Before the Council meeting started last night, I saw Kevin Chaignot in the audience and went over and introduced myself. I told him that I was going to speak in favor of granting his license and that I had written about it -- some would say, "extensively" -- on NeenahPolitics.com. He was understandably a bit apprehensive and in a high state of excitement, but he appears to be a fellow that can handle it.
He was the first to speak during the Public Forum segment of the meeting, and he repeated his main point that he didn't knowingly withhold information on his application (full details here).
I spoke my piece next:
I read the Mayor's Council Update of last Friday, including the paragraph in which he expressed a bit of frustration with the Public Services Committee -- and with the Council -- for continuing to grant bartender's licenses to people who don't qualify according to the policy.
The Mayor did his best to persuade the Council that the members of the Public Services Committee should not have voted to recommend approval of Mr. Chaignot's application. Clearly he thinks that we should never reverse the policy … or that we should change it to indicate more clearly the amount of lattitude the Council has to reverse it.
After reading the memo I got to thinking about certain functions of the Council. For example, when a property owner in Neenah objects to the size of his property tax bill, he takes his complaint to the Board of Review. Generally, the Board of Review denies the appeal by the property owner and life goes on.
But if the property owner persists in saying that his taxes are unfair or unreasonable, he may appeal directly to the City Council. The laws allowing these sorts of political appeals are right there on the books. It's kind of like jury nullification, and it's part of our system of government. What I mean by that is that apparently cut-and-dried legal issues can be decided by regular people, Council members, with no legal training. Is that right? Is that advisable? Since it allows for subjective factors to be considered, I don't see anything really wrong with the notion that a political body can reverse or set aside policy without first amending it.
So, here we had Kevin Chaignot, gathering his courage to appear before the Public Services & Safety Committee. He was nervous, and abundantly aware that he had filled out an inaccurate application. Mr. Chaignot knew that this was his best shot, to come clean while acknowledging that he made mistakes. He was asking that the committee recommend his application for approval even though the application clearly indicated that he could be denied a license if he answered incorrectly, inaccurately, or untruthfully.
This is what impressed the committee, I think. The committee acted on faith, faith that Mr. Chaignot -- while he had been careless in the past, possibly violent – respected the process of government enough that he came in person to plead his case, knowing and accepting that his fate was in their hands.
The Mayor and Ms. Zaretzky weren't opposed to him getting his bartender's license; they just wanted him to acknowledge the primacy of the city's policy in granting those licenses ... and that he should wait until five years have passed since his misdemeanor before applying. [After the meeting I asked Alderman Zaretzke whether I had accurately represented her views. She told me that, no, her concern had been whether Chaignot might still be a violent person. - Ed.]
But I think that the Mayor overstated his case somewhat, turning his focus on past actions of the Council; that is, actions that contravened the licensing policy. The Neenah Common Council is tasked with the approval or denial of beverage operator licenses. Should they be? Why does our policy state that an incorrect application "will be recommended for denial"? Why doesn't it just say that an incorrect application will be denied, period?
I don't know why...but I'm glad that it doesn't. Perhaps the people way-back-when that wrote the ordinance or statutory language regarding the granting of bartenders' licenses took into account that people are fallible and that there should be a certain amount of consideration of each application on its merits, not merely to applying the letter of the law.
I'm fond of an old saying: "Hard cases make bad laws." In this situation though, the law does makes allowances for strict interpretations to be, if not reversed, then applied with a less-heavy hand.
People write the laws and people break them; and, as the Mayor pointed out, we have often given second chances to those that make mistakes. Perhaps more frequently than he would like, but that's part of the role of the Council: to apply the law with people in mind.
I am in favor of Mr. Chaignot being granted his license. I hope that you are, too.
When the question of Mr. Chaignot's license came up on the agenda, several people on the Council spoke. Here's a synopsis of what happened:
The Chairman of the Public Services & Safety Committee, Bruce Rhoades read out the committee's recommendation and moved to approve Chaignot's application. Motion seconded by Alderman Nick Piergrossi.
Alderman James Hemes wanted some additional detail about Chaignot's testimony to the committee. Specifically, he asked for an explanation of why Chaignot's application was in "violation". Chaignot replied that when he filled out the application he thought that his misdemeanor conviction was at least five years ago when it was only four. He changed his answer on the felony question because his drug paraphernalia offense had nothing to do with the sale of drugs or alcohol.
To a question from Hemes regarding whether he had the required bartending training, Chaignot answered in the affirmative and related that he had a valid Oshkosh bartender's license. Hemes continued by asking if Chaignot had any violations while he'd been bartending. Chaignot answered, "None whatsoever."
Hemes had further questions about how old the last violation was (four years old) and whether bartending was Chaignot's main livelihood (yes).
Since misunderstandings over the wording of the questions on the beverage operator's application seem to occur frequently, Alderman Marge Bates wondered if there weren't some "level of misdemeanor that you don't have to say it's drug paraphernalia versus actual drugs, or...?" Council President Todd Stevenson, sitting in the Mayor's seat, said, "...just as Mr. Erbach indicated, I think each Council member has to take a look at each application and the suggestion that comes from the police department; if it's to deny, it's a recommendation to deny, and each Council member has to take their value system to determine: is it the amount of time? The relevant issue here, is it the magnitude of the violation? Is it the type of violation? There are a lot of variables that a Council member would weigh into to look at that. To try to put it into a structured 'Well, if this then that' kind of thing...you can try to do that, but, as Mr. Erbach said, it comes down to the value judgment of those elected to make that decision."
Bates asked again if the language on the form needs to be clarified. "You get several of these people coming in and saying, 'I didn't understand it.'"
City Attorney James Godlewski piped up to say that the form had been reviewed at least twice and that he didn't see any way to clarify it; though he did offer that the committee could certainly look at it again if they so desired.
Bates asked an interesting question about applicants who thought that their records had been expunged and whether there was a way for applicants to find out before filling out the form if their records were "clean" or not. Godlewski gave the name of an on-line resource called CCAP [Consolidated Court Automation Programs - Ed] that anyone can look up.
Alderman Nick Piergrossi pointed out that it wasn't a question of the form's clarity; it's a question of Mr. Chaignot's recollection of when his infraction occured. He suggested a new type of temporary license that could be granted by the Council; though he acknowledged, and Attorney Godlewski confirmed, that state statutes already provide for a provisional license to be granted while the bartender completes the mandatory training.
Hemes then asked the key question: what were the circumstances of the threatening/violent disorderly conduct? Chaignot very forthrightly said:
There was somebody that was a little younger than me and I seen him mouthing off to a veteran; and I asked him to stop and he wouldn't. And then he pushed me in the face; so it was going outside and I...did wrong things.
Hemes asked if he was employed by a bar at the time and Chaignot said no. He also asked for details of the bartender's training and Chaignot detailed the main points regarding observation by the bartender of how many drinks a patron has, body size, and watching out for over-serving.
Lange asked whether a question could be added to the application that asks the applicant whether he has reviewed the online CCAP records.
Bates asked a very pertinent question: If Chaignot had answered accurately that he did have a misdemeanor conviction less than five years ago whether that would lead to a police department recommendation for denial. Godlewski said that he would "defer to the judgment of the police department." Their recommendation for denial in this instance was because the application was "untruthful". He said that he didn't know all the factors for those kinds of decisions if the application is filled out accurately and whether the type of misdemeanor affects the decision. "The city cannot deny a license based on a conviction record that's not related to the license. You can argue that a violent disorderly conduct that occured in a bar may be related, but I'd want to hear what the police department had to say about it. It may not be."
Hemes asked the City Attorney what types of behavior would lead to revocation of a bartender's license. Godlewski said that it was a different standard. Once someone has a license "they have a property interest" and "there's a higher standard" applied in order to revoke the license. "If somebody was habitually drunk, for instance, or served underage individuals, or lied to the police in the course of an investigation involving a bar...those kinds of things would be grounds for revoking an operator's license. But getting a speeding ticket or even a disorderly conduct ticket of some sort away from a licensed premise may not have that same effect."
As a followup, Hemes asked if there were any kind of "progressive discipline", a point system. Godlewski said no, Neenah had "never adopted a formalized point system."
Stevenson asked: would stating on an application that one had a disorderly conduct conviction as well as a possession of drug paraphernalia charge not be grounds for a recommendation for denial? Godlewski repeated that he'd said that he would want to hear the police department's opinion. "To be honest with you, they're borderline, especially with the length of time that's passed. I have not seen a pattern of that behavior." The police department is more familiar with how those infractions have an impact on the people applying for licenses.
Hemes summed up by saying that at first he would have gone along with the police department's recommendation that Chaignot's application be denied. He said that he believed, though, that Chaignot was "contrite" about his behavior; and he cautioned that license revocation would be appropriate if there were any violations. Chaignot from the audience said, "Fine by me."
President Stevenson followed up on Lange's suggestion and voiced approval of the idea of an additional question referring to the CCAP data on the application. "Make sure you check that prior to you submitting this application...so that five years means five years. If they fail to do that, if they've been given the tools to check this...maybe some reference to the web site on the application that says 'time period can be validated at this address, this web site'."
Godlewski now pointed out one weakness to that idea: "A number of the violations that could occur may happen through municipal court and that won't show up on CCAP...The vast majority of violations -- certainly criminal violations -- will show up on CCAP. But if it's an ordinance violation for marijuana possession or underage drinking...that won't show up on CCAP."
After a bobble with the electronic voting system, on a vote of 8-1, the Neenah Common Council voted to approve the beverage operator's license for Kevin Chaignot. I turned around to see Chaignot put both thumbs up with a happy grin on his face. A very satisfying outcome.