Laserfiche WebLink
VERSION 1 <br /> <br /> <br />BEVERAGES BY MINORS-SOCIAL PARTIES;” CONTAINING A <br />SAVINGS CLAUSE AND PROVIDING A PENALTY. <br /> <br />Bill 8922 was given its second reading. <br /> <br />Ms. Brot asked Mr. Mulligan, the city attorney, if it is against the law to <br />serve minors in your house now, why would we need this law? Mr. <br />Mulligan responded that this bill creates responsibility for the <br />owner of the property to insure that <br />C-3-d <br />their property would not February 5, 2007 used by <br />minors for alcoholic consumption. It is illegal <br />right now for a person to give alcohol to minors but it does not cover when <br />someone else brings the alcohol to a social event at a resident’s house. <br />This bill would make the owner responsible for minors drinking alcohol on <br />their property at any time. Ms. Brot asked if this bill had been looked over <br />by the ACLU and the Anti-defamation League for violation of personal <br />rights. Mr. Mulligan said that it had not. She was concerned about the <br />religious protection, especially concerning some Jewish Sabbath and <br />holiday observances involving wine that might be in violation of this bill as <br />it is stated. Mr. Mulligan said that there is not any religious exception <br />under the state law now and it would not be consistent with the state law if <br />Ms. Brot’s suggested exception was incorporated into this bill. <br /> <br />Ms. Ricci said that this is in the nuisance part of the City’s ordinances and <br />not in the criminal part of the City’s ordinances. She felt that this bill had <br />little to no bite. She asked what the punishment would be for violation. Mr. <br />Mulligan said that the city’s general penalty provision would apply of up to <br />$1000 fine or 90 days in jail. Ms. Ricci remarked that if this social event <br />happened in a vehicle, this would not apply either. Mr. Mulligan agreed. <br /> <br />Mr. Price moved to postpone this bill until the next Council meeting, so that <br />Council could receive more information from the police department, <br />specifically about the grant whose provisions influenced our police <br />leadership to initiate this bill. His motion was seconded by Ms. Brot. The <br />voice vote was two AYES from Ms. Brot and Mr. Price and NAYS from Mr. <br />Wagner, Mr. Glickert, Ms. Ricci, Mr. Sharpe, Jr. and Mayor Adams. The <br />motion to postpone bill 8922 failed. <br /> <br />Bill 8922 had its third reading. <br /> <br />Mr. Price moved to deny bill 8922 and was seconded by Mr. Glickert. The <br />Roll Call vote was as follows: (NAY vote signified a vote against the <br />motion to deny.) <br />AYES: Ms. Ricci, Mr. Glickert, Ms. Brot, and Mr. Price <br />NAYS: Mr. Wagner, Mr. Sharpe, Jr., and Mayor Adams <br /> <br /> <br />