retail license may be issued to:".....a person who has had an
> intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor license revoked within five
> years of the license application"
>
> While the Council has full discretion to apply the presumptive penalty or
> not, staff wants to make the Council fully aware of this provision of
> state law, and to also bring into question whether the state reapplication
> prohibition was fully understood when the City ordinance setting the
> presumptive penalty was enacted. This is the first case of it's kind
> before the Council that we're aware of, so the research regarding the
> reapplication has not had to have been done. Perhaps in light of the
> severity of the state statute regarding reapplication the Council should
> revisit the intent of our ordinance.
>
> Although serving alcohol to a minor and disregarding the license
> suspension are serious offenses, revoking a license would result in the
> business not being able to apply for a license for at least five years.
> The loss of alcohol revenue could force a business to close. An
> alternative is suspension of a longer period of time. State law provides
> a maximum suspension period of 60 days and a maximum penalty of $2,000.
>
> Chief Sletner and I have discussed this, and the impact to this local
> restaurant. We recommend that the Council consider not revoking the
> license, but instead consider giving a 30 day suspension and a fine of
> $1,000. This penalty would provide a serious consequence for this small
> business, but would not irreparably damage the business.
>
> In any event, we would also like to do further research on the presumptive
> penalty background and comparable community laws.
>
> Bill Malinen
> City Manager
> City of Roseville, MN 55113
> 2660 Civic Center Drive
> 651.792.7021
>
>
>
>
> By now, everyone knows that the City goes through a process for checking
> on sales of alcohol to minors, which Davanni’s failed. They were fined
> $500 and their license was suspended for a day by the City Council. On
> that day of suspension, they sold alcohol to a police officer (not a
> minor). So, they were scheduled to appear before the City Council on
> February 11, 2008.
>
> As we reviewed that upcoming City Council meeting agenda at our weekly
> Department Head meeting on Tuesday, February 5th, I asked about how the
> process goes afterwards, because there hadn’t been any revocations in
> Roseville before. Would Davanni’s just have to pay another fee and go
> through an application process to sell again? Chief Sletner was tasked
> with finding out. (Remember that no Roseville business, City Staff or
> City Council had ever been in this situation). The City Council agenda
> packet goes out on Thursday. By that time, the City Attorney had
> responded back to us that under state statute, the City’s presumed penalty
> of revocation would trigger a 5 year revocation that would bar Davanni’s
> from getting another license for 5 years. This was news to everyone. We
> were able to get that piece of information into the Council packet. The
> Police Chief and I discussed how that type of penalty could seriously
> affect the businesses ability to remain viable. It
> was particularly significant in light of the lesser penalties for selling
> to minors on a repeat basis. After discussion with Chief Sletner, we felt
> that the presumptive penalty of revocation would result in an overly harsh
> penalty, given the new information about the 5 year state revocation, and
> the question of whether or not that aspect of the presumptive penalty was
> understood at the time of the ordinance passage.
>
> I had hoped to put my thoughts (5 year penalty, other penalty options,
> lack of background on presumptive penalty component of ordinance and an
> alternative consideration) together and forward to the City Council on
> Friday, but didn’t get it completed. I finished it on Monday morning and
> emailed it out to the City Council, Attorneys and Police Chief that
> morning, with the hope that they would have time to review it before the
> meeting. That’s it.
>
> I didn’t make a printed copy of the email, unfortunately, and that was the
> mistake that the requested opinion addressed. The lack of a printed
> document is at issue. The content of the email was disclosed during the
> Council meeting. I have apologized for not having printed a copy of it,
> as that was MY mistake, not the City Council’s. I believe that by my
> response to Mr. Kysylyczyn, I demonstrated that there was nothing to hide,
> as I willingly and promptly provided the document to him.
>
> I hope this answers questions regarding why the email was sent, and
> conveys to RIF members and the public that I have not denied the existence
> of the email, nor withheld it from anyone.
>
>
> Bill Malinen
>
> Info about Bill Malinen: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/billmalinen
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7sZEX9UggBS7ERfPvLJTlR
> -----------------------------------------
> 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
>
> Roseville Issues Forum
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html
From:
Dan Roe
Date:
Jul 18 19:23 UTC
Short link
A very brief correction to information in Mr. Houck's last post: Davanni's DID
participate in the city's training program (or an approved alternate).
Otherwise, their mandatory minimum penalty would have been a 3-day suspension
and $500 fine, rather than the 1-day suspension and $500 fine that they
received (and violated).
From:
Jerry Buerge
Date:
Jul 28 13:53 UTC
Short link
While there may be merit in insisting that the Council investigate all factors
surrounding the considerations given the Davanni's issue, it seems obvious that
a new policy should be adopted regarding the public availability of late
breaking information or data that is to be included in the information packets
provided to Council Members prior to Council meetings.
Since it should now be recognized that information posted on the Internet is to
be considered as 'published' in the same sense as is printed matter on paper or
otherwise; why then should not such updated information be included in that
offered to the public in exactly the same manner and at the same time as is
provided to the Council Members by the simple expedient of updating the
Internet version of the packet - while sending an email to each Council Member
alerting them to the presence of fresh information now being available - as
well as publishing a prominent public notice on the Roseville information site
also announcing that fact.
It seems to me that such a procedure would eliminate any future possibility of
repeating the problem raised by the process followed during this occurrence.
.