Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 17 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Council Briefs
Published Friday, November 21, 2008
Monday’s second reading of a proposed social host ordinance means the measure will become law in early December.
Under the ordinance, a person who organizes underage drinking parties or permits them on his or her property may be guilty of a misdemeanor. While the ordinance still allows parents to determine whether or not their children drink at home, adults who allow other teens to drink on their property could face charges, even if they don’t supply the alcohol.
On Monday, some Fergus Falls council members said they’d heard objections to the ordinance from residents.
“I think we need to be very concerned of the impact on unknowing parents,” said Hal Leland.
A state law already prohibits providing alcohol to minors, said Police Chief Tim Brennan, but adults ages 18 to 20 who organize underage drinking parties are harder to prosecute. That’s where the ordinance comes in.
Council members approved the ordinance’s second reading on Monday. A copy of the measure is available on the city’s Web site at www.ci.fergus-falls.mn.us. It will also be published in The Daily Journal, and take effect Dec. 6.
Woman asks attorney be disciplined:
A Fergus Falls woman whose son was burned by a classmate is asking the city to discipline its attorney.
Debra Johnson came to the city council Monday saying she wants aldermen to discipline City Attorney Rolf Nycklemoe following an admonishment from the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility in August.
Johnson’s son, Aaron, was burned with a butane lighter by Fergus Falls High School classmate James Christopherson in April 2007. This summer, an ethics panel found Nycklemoe had violated the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to let Otter Tail County District Court know of Aaroon Johnson’s objection to Christopherson’s plea agreement. The panel stated the admonishment was a form of private discipline issued for isolated and non-serious misconduct.
On Monday, Debra Johnson said she expects the city to also issue some form of discipline.
“What are you going to do about the people who don’t do their job?” she asked.
As far as he’s concerned, the case is closed, said City Administrator Mark Sievert. Mayor Russ Anderson had sent the family a letter of support for Nycklemoe on behalf of the council last spring after Johnson spoke to aldermen in February.
Johnson said Monday she thinks the council should reconsider their stance on the issue in light of the action by the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.
Brenda Christopherson told aldermen she believes Johnson’s request only serves to bring up her son’s name again publicly when the case has been resolved.
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on November 21, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
the social hosts law is unjust!
people should not be criminalized for actions they did not commit nor had knowledge of!
DISGUSTING!
Jamie Cooper
Posted by 1125thmp (anonymous) on November 21, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Within the terms set strictly by the drinking ordinance, it doesn't really do much. Except who determines 'willful' support for such activities? I don't understand the qualifying benchmark by which the police, sheriff or other prosecuting authority will bring an individual to criminal proceedings or action? An adult who doesn't know of such activities cannot be held accountable as I read this, or are they? It's slightly ambiguous.
Posted by ANonnyMoose (anonymous) on November 21, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Cooper, please enlighten us as to how those people who do not commit illegal acts, or have no knowledge of such acts, could possibly be prosecuted under the new hosting ordinance. Thank you.
Posted by fortknox (anonymous) on November 21, 2008 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To whom it may concernm,
After reading this article, along with other articles covering this topic, I have found myself filled with utter disappointment. Disappointment in that the youth of this nation are raised to such an extent that in order to solve lifes problems one has to turn the issue over to "mommy." Now I understand that if a child was hurt at school, or anywhere for that matter, it requires attention. However, at the time of this incident all those involved were of the age of 18. This makes them adults, but yet "mommy"was still involved. It is sad to think that there are 18 year olds over seas, putting their lives on the line to protect America just so other 18 year olds in America can let their moms make their decisions for them. Nevertheless, "Debra" it is embaressing that you extended the issue to those working on the case.
Posted by E_85 (anonymous) on November 22, 2008 at 5:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"adults who are 18-20"? Those are the ones we are going after? Now they call them adults, when they organize partys but if they drink they are minors?
Posted by Mr_Lincoln (anonymous) on November 22, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We need to hold parents who know their kid are on drugs responsible .Charge the parent with giving drugs to a minor.Or child endangerment or bodily harm to a minor.We need to show no sympathy to parents who know or give or allow drugs to be used.How many more kids must die from geting hi and driving into an object.These kids need long term treatment.Help your kids dont ground them.After grounding them they will just go get hi.
Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ANonnyMoose, I have provided statute numbers previously proving my point.
obviously you are just dead set in favor of the social hosts law regardless of all reason or proof.
how about you provide some kind of proof that this law would not criminalize innocent people.
show us where it provides protection for anyone not aware that minors were drinking.
Posted by ANonnyMoose (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Metasonics, my statements as to the intent of the ordinance have been backed by the information available in every article the Journal has published on the subject, namely, that it's aimed at those who knowingly commit illegal acts, NOT those who do NOT commit acts, and NOT those who have no knowledge of such acts. Innocent people are innocent, as are those who have no knowledge of the acts, but you insist on believing the opposite. Your assertion is backed by nothing but entrenched paranoia and chronic distrust in authority. Your circuitous invitation to me to disprove your point --rather than you proving your own -- strongly suggests that your argument has nothing to stand on. We're still waiting, sir. Tell us exactly how innocent and unknowing people will be targets of the ordinance.
Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
show us the exact language.
I provided the exact statue numbers.
you are full of BS as usual and probablly on the city council!
no wonder this is city is dying.
Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on November 25, 2008 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
whether the intent of the law is good or not is not the concern.
laws are the law, with no regard given to intent.
have you ever heard what the road to hell was built with?
Posted by lookitup (anonymous) on November 26, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
here is the exact language -
(1) It is unlawful for any person(s) to;
(a) Host or allow an event or gathering; (1) At any residence, premises, or (2) on any other private or public property; (3) where alcohol or alcoholic beverages are present; (4) when the person knows or reasonably should know that an underage person will or does; (i) consume any alcohol or alcoholic beverage; or, (ii) possess any alcohol or alcoholic beverage with the intent to consume it; and the person fails to take reasonable steps to prevent possession.
Full ordinance is at: http://www.ci.fergus-falls.mn.us/pdf/Ord...
Posted by ANonnyMoose (anonymous) on November 26, 2008 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you very much, lookitup. Now that we have a base to stand on, I ask metasonics AGAIN: Would you please tell us what part of that language provides for prosecution of innocent or unknowledgable people?
Posted by lookitup (anonymous) on November 26, 2008 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good luck Moose - you've got to realize that metasonics does not think rationally, so you cannont make rational arguments with him. It's a lost cause. But what he lacks in quality, he makes up in quantity.
Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on November 26, 2008 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"reasonably should know that an underage person will or does"
give a black and white definition of this statement.
there is too much in this law left up to officers to interpret or enforce however they see fit.
essentially this allows police to perform the duties of a judge.
one would need to be psychic to know in advance what another person may do.
I'm more of a fan of prosecuting people who knowingly supply kids with booze. rather than charging people for not possessing psychic abilities.
why don't we just let the police do anything they want and charge us with anything they feel like from now on and just have complete blind faith in them and all elected leaders?
that's pretty much what you are suggesting but, I'm irrational?
LOL
and congrats moose, how does it feel to be in with a guy who murdered his father for the inheritance? right BS or I mean lookitup.
I may actually throw rationality out the window next time I run into your sorry BS ass.
I;m kind of sick of your online BS and stupid banter out in public.
so are all those people who ignore you every time you open your idiot mouth.
as many times as you've portrayed me as a nut, and ascribed disgusting personality to me, I feel I've earned the right to make you right for once.
is that why you killed your daddy?
did he put you in your place too?
Posted by lookitup (anonymous) on November 27, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
the freak show continues.
Posted by 1125thmp (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Drokk! It's Dredd!
Posted by potatosup (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would like to know how the police are going to determine whether or not the adult knows of the underage drinking or how an adult is going to know the will of the person underage. How will that questioning go at the alleged crime scene? Knowing the will of someone is dependent on psychic abilities. Maybe the city can hire a hypnotist or Taro card reader to help out with that. I don't know any underage drinkers that are going to tell someone "I'm going to bring beer to your house and drink it tonight".
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)