Doug, additional questions: Procedure by which council revoked liquor license from Thomas Walters

Hi Doug,
I appreciate this conversation. I have additional questions from your input.
These topics are so vital to the integrity of our citizen representational process, and to the reputation of our community who has the finest citizens. And it is also equally vital to our protection of the reputation and integrity of the brilliant and dedicated and experienced folks whom we hire to provide our city services to us.
And we need to know the chosen process protects our elected council member leaders, as well.

1. If the police are city employees, and the city attorney office represents city employees, then why wouldn’t one of the two city attorneys have done the questioning of witnesses on behalf of the police? Does the police department have their own legal defense budget? Which budget would payment have come from for that additional outside attorney?
2. How does an “appeal process” to the council become a “quasi-judicial” appeal to city staff? From whose opinion? Why then was there no court reporter?
3. It seems confusing to say Mr Welnitz represents the “city as a whole” as he certainly does not represent any of the Citizens. Nor does he represent the council members, not individually nor collectively. What might be the sources that would cause or allow the council members to think otherwise?
4. Council always has the right to secure their own attorney. Rockford’s council has one on retainer who attends all their meetings as their legal council, so that there is no conflict of interest, perceived or real, between city employee verses council members and the citizens whom they represent. (The city staff attorney would also be available at their meetings for input from the city staff perspective as well, should council request it.)
5. Was it fair or appropriate for council to have allowed, requested, or required the city staff attorney to give the perception that he might be representing the council members? Might this be a procedure that needs to be improved or corrected?
6. Is it possible that if the council would have had their own attorney representative – could that have eliminated, or at least reduced, the perception that the elected council was standing by to observe and/or condone a procedure of city-staff gang-attack on an isolated citizen?
7. The citizen was appealing a prior citizen board decision to the council. The citizen was not appealing the citizen board decision to the city staff. If the citizen should be unhappy with the decision of the council, then the citizen may appeal the council’s decision to the courts. Is that not the point at which the process would become judicial?
8. Because Janesville fails to have a municipal court, the next-step citizen appeal process to judicial court would have to begin at the county circuit court level. Would it be appropriate to implement a municipal court? (Even Edgerton has one. The county is very unhappy that we do not.)
9. Had the council their own attorney, then the council’s attorney would have been seated where the city staff attorney had sat in the past. The council’s attorney would not have been seated in a council member’s chair. Per your own attorney’s recommendation, either your own attorney or the city staff attorney then could have gone to the podium to do the questioning. When would the council president not preside over council meeting affairs? When would it ever be appropriate for a city staff employee to preside over the citizen-elected council?
10. Can it be assumed that any and every citizen appeal request from a citizen board decision to the council is considered “a very serious action and matter”?
11. By whose request did this have to be done in open session? By city staff request? For city staff benefit?
12. Had closed session been requested by the citizen, might that request have prevented any cast of a shadow over the proceedings?

I think that if I were in your position as a council person that I would want our own council retained attorney on hand to provide and/or observe the podium questioning of the witnesses, the city police officers, and also the questioning the city attorneys on behalf of the council and citizenry.
And I would want to make certain that it was abundantly clear that the citizen had adamantly refused the option of discretionary closed session.
I thank you for your consideration, as these topics are so vital to the integrity of our citizen representational process, and to the reputation of our community who has the finest citizens. And it is also equally vital to our protection of the reputation and integrity of the brilliant and dedicated and experienced folks whom we hire to provide our city services to us.
And we need to know that the chosen process that we create will also protect our elected council member leaders.
Thank you again.
Looking forward to your input.
Andreah
——Original Message——
To: Cda brd 14 doug marklein
To: City Council
Cc: City mng Mark Freitag
Cc: City Max Gagin
Cc: City ass mng Ryan McCue
Cc: City CDA Jennifer Petruzzello
Cc: City david godek
Cc: City elec bob fahey
Cc: City Fire Marshal Sue North
Cc: City Kelly Lee
Cc: City police chief David Moore
Cc: Aa k.andreah@briarmoon.us
Cc: Pr Neil Johnson
Subject: Doug reply: Procedure by which council revoked liquor licence from Thomas Walters
Sent: Jun 3, 2015 4:34 PM

Doug,
I very much appreciate this input. I can see there are still additional ways we can examine, learn from, modify and improve these processes. There are several interpretations of how to conduct these procedures. I hope the questions I raised will allow for reflection and brainstorming and improvements.
Andreah

——Original Message——
From: Cda brd 14 doug marklein
To: HH K Andreah Briarmoon
To: City Council
Cc: City mng Mark Freitag
Cc: City Max Gagin
Cc: City ass mng Ryan McCue
Cc: City CDA Jennifer Petruzzello
Cc: City david godek
Cc: City elec bob fahey
Cc: City Fire Marshal Sue North
Cc: City Kelly Lee
Cc: City police chief David Moore
Cc: Aa k.andreah@briarmoon.us
Cc: Pr Neil Johnson
Subject: RE: Procedure by which council revoked liquor licence from Thomas Walters
Sent: Jun 3, 2015 3:43 PM

Andreah
I am not going to address your comments point by point.
The revocation of a liquor license is a very serious action.
The process is a quasi judicial procedure very much like a court action.
The JPD was represented by counsel (Who could not be the City Attorney nor any of his staff)
Mr Thomas Walters was afforded the opportunity to be represented by counsel and was.
On the advice of Mr Thomas Walters’ Counsel neither He nor his attorney chose to appear before the City Council. This is their right to choose not to appear.
The matter then proceeded as you saw Monday evening. The JPD made their presentation of the facts. Mr Walters by his absence did not, Although once again if he or his attorney had wished to, they could have 1 Cross examined the JPD witnesses and 2 presented Their own Witnesses.
The procedure requires the City Attorney to be present to represent the City as a whole during this process. Hence Mr Wellnitz seated at the Council President’s right hand.

It is unfortunate that this even needed to take place. Mr Walters had every opportunity to voluntarily withdraw his request for renewal of his Liquor license. If he had the very public process would not have unfolded. BTW . this had to be done in open session, to do otherwise would cast a shadow over the proceedings. I am sure if you or I would ever be placed in such a horrible situation, we would want transparency so everyone knows what really went down.
Sorry you mis understood the process that the Council went through Monday evening.

It does not help your arguments to resort to name calling the City Staff

Douglas Marklein
________________________________________
From: briarmoon@charter.net [briarmoon@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 7:50 AM
To: CityCouncil
Cc: Freitag, Mark; Gagin, Max; McCue, Ryan; Petruzzello, Jennifer; Godek, David; Fahey, Bob; North, Suzann; City Kelly Lee; Moore, David; Aa k.andreah@briarmoon.us; Pr Neil Johnson
Subject: Procedure by which council revoked liquor licence from Thomas Walters

We need to examine and question the recent two decades of our city employee policies, practices and procedures against our citizens that give our hired staff of Janesville Wisconsin such a horrifically negative statewide reputation.
The last council meeting gives us an excellent example: the particular procedure allowed by council by which the liquor licence was revoked from Thomas Walters.
1. Why did our citizen-elected council-member leaders of our community allow our hired help to take over our council board meeting for a citizen character assassination, castigation, and humiliation public spectacle of this citizen?
2. Why was this not conducted in private session? And why do council members seem to think the affected citizens cannot be in that private session for full collaboration? Verses why are our city-employees being allowed and/or expected to perform gang-approach tactics against individual citizens?
3. Why did our citizen-representative council members not provide and assign that person with proper representation?
4. Why did our assistant city attorney pretend he was a judge? How dare he throne himself at the president’s seat! Why wasn’t he at a podium?
5. Why is our city attorney or city assistant attorney not capable of providing the questioning of this citizen?

6. Why would taxpayers waste money on yet another third attorney? Why did three attorneys, on our dime, gang up on this person?
7. If the two city attorneys felt the need to protect themselves with a third attorney, then where was the council-member attorney representation? You do know, I hope, that the city attorney office represents only our city employee hired staff, right?
How embarrassing and humiliating is it that this despicable and unnecessary citizen verbal assault was on public television as a glaring one-armed push-up display by our hired help showing off their citizen retaliation arsenal.
Not really a positive advertisement that would entice most people to want to make this town their destination for anything.
PLEASE examine the procedures, policies, and practices that allow or require our city employees to treat citizens so abominably.
We hire them to serve. We elect you to lead. Not the other way around.
You represent us, not the hired help. Make it so.