All posts in the topic Watch Davanni's get off selling alcohol to kids again, this coming Monday... (Short link)
Summary
- There are 5 posts — by 3 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by John Kysylyczyn at Jun 29 21:39 UTC
Davanni's is back on the council agenda again, tentatively scheduled for
this coming Monday evening.
They will be requesting that the council reduce their penalty for getting
caught selling alcohol to kids, and selling alcohol with a suspended liquor
license. Again, you will see your city council members (with the exception
of Tammy Pust) bend over backwards to maintain a massive reduction in their
penalty that they approved with no public notice earlier this year. (To be
fair to new council member Bob Willmus, it should be stated that it was Mr.
Klausing who led the charge for a massive reduction in penalties to
Davinni's, which was supported by Ms. Ihlan and Mr. Roe. Mr. Willmus did
not have a chance to vote on this issue.)
Here is the background that citizens will need to know if you plan on
testifying before the council on this issue Monday night.
Back in the fall of 2007, Davanni's got tagged for selling alcohol to kids.
The city ordinance in existence since 2000 is very clear that unless there
are substantial reasons from deviating from the standard penalty, the
standard penalty should be assessed. The standards for deviating are
extremely high. To lower a penalty, the law says that this could be done if
the business had a history of being involved with youth alcohol prevention
programs. Davanni's has little or no history doing this. To raise a
penalty, the law says that this could be done if the business has had
multiple failures over the years. In fact, Davanni's is the NUMBER ONE
violator of alcohol laws in Roseville, based on my records going back to
about 2000.
Instead of increasing the standard penalty, which the council had a lot of
documentation to support that action, they let Davanni's off by just giving
them the standard penalty which was a small monetary fine and a one day
suspension of their liquor license.
Fast forward a few months into the future.
So on the day they had to serve their one day liquor license suspension, a
Roseville Police Officer in plain clothes walked in and ordered a beer.
Even though their liquor license was suspended, an assistant manager sold
the officer a beer, which is another violation of Roseville city laws to add
to their numerous past violations of the law.
So now the issue of Davanni's selling alcohol when their license was
suspended came to the city council in early 2008. The report in the council
packet that was distributed to the public stated that the standard penalty
for selling alcohol with a suspended license was revocation of the license.
The report stated that it was the city attorney's recommendation that they
issue the standard penalty which was revocation. This was probably generous
since Davanni's had an extensive history of violating the law. Again, you
should have a darn good reason to increase or reduce the penalty. The
reasons should have to do with the businesses actions in relation to the
sale of alcohol. Remember that Davanni's is the NUMBER ONE violator of
liquor laws in the City of Roseville dating back to 2000 if not the NUMBER
ONE violator of liquor laws in the city for all time. So all seemed ok
since the recommendation was to follow the prescribed penalty to revoke
their license.
Unknown to anyone from the general public, City Manager Bill Malinen decided
to issue a secret revised report on this issue just a few hours prior to the
council meeting. He sent it to the council members by email. The public
was never informed of the new report at the meeting and no copy was provided
to the public while the issue was being discussed. This new report
amazingly put forward a brand new recommendation that Davanni's should NOT
have their license revoked, and the city council should NOT follow the
recommended penalty. Instead the new report called for only a 30 day
suspension and a small monetary fine. So in summary, in a report sent via
email the day of the meeting, the council is suddenly advised to NOT follow
the recommended penalty and instead substantially decrease it. The report
completely ignores the fact that Davanni's is the NUMBER ONE violator of
city alcohol laws.
The reasoning the secret report gave is that under Minnesota Law, someone
who has their license revoked cannot reapply for a new license for 5 years.
The state considers these people scofflaws. So if the city followed the
recommended penalty under law and revoked Davanni's license, they couldn't
apply for a new license for 5 years under state law.
So the action that Bill Malinen recommend to the council, when taking into
account the state laws on the issue, was essentially a reduction of their
suspension by 99%. Yes a 99% reduction in their penalty.
The claim that Bill Malinen gave to the council is that he did not believe
that past city councils intended to subject a business to this harsh of a
penalty so therefore the council could use that as an excuse to lower the
penalty by 99%. The fact is from reading the report, and watching the video
tape of the meeting, neither he nor anyone else in the room had any proof to
back up that claim. They didn't even have any idea when the law was
originally passed. They had no idea who recommended it and who even voted
on it. So it seem rather amazing that you could make this kind of statement
in this kind of context. It has to be mentioned that the city has rarely if
ever revoked a liquor license because no business has had the gall to sell
liquor on a day when the Roseville Police Department has specifically said
they can't. It is a slap in the face of the police department that
management would allow this to happen.
Led by Mr. Klausing, he advocated for a 99% decrease in the penalty for
Davanni's. This didn't surprise me one bit because he is the one who
defended lowering penalties for previous businesses caught selling alcohol
to kids and even wrote an editorial in the paper supporting that action.
Both Mr. Roe and Ms. Ihlan jumped on the bandwagon and claimed that
Davanni's needed a break. Yeah over Mr. Klausing's objections, they upped
the 30 day penalty to 60 days, but the math work shows that this was a 97%
reduction in their penalty instead of a 99% reduction. Some members talked
up their 2% increase in the penalty.
The claim these three made was that they felt it was a hardship of sorts to
revoke their license, knowing that they couldn't apply for 5 years. So I
guess if you might lose business because you sell alcohol to kids and sell
when your license is suspended, then just cry to the city council that you
will lose money and they will reduce your penalty. But the story gets
better. The assistant manager at Davanni's said that they sell roughly ONE
BEER A DAY! Tammy Pust who supported the revocation asked why they would
even sell alcohol if it was only one a day. The manager replied that
corporate was making them do it even though they would rather not.
So to be clear, the three council members voted to reduce the penalty by 97%
due to the financial hardship that would be imposed upon Davanni's because
they would not be able to sell ONE BEER A DAY!
Practically no one came to the council meeting to protest this 99% reduction
in penalties, because the report they saw on the internet did not support
this action. The report presented to the public called for the standard
penalty to be followed. No one knew until the next day that city manager
Bill Malinen had created a brand new secret report with new recommendations
which was emailed to just the city council members hours before the meeting.
(As a note, this issue of the secret emailed report is currently the subject
of an investigation by the State of Minnesota for a possible violation of
the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, which requires public disclosure of these
documents while the council is discussing them at the meeting.)
So a split council vote ended up reducing Davanni's penalties by 97% that
evening. Only Ms. Pust spoke up against it eloquently stating that the law
was the law and everyone should be held to the same standard. Also I
believe she raised the point that if you give one business a break then all
the other businesses will want the same break.
I also personally found it very hypocritical of Police Chief Carol Sletner
to support this massive reduction of penalties for Davanni's. Just a few
years back, she was telling City Manager Neal Beets that if you reduce
penalties then everyone will want their penalties reduced too. It is
troubling when the chief of police will not stand up to support the laws of
the city and the good work of her officers on this issue. The chief should
have been fighting for an increased penalty ABOVE revocation due to
Davanni's poor history.
But the story is not over which is why I am writing this today. Davanni's
was not satisfied with a 97% reduction in their penalty. They filed an
appeal with the Office of Administrative Hearings. Well the outcome of that
hearing is tentatively scheduled to be reviewed by the city council this
coming Monday. The council has the full latitude to follow the outcome from
the administrative judge who runs the hearing or to deny it.
So this case will be brought back before the city council this coming
Monday.
Again, I can't stress this more that Davanni's is the NUMBER ONE violator of
alcohol laws in Roseville. No one else that I know of joins them on that
high pedestal. Most businesses in Roseville have never violated our alcohol
laws. A less than majority of businesses have violated alcohol laws 1 time
since 2000. Davanni's on the other hand violated something in the order of
25% of all alcohol compliance checks since 2000. I believe it is something
like 5 or more infractions. Keep in mind that the city rarely does checks
on these laws.
For those who say oh let's give them a break because we have pretty
stringent laws. Well guess again, Roseville has some of the weakest laws
and penalties for selling alcohol to kids of anywhere in the metro area.
Also remember that our police department offers free training to employees.
Also don't forget that if employees get training, they get future penalties
reduced. I don't believe that Davanni's took advantage of that free
training every year since it was enacted in 2000.
Your city council likes to claim that they care about businesses selling
alcohol to kids. Well talk is cheap. The council did nothing to discipline
former city manager Neal Beets for breaking the law and relaxing penalties
for businesses that sold alcohol to kids, and this year the council gave a
massive penalty break to Davanni's who is the NUMBER ONE violator of alcohol
laws in the city. Hopefully a few citizens will consider showing up to
Monday's council meeting and decide to shame them into doing the right
thing.
If you don't like the laws, then fine, change them. But until then, the law
is the law and it should be applied evenly to everyone. The standards for
deviating from the prescribed penalties should be applied evenly to
everyone.
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
The original suspension for selling to the minor during our compliance check
was 1 day, plus a fine - the full provision of our code for the original
violation. Davanni's was found to have violated THAT suspension, which led to
the additional penalty.
While one can say that the 60-day suspension we imposed for violating the
original 1-day suspension is a 97% decrease in penalty over full revocation
(based on the statutory 5-year limit on revocation), I would point out that it
is also a 6000% (60x) INCREASE over the original penalty, plus another $2000 in
fines. I hardly see that as letting Davanni's "get off (for) selling alcohol
to kids." Especially when they claim something like $4500 in liquor sales per
year. Short of revocation of their license, the 60 days and $2000 fine is the
maximum allowed by law. I respect the opinion of those who believe that the
full license revocation is more appropriate, but believe that to be simply too
harsh in this instance.
The appeal hearing did not go in Davanni's favor - it upheld the city's
penalty. The action item on Monday's agenda is to agree with the
recommendation of the hearing officer, and re-affirm our penalty. Other than
perhaps Davanni's, I don't know of anyone proposing at this time to reduce our
original penalty.
thank you councilmember roe for your response.
is it true that the council received a report from the city manager that was
not made available to the public at a council meeting? this sounds like a
violation of the open meeting law.
Dan, again I appreciate your willingness to respond. Your commentary provides
more food for thought.
The damming words of the administrative law judge are posted at the end of my
commentary along with some history of these laws that hopefully should put in
perspective why this Davanni's violation is something we rarely if ever see in
Roseville. I also offer some commentary on the secret report emailed to the
council on this issue just hours before the council meeting.
In reply to Mr. Roe's specific comments...
He mentions that while the council reduced the penalty for Davanni's by 97%
over the recommended penalty, this is a 6000% increase over the original
penalty.
Well this isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison. You put forward an
apples to oranges comparison. There is no comparison to the "original" penalty
because the two are not tied together to the level you seem to be implying. We
have an old penalty from last year that is over and done with, and now we have
a new violation of a different provision in law. Let me explain why I say
this.
The original penalty you refer to is the violation of the law of waiters
selling alcohol to kids. Davanni's has been given this ticket multiple times
over the past 8 years. Essentially what you have are minimum wage clerks
selling alcohol without checking id's, and who could care less because jobs are
a dime a dozen.
This most recent penalty given to Davanni's is something completely different.
That's isn't just my words, that is the words of council member Pust who gave
an excellent speech on this issue at the council meeting before she voted no in
reducing this new penalty by 97%.
This most recent penalty is one that as far as I know, no Roseville business
has ever been penalized with in at least 8 years if not in the entire history
of Roseville.
To very clear, in this case, it wasn't a minimum wage employee who could care
less about alcohol laws, selling a beer to a kid without carding someone. This
was the Roseville Police Department telling Davanni's that they were having
their license suspended for one day and that no alcohol sales could occur.
Then MANAGEMENT chose to do nothing and due to MANAGEMENT failures, waiters
were allowed to sell alcohol when their liquor license was suspended. To be
precise, it was the ASSISTANT MANAGER who actually made the sale. Davanni's
received a direct order from the Roseville Police Department and their
management team was so inept that they couldn't even follow it. It was pointed
out at the council meeting that other businesses have posted a sign a week
before a suspension date to alert customers. Davanni's management didn't even
do this. As Ms. Pust pointed out, this is a management failure. I want
readers of this posting to understand that this isn't some minimum wage 21 year
old kid selling a beer to someone without checking id first.
Mr. Roe's comments about Davanni's having $4500 in alcohol sales PER YEAR, as a
reason to defend that revocation of their license was too harsh, is actually
not something to raise if you want to defend lowering their penalty by 97%.
Supporting a 60 day suspension of Davanni's license only cost them a measly
$750 dollars of sales.
Now I might buy your argument if we were talking about Old Chicago, another
frequently violator of the law, but not as bad as Davanni's. A 60 day
suspension of Old Chicago's license would probably cost them over $200,000 in
sales, not a measly $750.
Even if this was Old Chicago that we were talking about, I still wouldn't buy
your argument in general. What Mr. Klausing, Ms. Ihlan, and yourself have
decided to do is look at the balance sheet of the business and for financial
reasons have decided to substantially bend the existing standards we have in
law.
You bent these standards for a business that didn't just have a waiter get
caught selling alcohol to kids. You have bent the standards for a business
that has a history of having waiters getting caught selling alcohol to kids,
placing them as the number one violator in the city of Roseville. This time,
it wasn't a 21 year old kid selling alcohol to a kid, but a management team so
incompetent that they ignored a direct order from the Roseville Police
Department that their liquor license was suspended.
A 21 year old waiter selling a beer to a kid, and having a management team that
is completely incompetent and ignores direct orders of the Roseville Police
Department are two completely different things.
This is why the penalties for both of these situations are different. Note
that it was the Roseville Police Department that recommended these issues be
treated differently and it was the Roseville Police Department that recommended
that revocation be the penalty for selling on a suspended license.
For those of you who are interested in the saga of how the worst violator of
alcohol laws in the history of Roseville is being helped by city bureaucrats to
get its penalty reduced by 97%, here is an update.
At the June 16th meeting, it was expected that the city council for a second
time was going to rubberstamp Mr. Klausing and City Manager Bill Malinen's plan
to reduce Davanni's penalty by 97%. It was expected to be yet another split
council vote. Ms. Pust was expected to vote no on the reduction. Davanni's
was tagged for selling alcohol after the police had suspended their license for
a previous violation of selling alcohol to kids a few months earlier.
But to many people's surprise, Ms. Ihlan was unable to attend the meeting,
apparently being stuck out of town for the evening. The other wildcard for the
meeting was that this was the first time newly appointed member Mr. Willmus
would have to vote on the issue.
To the shock of Mr. Klausing and Mr. Malinen, Mr. Willmus stated that he could
NOT support a 97% reduction in the penalty to Davanni's. Ms. Pust also
restated her opposition to the reduction and said she would vote NO. So that
left the issue a 2-2 tie. So it got tabled until tomorrow's meeting of June
30th.
So tomorrow, June 30th, the council again will bring up the issue of reducing
Davanni's penalty by 97%. It appears that if it passes, it will be done with a
split council vote with Mr. Klausing casting the tie breaker giving Davanni's a
97% reduction of their penalty.
Note that it was Mr. Klausing who led the effort to support former city manager
Neal Beet's illegal reduction of penalties for three other businesses just a
few years ago.
In my personal opinion, I find that this whole process of dealing with
Davanni's violation of the law to have been highly unethical from the very
beginning.
First, Mr. Malinen failed to completely inform the city council members of
Davanni's history of being the number one violator in the history of the city,
going back to 2000. It is his job to do this.
Second, Mr. Klausing's and Mr. Malinen's claim that the council probably never
intended such a harsh penalty for someone who sold alcohol on a suspended
license was made in complete ignorance. They had no research to support such a
claim. In fact, the recommendation came from the Roseville Police Department.
I know, because I was there at the time.
Third, Mr. Klausing acts if this is no big deal because this is the first time
Davanni's has violated the law. Well it is a big deal, because it is NOT the
first time they have violated the law. It is like the 5th or 6th time they
have violated Roseville alcohol laws. While there are a few other businesses
that have sold alcohol to kids once or twice, Davanni's has been caught selling
alcohol to kids at least 4 times and they are the only business to have sold
alcohol with a suspended liquor license, which is what they are currently
supposed to be penalized for.
Fourth, it was pure deception on the part of the city to issue two council
reports on this issue. One report given to the public telling them that the
city wanted the standard penalty applied, and then a second report sent to
council members hours before the meeting via email calling for a 99% reduction
in the penalty. This second report was never brought to the attention of the
public and they were never given a copy at the meeting.
One has to raise the issue of who is being paid off. Reports don't get changed
a few hours before a council meeting by accident. Just a few years ago, we had
our previous city manager handing out favors to businesses who were selling
alcohol to kids. All done behind closed doors. Now we have Mr. Klausing and
Mr. Malinen handing out favors to a business whose management team sold alcohol
while their license was under suspension by the Roseville Police Department.
The police department suspended their license because just a few months
earlier, Davanni's was caught selling alcohol to kids.
I'm also concerned about the actions of Police Chief Carol Sletner. Just a few
years ago, she kept silent while former City Manager Neal Beets knowingly broke
the law and reduced penalties to businesses caught selling alcohol to kids.
Yes she spoke up in what she had hoped were private emails to Beets, telling
him that she thought his actions violated the law, but said nothing to the
public and/or the city council. Not until the council asked her directly at a
council meeting to give her opinion, and after Beets had left the room, did she
speak up publicly to state that she opposed reduction of penalties. She said
it sends the wrong message to businesses, and if you give one a break, then all
of them will want the same break.
On June 16th, I attempted to ask Sgt. Matt Marshall at the council meeting (who
is the person directly in charge of the alcohol compliance program) why he was
not supporting the city ordinances and the penalty system we have which was
initially proposed by officers in his department. He started to respond that
the department was not commenting about that, when Chief Sletner told him to
follow her back into the locked area of the police department. Sgt. Marshall
said that he could not speak to me anymore and said that he had to immediately
comply with her request.
It appeared pretty clear to me that city manager Malinen has a gag order on
Chief Sletner to keep her mouth shut on this issue. That gag order applies to
everyone who works under her. It is pretty clear based upon the last blow up
of this alcohol issue a few years ago that Chief Sletner is opposed to the
reduction of penalties to businesses that violate alcohol laws. But as we saw
a few years ago, she will not speak up. Last time it was fear of city manager
Beets and this time it is fear of city manager Malinen.
I have to admit that it would be even a bigger embarrassment to Mr. Klausing
and Mr. Malinen if Chief Sletner spoke up to oppose this 97% reduction in
penalties to Davanni's. So the gag order serves a political purpose it seems.
As I said, this whole issue smacks of favoritism, back room deals, and plain
and simple unethical behavior on the part of several people.
Ms. Pust and Mr. Willmus have put their foot down and said that they are voting
NO.
Hopefully one more council member chooses to step up at tomorrow's council
meeting (June 30th). The council has an ethical duty of shedding light on this
whole situation and airing out the stink that is currently associated with it.
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