Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/11/16 CCM - SM1 ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING PROCEEDINGS NOVEMBER 16, 2010 CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a special meeting of the Rosemount City Council was held on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 8:25 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 2875 145`" Street West, Rosemount. Mayor Droste called the meeting to order with Council Members DeBettignies, Shoe Corrigan, Weisensel and Bills attending. Staff present included City Administrator Johnson, Chief of Police Kalstabakken, City Clerk Domeier and City Attorney Tietjen. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING 2.a. Appeal of Solicitor License Chief of Police Kalstabakken provided background on the investigation of the solicitor license. He provided a thorough background on the investigation conducted in association with the appellant. Mr. Kalstabakken added that currently four solicitors from Frontline Marketing are licensed to conduct business in Rosemount. He stated that the appellant, Daniel C. Smith, was denied a license under City Code 3 -5 -6 (B) due to his criminal history. Mr. Kalstabakken acknowledged the appellant's basis for the appeal. He pointed out that the solicitor's license issued to Mr. Smith in 2009 was in error. He added that Mr. Smith's work history in 2009 showed no complaints in Rosemount. However, Mr. Kalstabakken did not agree with Mr. Smith's claim that Frontline Marketing should not be required to have a solicitor's license. He stated that Frontline Marketing is not selling a regular service in Rosemount nor does Frontline Marketing provide the service. City Attorney Tietjen provided an explanation of the Criminal Offender's Rehabilitation Act under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 364. Under the Act, no person shall be disqualified from pursuing any occupation for which a license is required solely, or in part, because of a prior conviction of crimes unless the crimes directly related to the position of employment sought. She stated that if the City Council determines that the convictions of Mr. Smith are related that a denial may be issued. However, after consideration the City Council decides that they want to approve the license they should direct staff to move forward with the issuance of the license. Daniel C. Smith addressed the council. He requested that the license be approved as listed in his appeal letter. He agreed that he made mistakes in his past but had no recent convictions under law. Mr. Smith provided background on both cases that were part of his criminal history. After providing information on his treatment, listing other cities where he has received a license, and being able to perform his duties he felt justified in receiving a license. Aaron Goings, a representative of Frontline Marketing, provided background on the hiring of Mr. Smith. Frontline Marketing was aware of the criminal background. Mr. Goings stated he has spoke with one of the victim's parents and the parent did not feel that Mr. Smith should be denied employment for the previous case. Mr. Goings also spoke with a prosecutor for one of the cases and noted that some of the charges were dropped. He added that since August 4, 2009 when Mr. Smith began employment no complaints against him have been received. Mr. Goings provided further information on the background check conducted by Frontline Marketing. Mr. Kalstabakken pointed out that while the first incident as described by Mr. Smith added up that Mr. Smith downplayed the charges brought against him in on the incidents. He read the police report out loud that stated Mr. Smith was more emotional in his comments to a victim then what he stated to the City Council. Mr. Smith explained why he took a deal o the case. Council Member Weisensel questioned what other cities denied Mr. Smith a license. Mr. Smith said he was never denied a license. He added that he served his probation without violation and attended anger management classes. Mr. Kalstabakken stated that Mr. Smith told staff he was denied a solicitor's license in Apple Valley. Mayor Droste questioned the relationship of the crime to the license sought. Ms. Tietjen responded that the City Council should determine if the crimes committed relate to the activities involved in the licensed position. Council Member Shoe Corrigan felt Mr. Smith was not a threat and that the incidents involved people he knows very well. Council Member Weisensel stated that two wrongs did not make a right and therefore he would not support the appeal. Council Member DeBettignies believed that Mr. Smith provided evidence of his crime rehabilitation and could support the issuance. Council Member Bills concurred with Mr. DeBettignies. Further discussion was held on the revocation process for a solicitor's license. Mr. Goings understood that the any mistake by a representative would cost Frontline Marketing a permit. Motion by DeBettignies. Second by Bills. Ayes: DeBettignies, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Bills Nays: Weisensel. Motion carried. ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING PROCEEDINGS NOVEMBER 16, 2010 Motion to reverse denial of license to Mr. Daniel Smith and direct staff to issue the license to Mr. Smith. Council Member Bills stated to Mr. Goings that Frontline Marketing was putting their guy and company reputation on the table at this point. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Council and upon a motion by Droste, second by bills, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Domeier, City Clerk