Amid the recent actions taken against of Madison bars, members of the Alcohol License Review Committee questioned the legislative procedures that lead to the disciplinary actions at the June 17 meeting.
Committee member Thomas Landgraf voiced concern over the procedures taken in ALRC’s action against Ram Head and Johnny O’s, suggesting that he and other committee members were bypassed and not granted adequate opportunity to discuss the policy being enacted.
Specifically, Landgraf objected to the fact that at the May 26 meeting the committee was presented with a stipulation on negotiation that had been put together by the City Attorney’s Office and attorneys representing the bars without any knowledge of the ALRC.
“What really happened is we missed the opportunity to have any kind of policy discussion about ranges of things that could be negotiated and would be acceptable, and I certainly was one of the members of the committee that had some concerns about a number of provisions that were in the stipulation,” Landgraf said.
Landgraf added that a process needs to be established to avoid future situations where an establishment is “hanged” in the City Attorney’s Office and some settlement reached before the ALRC is presented with the case and has the chance to discuss it.
These sorts of disciplinary procedures, however, are not atypical according to Assistant City General Steve Brist.
“It’s not uncommon in disciplinary cases to have the City Attorney’s Office come forward with some kind of stipulation,” Brist said. “That happens in courts, it’s not unusual.”
Landgraf also said he thinks there needs to be some sort of fair criteria for what is a reasonable license suspension period for particular types of violations.
Brist acknowledged that while there are no real criteria for what is or is not an appropriate suspension in city ordinance, the Madison Police Department does use a “disciplinary matrix” which shows how long suspensions have been for various infractions in past cases.
He further suggested that the City Attorney’s Office could possibly go through the records of the ALRC and create a similar indicator of what penalties should be enacted on a historical basis.
While such a historical based indicator might be helpful, it does not address the issue of committee discussion being bypassed in the legislative process, according to Landgraf.
“I think we just need to get the steps in the right order,” Landgraf said.
The issue with historical based indicators of what penalties to apply in different cases, according to committee member Thomas Farley, is that it does not allow the ALRC to discern between bar owners who are serious about reforming and those who are not.
“The purpose of this body I think is to look beyond these sorts of predetermined precedents and say is this something that is going to be corrected over time or is this constantly going to be a bar that is in front of us with problems,” Farley said.? “That is why I think we need to be approached before any kind of legal bar is set.”
A motion was passed to refer these issues and concerns to the ALRC process subcommittee.
Also at the meeting for the first time was University of Wisconsin student Mark Woulf, who was recently appointed to Associated Students of Madison’s newly created non-voting student position on the ALRC.
“I’m really looking forward to working with all of you,” Woulf told the committee. “I think it’s important that the students of the university have representation on this committee and I am honored to be that voice.”
