My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-26-1984 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1984
>
11-26-1984 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/13/2025 12:32:13 PM
Creation date
11/3/2025 11:24:11 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
376
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
punishment until the offender has many repeated appearances <br />before the court. <br />THE AMM SUGGESTS THE JUVENILE JUSTICE TASK FORCE. INVESTIGATE <br />STRONGER ACTION FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS, ESPECIALLY BEFORE A <br />PATTERN OF LAWBREAKING HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, THUS DISCOURAGING <br />REPEATED ACTS BECAUSE THE YOUTH KNOWS THAT HARSH PUNISHMENT WILL <br />OCCUR. <br />"�. DATA PRIVACY AND OPEN MEETING. <br />Data privacy laws protect individuals from the release of <br />information to the public which the legislature has deemed to be <br />private or which could be unnecessarily harmful to the <br />individual. On the other hand, the open meeting law prohibits <br />local governmental units from holding closed sessions except when <br />d:scussi.�- pending or actual law suits with an attorney or labor <br />negotiations. Unfortunately, many occasions have arisen in past <br />dears where local units in dealing with individuals or employee <br />disciplinary matters have been fr ed to either violate the Data <br />Privacy Statutes or the Open Mek ng Statute in order to fairly <br />resolve the issue. <br />THE AMM REQUESTS THE LEGISLATURE TO MAKE THE DATA PRIVACY AND <br />OPEN MEETING LAWS CONSISTENT SO THAT TO COMPLY WITH ONE LAW A <br />CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO VIOLATE THE OTHER. <br />II-0 ONE CLASS OF BEER <br />:.egislation has been proposed in past years to eliminate the <br />manufacture and sale of 3.2 beer in Minnesota. If this were done <br />substantial problems could arise in control of the sale of strong <br />beer in service stations, grocery stcres, drugstores, and <br />elsewhere that 3.2 beer is presently sold. <br />IF THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF 3.2 BEER IS ELIMINATED IN THE <br />STATE OF MINNESOTA, THE, AMM STRONGLY URGES CONTINUED LOCAL <br />CONTROL OF LICENSING AND WOULD OPPOSE LEGISLATION MANDATING OR <br />GRANDFATHERING LICENSING OF 3.2 BEER SALES LOCATIONS WHERE THE <br />PRINCIPAL PRODUCT IS NOT STRON3 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. <br />FURTHER, THE LAW SHOULD BE MODIFIED SO THAT AN ESTABLISHMENT OR <br />PERSON HAVING A LICENSE TO DISPENSE STRONG BEER DOES NOT NEED TO <br />OBTAIN AN ADDITIONAL LICENSE TO DISPENSE OR SELL 3.2 <br />0:.A3SIFIED btE.R• <br />II-P OPPOSE INITIATIVE -REFERENDUM FOR ZONING ORDINANCES <br />The Municipal Planning Act has been interpreted to allow for <br />initiative and referendum (IR) in cities with charter provisions <br />allcwing for IR. There is evidence that this interpretation har. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.