Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 1986 <br />LIQUOR LICENSE RENEMAL-CONTINUED <br />Councilmember Goetten asked for clarification as to whether <br />the Council could review any violations at the time of license <br />renewal or if it had to be reviewed immediately. Bernhardson <br />stated that there was no time limit established. City Attorney <br />Barrett confirmed Bernhardson's statement. <br />Councilmember Nettles inquired as to the costs involved for <br />any additional monitoring that was necessary by the Pole^e <br />Department? Bernhardson replied that in actual patrol tine, <br />there were no additional costs. The Officers had been advised to <br />be especially attentive to potential violations. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this was an <br />information item and that it would be brought back to either the <br />Council meeting on the 28th of November or the 12th of December. <br />COUNTY ROAD 51 <br />City Administrator Bernhardson explained that he had <br />expected to receive additional information, but it had not <br />arrived. This item was basically for the purpose of updating the <br />Council as to the current standing with the County. <br />Councilmember Goetten asked why this issue of sai.ry .,is <br />dropped several years ago? Br - nhardson responded that the UNP <br />and County were looking at parking in those areas and because of <br />the possibility of the additional land being condemned, the City <br />dropped it. When this issue was raised in 1985, it was the <br />trespassing issue that was the major concern, not pedestrian <br />safety, on which the City continued to work. <br />ADMINISTRATIV1 ACT/ON <br />City Admt,listrator Bernhardson stated that he was bringing <br />this Tatter before the Council with the recommendation that a <br />two-day suspension be given to Officer Larry Tomcheck. In <br />addition, another day of suspension would be held in abeyance, <br />pending no further violations before April 1, 1989. This <br />recommendation resulted from two separate incidents whertin <br />Officer Tcocheek exhibited behavior that was unprofessional and <br />potentially hazardous. Bernhardson stated that ir a case •,there <br />an employee union did not exist, the next step, should the <br />Council recommend suspension, would to to appeal to the Council <br />for a hearing it the employee chose such an appeal. However, Mr. <br />Tomcheck is a rremter of the Po 1 ico Union so the appeal would go <br />through the gr:evance process and an arbitrator. <br />Acting Mayor Peterson stated that in her opinion, Mi. <br />Tomcheck is now performing his work properly. She mentione' the <br />fact that Mr. Tomcheck was asked to take two days off for an <br />evaluation. Bernhardson explained that Tomcheck did receive sick <br />pay for those two days. She felt that holding the day of <br />suspension in abeyance for the past 10 months was more seiere <br />than two days of suspension with no pay. In her opinion, it <br />