Councilman raises valid point

At last Tuesday's Woodstock City Council meeting a liquor license application for Trax Depot was up for vote. It's to be a nice, quiet place for drinks; not a rowdy bar room. I'd guess not a word was said about how drinkers will get home. Driving home in their cars; right?

As you may recall, the Woodstock City Council exterminated the Woodstock Liquor Commission earlier this year. The former three-member commission had been allowed to dwindle to one member, the Mayor, when no replacements were appointed to serve two vacant positions. I didn't like that decision at the time, and I don't like it now. Councilman RB Thompson voted against abolishing the Liquor Commission.

The same Councilman RB Thompson raised the issue at the City Council meeting that the anticipated manager of the new liquor license applicant is the godson of the Mayor.

Councilman Thompson is quoted in the paper as saying the the mayor has very high integrity and operates with an open-government attitude. "He's transparent, and he's very cognizant of appearances, so I was very stunned."

The Northwest Herald reported that a "hearing" was held on April 1 for the beer and wine license. Since there is no longer a Liquor Commission, what was the hearing? Was it open to the public? Where was it held? How was it announced? Or was it? The article refers to minutes of the hearing, perhaps taken by City Office Assistant Monica Amraen. Do those minutes contain any reference to a conflict of interest that might have made it necessary for the mayor to recuse himself?

If the mayor as Liquor Commissioner recuses himself, who makes the initial decision about a liquor application, so that it can go to the City Council? If Woodstock still had a Liquor Commission, then the mayor could have recused himself, and then the two remaining citizen-commissioners could have decided the fate of the license application.

The mayor's conflict of interest apparently did not surface at the City Council meeting before Councilman Thompson raised the question. If the item had not been removed from the Consent Agenda, it would have slid by right under the radar.

Thanks to RB for his keen attention and his intestinal fortitude to step forward and interrupt the process. Were any of the other Council members aware of the conflict of interest?

I don't see any malevolent intent to deceive here, but there was an obligation to disclose. The mayor later told the reporter, "As mayor of the city of Woodstock, I have the responsibility to be absolutely sure I follow the same processes and same procedures for every application that comes before the City Council." And no doubt he did. But apparently he didn't disclose the close relationship with an employee of the license applicant.

Before the Liquor Commission was abolished, the City records should have been checked for completeness. The online Agenda schedule for the Liquor Commission shows agendas for December 15, 2010, December 14, 2009, and October 15, 2007, but no Minutes. There are Minutes for a November 18, 2008, meeting, but no published Agenda. Will someone at City Hall be able to correct this "minor detail"?