Towny Anderson: Unanimous ruling

Advertisement

— Regarding the situation at the Pirate's Pub, Colorado Liquor Regulations state:

"No person licensed under Articles 46, 47, and 48 of Title 12, nor any employee or agent of such person licensed under these Articles shall engage in or permit the following: : (3). Any person on the licensed premises touching, caressing or fondling the breasts, buttocks, anus or genitals of any other person." (Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Liquor/ Tobacco Enforcement, Colorado Code of Regulations 1 C.C.R. 203-2, Regulation 47-900. Conduct of Establishment, Subsection B. "Attire and conduct of employees and patrons".)

These are regulations, not guidelines.

State statute allows municipalities to enforce provisions of the State Liquor Code through a duly authorized local Liquor License Authority. The Steamboat Springs Liquor License Authority is vested in City Council. Persons applying for a Liquor License in Steamboat Springs must demonstrate to the Authority that they possess good moral character. A liquor license is a privilege, not a right. Every licensee in Steamboat Springs understands this by virtue of having gone through the application process.

An alleged criminal act is tried in criminal court. An alleged violation of the Colorado Liquor Code is heard before the Liquor License Authority. This is the law. A violation of the Liquor Code is a violation of one of the standards defining good moral character. Complying with these standards is required to hold a license to serve alcohol. The evidence presented was sufficient to persuade the Liquor License Authority to unanimously conclude that a violation of Regulation 47-900B(3) occurred (vote: 5-0).

The Liquor License Authority was then asked to decide a punishment appropriate to the violation. A majority of the Authority members found that the violation was egregious enough to warrant revocation of the defendant's license. The defendant, in violating this particular standard of the State Liquor Code, was found to be deficient of good moral character, and therefore unfit to hold a liquor license.

A person applying for a liquor license that had allegedly engaged in the aforementioned conduct would, with objections from one or more neighbors or residents, in all likelihood be denied. Why would a licensee who was unanimously found to have violated the same standard of conduct be allowed to keep his or her license?

Towny Anderson

Steamboat Springs

Comments

RoxyDad 6 years, 11 months ago

I think the letter is well written and clears up some confusion for me. I now agree with the decision, especially after I found out what happened throgh another discussion thread on a previous article.

0

trump_suit 6 years, 11 months ago

It seems to me that "Innocent in a court of Law" should carry more weight than anonymous postings in our local newspaper.

Kevin was accused of these actions but found innocent. by a Jury of his peers. Regardless of your personal opinion of his alleged actions, the Jury verdict should have been final.

If he is in fact guilty of these actions, why did the jury trial end in aquittal? In deference to the young women who believe that they were wronged, you are not supposed to be tried twice for the same crime.

I believe that the original recommendation by the State Liqour Board was for a 30 day suspension. This entire incident is a black mark for Mr Nearny for sure, and a license suspension is probably appropriate, but the complete revocation speaks of underhanded politics and private vendattas by the City Council.

0

CoJustice 6 years, 11 months ago

trump_suit: Innocent of what?, what is your understanding of the specific charge?

0

CoJustice 6 years, 11 months ago

Read comments by RoxyDad, it was well written.

"Read the article in Todays paper by Towny Anderson (even if you don't like him)"

It says: An alleged criminal act is tried in criminal court. An alleged violation of the Colorado Liquor Code is heard before the Liquor License Authority. This is the law. A violation of the Liquor Code is a violation of one of the standards defining good moral character. Complying with these standards is required to hold a license to serve alcohol. The evidence presented was sufficient to persuade the Liquor License Authority to unanimously conclude that a violation of Regulation 47-900B(3) occurred (vote: 5-0).

To further explain - Do you think O J Simpson is innocent? He was found innocent in a court of law, and was found guilty in a civil case. Just because Nerney was found innocent in a court of law does not mean he did not violate the provisions of havig a liquor license.

I at first was on Nerney's side until I looked further into the matter.

I agree with what council did and it was a difficult decision. Let's all move on. Life will not stop in Steamboat without the pirates pub. RoxyDad

0

steamvent 6 years, 11 months ago

Towny .. So, how long will you be explaining yourself and for how many things? Do us all a favor and fade.

0

gdef 6 years, 11 months ago

To agree with the standards of this statute is to agree that alcohol is the devil's sauce. This statute is a hold over from the prohibition era. Such logical but erroneous provisions for a compromise between the temperance movement and the reality of the publics will to drink has created this arcane and absurd statute.

To follow in this logic would be to agree that because it is statistically proven that skiers and boarders are more likely to hurt themselves and the mountains knows this, that the mountain should like cigarettes companies be held liable for the damaging effects of using the for profit products and services.

In my opinion these regulations should be updated to reflect societies current attitudes towards alcohol. As well as in a town such as Steamboat it is most appropriate for the city council to maintain it's role in deciding the appropriateness of a liquored licenses planned location and operational plans.

0

justathought 6 years, 11 months ago

Nerney was found not guilty of the charges in criminal court, so he didn't commit a crime. We've seen plenty of liquor establishments cited for serving minors, what does the code say about this? Isn't serving minors a crime? Why does serving minors get a suspension while Nerney (not guilty of a crime) loses his license? Why was a 15 day suspension an acceptable "punishment" before he went to court but changed to revoking his license after he was was found not guilty in a criminal court? What changed to make it a more "egregious" offense than when the suspension was offered? Did he so enrage the council by not admitting guilt that they had to "show him who was boss"?

0

Aaron Murphy 6 years, 11 months ago

The Pirates Pub will be missed.

The people have spoken, and the Council has changed.

Yet somehow, life goes on...

We live in paradise, folks. Try not to forget that.

0

RoxyDad 6 years, 11 months ago

justathought

You don't have to commit a crime to be in violation of the rules of owning a liquor license

Say that to yourself 10 times and have a beer!! Cheers!

0

nightbird 6 years, 11 months ago

Dear Steamvent If Towny wanted to write a thoughtful editorial every week for the next 10 years what would be wrong with that? If the only voices we hear are those who we agree with something of value is lost. Open and honest exchange on civic issues is of great value. I am encouraged that Towny has the civic disposition to be willing to write a letter to the editor and sign his name. I hope he continues to engage this community in civic dialogue.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 11 months ago

As long as civic dialogue is all Towny gets to do any longer, I'm fine with that. I doubt he could do it, though. Just think of how much money he'd have to spend on consultants for each editorial!!!!

0

agentofchange 6 years, 11 months ago

Matt, he would never do it, cuz it would be his $$. There are some folks that are just really great at spending "other folks" money. Isn't that why we voted TA and the other two out?

Towny can write letters all he wants as long as he can't vote as a member of council. Perhaps I should write a letter to the editor explaining why I just wrote that, just as he wrote a letter to the editor (AGAIN) explaining why he as part of Council did what he did back then... my gosh, we got it Towny, that's why you lost.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 11 months ago

Agent- That's exactly right, but remember: he spent taxpayer money by opposing the Courthouse going west of town and that was before he was elected!

I'll have to get Brian H. and Todd D. to work this "concesssion speech" letter into the next show!

0

agentofchange 6 years, 11 months ago

You are correct Sir !

What a great idea. I'll help. Maybe we could have lewi (Steve) make sure the "word count" doesn't go over the pre- approved allowance. What a gas!

0

outsiderlookingin 6 years, 11 months ago

Wow!! Towny if you weren't getting sued before I can't image why you wouldn't be getting sued now!! Back in the day "thems be fightin words"

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 11 months ago

agent- Sounds good! With lewi, maybe Brian and Todd will actually pay heed when I say to stop giving me more lines or songs!!! Then, "Steve" could say "Sic'em" to another Steve!! Oh, yeah! LOL!

0

outsiderlookingin 6 years, 11 months ago

It is true Kevin was offered a "DEAL" It wasn't 15 days (like some people are stating) it was 9 days. BUT IT CAME WITH A PRICE. Kevin had to take 9 DAYS & ADMIT GUILT. Something that he NEVER WOULD DO!!!! Some people out there think that makes him "COCKEY" I call it BRAVE!!!! He shouldn't have to BEND OVER for anybody. After all../ he was found NOT GUILTY in a "Real Court of Law" And that is the only thing people should remember!!!!Unfortunatly City Council thought THEY HAD to get involved. OK...So they get involved & this is how the LAST 45 seconds of the meeting gos: The previous City Council find Kevin Guilty, they need to give him a penalty, 9 DAYS (not stiff enough) 30 DAYS (too stiff a penalty) In fact Steve Ivancie said that he thought 30 days would be a FINANCIAL HARDSHIP for the Nerney's. And thats when Sue Dellinger says, 30 days a financial hardship, OK then lets TAKE THE LIC. LICENSE AWAY PERMANENTLY!!!!!! Towney & Post agreed & that was that!!!!!!! Where was the rest of the Council Memebers?????? Hey Louie: You were there for the first 1/2. How come you didn't advise the Nerney's that you wouldn't be able to attend the second 1/2? Wouldn't it have been in everyones best intrest if you would have checked your calandar & let them know you couldn't make it that day? Lets be fair. If we really had to have a "QUAZI TRIAL" Shouldn't everyone have been there. ANd while we are at it: Why are some people claiming that Kevin is costing us Tax Payers money. He didn't ask for the "QUAZI TRIAL" they did. Believe me, this is costing him plenty in attorney fees & loss of revenue. Not to mention, the waitstaff, hostess, bussers etc.

0

justathought 6 years, 11 months ago

RoxyDad, I just want to know why a criminal act (serving minors) gets suspension and a violation of the rules gets revocation, seems like someone doesn't have their priorities straight. It is a hellish leap from offering a few days suspension to taking ones license.

0

armchairqb 6 years, 11 months ago

Little-liza how about this for a solution Make Nerney the liquor license authority

0

RoxyDad 6 years, 11 months ago

justathought

There are many instances in life where the penalty seems to not fit the crime and I am sure you know that. Don't pretend you don't just to make your argument.

For instance, The USA has drug laws in many States that give severe MANDATORY penalties for small amounts of drugs where armed robbers get lesser penalties.

The way the system works is that you create a rule or law with penalties. If you later think there was a mistake in what was written in the law or rule you change it.

You would be better off spending your time supporting council in finding a better alternative for the liquor license vilations and penalties instead of crying about Kevin.

You are probably family of Kevin, but you still need to realize the way the process is, even if you don't like it. I do not agree with the process I am just clear enought to know that what was done was acceptable under the current conditons.

If you don't like it then take you time to get them to change it, they would probably be happy to have your suggestions.

I think it needs changed to be more fair, but what was done was acceptable

Kevin did something, he went through the system and lost. Lets move on.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.