There’s a lot going on in city hall right now, and I’m still catching up, but I did happen to catch this.It’s a small discreet item I can start with as I return to blogging. I have about 150 other topics on my mind, but time . . . it’s always about time!
Background
Anyways, on to the issue. Tonight on the City Council agenda there are 5 public hearing items that have the following note:
AGENDA NOTE: The recommendation is to grant with the condition that the Alcohol License Review Committee approves the license at the ALRC 8/21/24 meeting, including any conditions imposed at the ALRC meeting.
What???? So the council is voting blindly on any conditions that the ALRC would impose? What a precedent! What other things might they consider doing this for?
In the past when there were license snafu’s the council or ALRC would hold a special meeting. In fact, the council has a special meeting coming up and they could have the ALRC meet and handle it on the 20th when they meet to vote on the referendum. So there could be a fix for this.
Two questions
1. Is this legal?
2. Is it ethical?
I think its questionable if it legal. The state law requires the municpality to follow its own laws. In this case the ordinances say that if you don’t follow the procedures as outlined by the ordinances, the “license or permit issues in violation of this chapter is void”. Clearly ALRC is supposed to meet and give a recommendation to the council. One might even wonder, if the ALRC doesn’t have a recommendation, what is the public hearing for? What are you commenting on, something that will happen in the future that you don’t yet know its outcome?
If I were on the council, I wouldn’t vote blindly on something that I don’t know what it is and is in violation of the ordinances. They take an oath to uphold their own ordinances, but as any long time watcher of the council knows, sometimes they ignore their own laws and policies when its convenient.
The rest of the story
Why are they breaking their own laws? In this case, its 5 liquor licenses for Roundy’s Corporation, backed by the Grocers Association. Long story short, Roundy’s screwed something up, didn’t apply on time and then when they did something else got screwed up on the City end of things. And, after all, this is Wisconsin and we can’t have grocery stores that can’t sell liquor over Labor Day weekend!
So, why care?
- This looks like corporate favoritism. Would they be doing this for other smaller local businesses not backed by the Grocers Association?
- It’s a slippery slope. Would they now do this for other issues in other departments? Might the next issue be something you do care about?
- Ask yourself, why do some ordinances get followed to the T and others get pushed aside? Who decides which ones and when? And in the end, what is the point of ordinances if they are optional.
Well, there you have it! First blog post on a topic that isn’t the week ahead in quite some time. Not the flashiest or most pressing issue, but it’s something to think about.
