Apparently, its against the rules, but the police can’t do anything about it without an ordinance. They didn’t really talk much about that tho, didn’t even question it, it was more about who was stepping on who’s toes . . . and the homeless. There will be a separate post about the homeless . . . lets just look primarily at the drinking thing here. Cuz its interesting . . . .
So, first of all, before I get to this do you seriously think that if I cracked open a Guinness during the council meeting and I drank a six pack during the meeting that the police could really do nothing about it? And that if they used council rules and other methods to remove me from the room, that they couldn’t get me out of the building and I could sit down out in the hallway and finish off a twelver and the police could do nothing about it?
Ok – here’s the discussion limited to the ordinance, not the homeless behavior, that’s coming in another post. This is the City-County Liaison Committee so there are city council members, county board members, mayor and county executive staff and attorneys from the city and county here. Along with the Madison Police Department.
Marci Paulson from the City Attorney’s Office explains that there is no ordinance prohibiting it, there are rules in place, but without an ordinance, police can’t arrest. They can contact, but with ordinance can contact and arrest, there are calls to 911 where consuming alcohol in the lobby and nothing they could do.
Melissa Sargent, County Board supervisor says she was asked by a colleague about this, she understands your intent, but the way it went through the process it has been questioned, her colleague cited the smoking ban and the smoking ordinance, that was before her time, so she is expressing her concern about lack of communication with corporation council and the county board from the city, is this even the right path, not the ordinance, but the procedure? Her colleague asked me to have Carlos and others here. Carlos Pabellon is from the County Corporation Counsel office.
Paul Rusk, County Board Supervisor says that there is a recent example, they city passed an ordinance about firearms with a penalty and the county was doing the same thing, they didn’t come to the committee O’Loughlin brought it up at Personnel and Finance and wanted dot know why there was a difference. Pabellon was there and could explain. He was asked by judiciary so sheriffs and bailiffs could follow up and we tried to follow the city as close as we could but we had different attorneys and different legal interpretations. Well, I decide I work for the county, so I went with what they said. So the fine is different, the county’s hasn’t passed yet. All the attorneys are in same building, there are things we could do and have a better system of communicating.
Mark Clear, City Alderperson points out that the attorneys have different clients.
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff, City Alderperson says she is all for better communication, it would have been better if everyone aware of it, but the people responding are the Madison Police Department, the ordinances they can enforce. This wasn’t about broader issues like smoking bans, and they are not doing similar things, this is really within this building. It was already in the rules and they were developed by the committee. The only way the rule can have teeth is by having a city ordinance so the police can do something about the rules. The people responding are Madison Police, and when responding, they can only do something if City of Madison ordinance in place. They were trying to put in language what was already there. These are not new rules. It was good to come here to make sure it fits the rules there, intent was not to not include the county. The ordinances pertain to the city. But she thinks better communication is great.
Sargent clarifies, the building is managed by the county, yes? (People nod) So, Pabellon, as council for the county, can another body make a rule that is managed by another entity and are we ok?
Pabellon says it is ok, Madison can pass an ordinance, we are in their jurisdiction.
Sargent says was asked to clarify for her colleague.
Clear says if he understands existing ordinance, we are just adding two properties to the ordinance that makes possession, giving away and consumption illegal. This building and the Madison Municipal Building aren’t there, we discovered the loophole. They recently added the library a few years ago, and the address it as problems occur. He says it means no party will be allowed in the Mayor’s or County Executive’s office and because it includes possession, they can’t bring champagne in the building, including private offices.
Josh Wescott, County Executive’s Office, asks if city has ordinances in effect on public intoxication.
Paulson says no open containers on the street, or the library or certain parks, this is added on, this is number 27 or 28 places in the city you can’t have alcohol.
Wescott asks if there is no general ordinance to say no open intoxicants in public.
Paulson says only in the street. This ordinance is just this building, there is a separate one on streets.
Wescott was wondering if it is duplicative, can’t have alcohol in public places.
Paulson says the the ordinance is only for open intoxicants in the streets, the ordinance we are amending is specific to parks.
There’s a bunch of chatter and they point out that it only applies to some parks and for Warner Park, it only applies during Rhythm and Booms but even for that you can drink in the beer garden. There’s more chatter.
Dennis, or Denny O’Loughlin, County Board Supervisor moves approval, Lauren Cnare, City Alderperson seconds it.
Sargent asks we vote this down, would the City Council still move on it?
Clear says yes, we are making a recommendation to the council, it went to other committees to.
Sargent asks if they can make amendments.
Clear explains that would be part of the recommendation.
Sargent says sealed containers is an issue they discussed at length, that they are not prohibited, so you can give a gift to a colleague or pick alcohol up on the way to work and go to a potluck in the evening. It was ok at the time we discussed it, at the time, so she is wondering why the sponsors (Bidar-Sielaff, Cnare and Clear) who were pare of the discussion are now sponsoring this.
Clear says it is the convenience of how the ordinance is written, this is part of another ordinance.
Paulson says building rules don’t say sealed or not sealed – but yes it is the way it is in the ordinance.
Clear says they can do a separate ordinance.
Paulson says if just consumption is prohibited then people can come in with open beers or a flask and the police can’t prevent it.
Sargent says a flask is not a sealed container.
Cnare clarifies that it has to be factory sealed, never opened.
Bidar-Sielaff has to go, sealed or unsealed, they had the discussion, if its about a birthday gift of a bottle of wine, you can be more creative than bottle of wine. If not prohibited then can’t bring it in and then open it.
Cnare also leaving – she can live with a gift of wine, but can’t live with the airplane sized bottle of liquor, the reason we are doing this so not drinking in lobby and offices. The temptation is there, if don’t have cookies in your office, you don’t eat cookies, it removes the temptation. If you want to bring a larger volume, then has to be something you can’t bring a bunch that you put it in your pocket, if we move in that direction. But then you decide how much is ok. If you want to be naughty, whole handful of little bottles is a problem too, even if sealed.
O’loughlin says there are 25 bars within one block, 4 liquors stores within one block, no alcohol easier for the police department, its no hassle. If we allow employees and not them it will be a problem, we want to make it as easy as possible for law enforcement. No no alcohol – period, pretty easy.
Captain Carl Gloede says they were asked to look into it, he was working off your rules, as he read it, thought it meant no alcohol in the building, so he asked for that to be similar, that was the intent, if the rule changes then we will change how we do enforcement.
They hear testimony from the Parks Department on the issues they are facing with the homeless people in the lobby. (Will be in a separate post)
Sargent moves to amend to allow sealed containers, open intoxicants are the problem, and wants it to be revised to say that if its factory sealed it is ok.
No one seconds the motion.
Sally Miley from the Mayor’s office brings up the problems with the homeless again. Wescott explains what the county is doing with human services to address the issues. (Will be in a separate post)
Motion passes unanimously without further discussion, it was a voice vote. (Cnare and Bidar-Sielaff left for neighborhood meetings)
That was it for that part, the homeless issue I will need to come back to, but since there were no reporters there, I’m not in a rush and have a three day weekend coming up. Meanwhile, should I bring a beer to the next council meeting before this ordinance passes? I’m sooooooooooooo tempted. 🙂
