Chris on 
Having spent many evenings roaming these city streets, I am aware of the open intoxicant policy. You cannot take your glass of beer, wine, booze out in the street. You cannot walk about willy-nilly with a bottle of open booze, or something of the sort. Wausau is not new to these laws. These laws have existed for, you know, a while. We all tend to abide by them most of the time.
But now we have this interesting thing happening — downtown booze-related excitement. People were up in arms about a beer fence, and now from the 50-plus comments on the Wausau Daily Herald story, people are upset that an existing law will not be waived for a special event downtown.
As I see it, that is the crux here. The organizers of Exhibitour are asking for a waiver of this existing ordninance. According to the story in the Herald, the ordinance has been “ignored” and Deb Hadley signed a waiver in 2007. I do not understand that at all, and I went back to the committee meeting minutes from 2007. I could not find it, but to be fair, it was a lot of stuff and I might have missed it. But, according to the story, Leah Alters, former Executive Director at WAE, handed in the paperwork. And only this year, upon doing her due dilligance, did Kari discover the lack of said waiver or waiver paperwork for a few years.
By that reading, it sort of reads like everyone was in danger because the waiver was not secured by the organizing group. That seems troubling.
But more than that, what is troubling is the idea of waiving a city ordinance outside of the normal governance. This event is on June 18th. The next meeting of this committee is on the 21st of June. So, this year it would appear to be technically impossible to get a waiver, unless this committee was called into some sort of emergency session to handle the Exhibitour wine walking. I can only imagine the call of favoritism if that happens. We already have a city that thinks that far too much funding and attention goes into that small area known as downtown, and now if a small event (a few hundred people?) gets a special dispensation from the government, those calls will run wild — special treatment, inappropriate meetings, all the rest. We know that song.
I believe that if Wausau Area Events wanted or needed a waiver of this rule that WE ALL live by every other day of the year, they should be expected to follow the rules and established procedures with the city. In this case I think there is some paper work, a committee meeting appearance and presentation, and a decision from the committee and the Chief of Police. It seems cut and dry to me. If I want to have an event and need an ordinance waived for whatever reason, I trust that there is a way that sort of thing is done. I would not want to imagine just being able to call someone, and them telling me it was okay. Wausau is trying to become a real city, not a small town. We need process.
What is fascinating is a desire to make this an issue about culture. It is my understanding that you walk from location to location, and experience some art along with others from this city. I think the center of that diagram is the art or possibly the community, not the walking with an inexpensive Pinot in your hand. The rules will still allow for there to be wine at each of the locations, just not out in the street as you promenade from venue to venue. People are demonizing Councilperson Lisa Rassmussen and Chief Hardel for limiting culture. But, some might say that this is much ado about nothing. This is a waiver for an event. By not having a waiver, the activity that is not allowed is literally walking with a glass of wine in your hand from one art location to another.
Is this much ado about nothing? I think it is. I think that the art will be hung. The stores will be hosting the art. And people will get to see some great art. But, if instead the nature of this event is about wine and walking about, then I can see why people would be upset. If wine is a crucial part of the experience of Exhibitour, then clearly a waiver should be sought and the Committee should decide annually.
It seems that Councilperson Rassmussen has done the right thing. I think it is fair to ask her for her reason for denying a waiver, and I think she should be able to voice that. However, it seems like art and community are the center pieces of this event. I think we should not get distracted on walking with Pinot, and instead see this as one of the consistently cool events of the year where people get together and, in some shared experience, embrace art in many mediums.
It’s not about wine. It’s about art.
Part of the issue is about process. You will not find the Hadley decision to grant the waiver in the committee minutes, and discussion of when the current committee meets are irrelevant, as the committee doesn’t consider the waiver. Two people can grant the waiver, the chief of police and the chair of the PH&S committee. That’s it.
If I remember the article, I believe L. Rasmussen was in favor of having the city change the ordinance because this should be a decision made my a committee – not a decision that a specific individual has all of the power to grant or deny.
I believe she was in favor of that… but I will be honest – it is before 7 AM on a sunday, I spent over 10 hours mowing yesterday, and I am still in a foggy haze from alergy meds so I could be making that up.
(it will be interesting to see if I really posted this, or am just imagining posting this)
The problem with preventing people from walking with a splash of wine is the shear volume of participants. In previous years we have been squeezed in to the various venues like sardines. My own experience was that I would enter a gallery, join the throng and when half way round the exhibits, grab a snack and get poured a third of a glass of wine. Back in to the throng to see the second half of the art and out of the door where there was finally some space and a chance to discuss the art with friends while sipping at the splash of cheap plonk. Some venues would be so packed that we would move on to try the next. Forcing people to stay inside the venues while enjoying their snack and splash of plonk will only cause numerous bottlenecks, making the whole thing intolerable.
If the event was solely about art. the whole thing could be done in a barn at the fairgrounds. If it was about drinking, it could be held in a bar or large hall. The event is a social event where for a couple of hours each year we are able to enjoy a small ammount of freedom. There has never been a single problem and the same type of event is held all over the country with great success and no restrictions.
Those making the decisions should not be demonized but some points should be made. It strikes me that as a seemingly recovering alcoholic, our Police Chief might not be in the best position to make decisisions about these events. The commitee chair is blaming mistakes made by predecessors for her decision to change a winning formula, cutting off her own nose to spite her face. What possible good can come from excusing our actions due to past happenings? Are they within the law? Yes. It is the law that is wrong and it needs changing. Putting this much power in the hands of 2 such polarised individuals is also ridiculous.
As Mr Rosenberg has stated and written and said many times, these various laws have been written specifically so that there is a provision for waivers. Issueing a waiver does not show inconsistency.
Love it or loath it, alcohol is a part of our culture. It should no more be demonised than should the petty minded beaurocrats. Maybe all of this ‘excitement’ is caused by people having been elsewhere and experiencing how well these things can be handled. Perhaps Wausau’s adults have tired of being treated like children and are at long last speaking up.
“Perhaps Wausau’s adults have tired of being treated like children and are at long last speaking up.”
Exactly.
Wausau wants more events to bring people downtown while creating restrictions which create problems rather than solve them.
Will adults ignore those rules and stroll from one place to another with an adult beverage?
First off I will say…I do not think it is throngs of people.
Secondly…it appears that the organizers of the event could have gone to the Committee or the Chief of Police and sought a waiver. If John is correct, there is little or nothing stopping Kari from making a meeting with these folks and presenting an argument. Or bringing members of the throngs of people to make the case for her. Or the owners of the businesses that hang the art.
All of those things are possible it appears.
The idea that the people are being treated like children does not ring true to me at all. This is an ordinance that our city has. It was ratified through a process at the City Council level, and accepted in a vote which I assume had the majority.
No one is being denied wine. No one is being denied art. No one is being denied art, wine, or snacks. The law today, on Sunday, is that I cannot walk around downtown Wausau with an open Olde English 800. That law seems fine for today, why not for June 18th?
The issue for me is the process. Clearly a ball has been dropped, and the Chardonney drinkers need to blame someone.
What is the scope of waiver? Would it be open container legal for me, if I wanted to sit at Wausau West and drink a beer? Or does the waiver only apply to those walking between X and Y vendor downtown?
I do not think anyone is treating you like a child. Art will be hung. Wine will be drunk. And people will spend time with each other enjoying the community and the art.
I do not see how Exibitour, as an experience, is diminished at all.
Also, how do you know Chief Hardel is a recovering alcoholic? I know the man, and did not know that. Can you verify that?
My whole problem with this it, the waiver can only be signed by one of two appointed people. I understand it is the system in place, but I don’t like the idea citizens thoughts have no place in this process.
Hypothetically, If 30,000 Wausau citizens wanted to see a waiver signed for any event, and the Chief Of Police or the Chair of the PH&S committee didn’t…that’s the end of it, no discussion-no vote-that’s what I don’t like.
Or consider the opposite problem, lets say The Chair or the Chief were too liberal on events and there is an event that is put on, that creates a lot of issues-a number of citizen get hurt, and the waiver just keeps getting signed?
In either scenario, I think it is a mistake not to allow the citizens a chance to express opinion.
Is there a large outcry from people this event has harmed? Based upon is attendance it seems like a lot of this community and tourist whole-heartedly support Art Exhibitour.
I think art exhibitour will be fine, and to respond to Dino, I think this waiver could be used pretty much anywhere in town if an organizing group wanted to try an event-but I don’t think any alcohol serving event is likely to be granted a waiver on High School grounds.
So in this specific situation we have an established event that has gone along great for many years (7 or 8 which means about 14-16 tours, I think), it’s very popular, hasn’t had any issues, is supported by a good number of downtown business owners, and attended by hundreds-if not a couple thousand visitors and citizens….and despite it’s proven safety, popularity, and success-STILL no waiver.
I am left wondering, what circumstances would need to be met to be able to get one of these waivers signed by either one of the two people that can sign it?
Tyler those are all valid points. But, I would respond like this…2 years ago when Leah Alters engaged the process and ONE person (Deb Hadley) signed a waiver, there was no outcry about that.
In this case, the process was engaged by WAE and the appointed members rejected the waiver.
So, it appears to me that this is less to do with the process and less to do with the outcome. Because 2 years ago when Leah filed and recieved a waiver, under the same process, no one made a big deal about the process putting more power in the hands of a limited amount of people.
But, I suppose that might be because the event was given the waiver. And this time the waiver was not granted.
I am unsure as to why the event was not given a waiver, and I am not sure about the information presented by Kari from WAE to the committee, but the waiver was not given.
An waiver was sought, under the process, and it was rejected.
In the past the waiver was sought and it was given.
So, the process is the same. I would say that the process is not the problem, since the process was acceptable when Deb Hadley signed the waiver in the past.
It appears from all the coverage that citizens (Kari) were given an opportunity to present a case and the paperwork. So, it would seem that it is red herring.
Tyler you say that the event has proven safety…prove that.
You say that it has proven popularity…prove that.
The process exists, and if we want to change it, the process to change this also exists. You, Tyler, have a vast breadth of political science knowledge, I would think you can see that.
What happened in this case? It appears that there is a disconnect between the leaving of Leah Alters, and other people.
Whether or not the event is worthy of such a waiver is not as big of a deal as the process.
Two people can make this decision. I am willing to guess no matter who is police chief, that they would not sign such a waiver – it is very counter-police to waive some kind of rule for anything… so it then comes down to the Chair of PH&S.
This is really not the kind of decision that should be able to be made (approved or denied) by one single person.
Even with the beer fence thing, that was a committee decision. The 5 members of the committee discussed it and they as a committee made the decision. At least three had to think the waiver should be granted (in the case of the beer fence for the 400 block thing, 0 did).
If I had to venture a guess… and this is 100% PURE SPECULATION, I would be willing to bet a Cherry Coke that when this law was created, it was the INTENT that this would be decided by the PH&S Committee, and the decision would be made, per se, by its chairperson. However, the ordinance as written never mentioned the committee, so it gave so power to the chair.
whether or not the waiver will make or break the event, it has been held both ways. If we wanted to organize a pub crawl with all the downtown venues having live bands and we could take our Leinies and Buds and Millers from place to place to place… I can guarantee 100% that would be shot down… so… to allow it for art & wine sets a double standard. Us blue-coller beer drinking rockers are not worthy of the same laditude given the upper class, “in”, wine drinking, art crowd
But now.. I digress….
We’ve got a put a stop to this stuff to make the world safe for… whatever. And that’s why nobody can be outside the store’s interiors with a glass of wine this spring, unless somebody changes their mind to match up with what has happened in the past.
What happens when people can’t carry a glass of wine between storefronts? Well, we crowd more people up to wine because everyone is required to arrive at each place with an empty glass. Then, a lot of people tend to drink the glass empty before leaving — so they can fill it up at the next place. They wouldn’t have to, but it happens. And that is what setting up a negative environmental factor accomplishes. Is there a compensating benefit? Well, certainly none that I can see. And it’s not helpful when you’re talking about controlling alcohol problems. It also cuts down on the street life aspects that have been so much a part of Exhibitour’s success in the past.
Jim…I suppose that the question then remains, did the organizers (WAE) make a proper presentation to the Committee in asking for a waiver?
I am sure you are not suggesting that a waiver or any city business be handled outside of official channels and proper procedure.
“If we wanted to organize a pub crawl with all the downtown venues having live bands and we could take our Leinies and Buds and Millers from place to place to place… I can guarantee 100% that would be shot down… so… to allow it for art & wine sets a double standard. Us blue-coller beer drinking rockers are not worthy of the same laditude given the upper class, “in”, wine drinking, art crowd ”
There you go John.
I think that this is 100% not about this event, but rather about the fact that there is a process in place to seek a waiver, and it appears that the waiver was denied.
Anything else is purely speculation.
Yes, the waiver was requested. Yes, it was denied. It’s not a committee decision under this particular ordinance so the granting of the waiver is at the whim of the chair of the Public Health & Safety Committee. We have a new chair.
Some people seem to feel that restrictions are always assumed to be proper and it is the removal of restrictions that requires a case to be proven. While that has been more than adequately done over years of experience with this particular event, I think the burden should be on those who back more restrictions to make THAT case. Otherwise, you’re going to continue to see “no rollerblades, no bicycles, no wine in glasses passing through doorways” and whatever else somebody might want to ban or enforce for no equally compensatory public benefit.
Restrictions are sometimes a necessary evil, but they’ve got to be necessary and THAT is the case that should have to be made. What damage have Exhibitour attendees ever done? And yet it should be okay for an unnecessary and counterproductive rule to be placed on them this go-around and that’s just fine by you. Go ahead and roll over and say that this kind of thing doesn’t do any harm, but it does. It’s not about Wausau Area Events or downtown shop owners or the primary purpose of the event being art, really.
The bias should be for people to operate as freely as possible, unless a decent case can be made to do things otherwise. In this particular case, we’ve seen the event both ways and there are negative aspects to the restriction – more emptying equals more filling. It’s that simple. It doesn’t do any good and it has the potential to do some harm. Minors don’t come to Exhibitour to drink and a lot of the people who own the damn street are a little put off by the restrictive, Mickey Mouse attitude. The waiver provision is in the ordinance and the bias should toward granting it unless a worthwhile case for NOT granting it can be made. I haven’t heard anyone make that case yet. Have you?
Jim…you are right, it is not about any of those things. But, I think it is about process. In this case, the city council on which you sit, has an agreed upon and ratified process for this exact action.
It appears that you take issue with the fact that one the waiver was not granted, and two the process putting too much power in the hands of the two people.
Both are valid points. But, two years ago when the power was in the hands of two people, and Deb Hadley signed the waiver when requested by Leah Alters, no one had a problem with too much power being in the hands of too few people then.
So, now when the power is in the same amount of hands, and the decision is not what some people would like, then suddenly this process is a bad one.
When the waiver was signed, I did not read any WDH stories about the consolidation of power.
I would also add this, it is not the assumed position that waiving an existing ordinance is a good one. Yes, they are waived all the time. But, in most if not all cases, those people seeking to get a waiver need to present a compelling case to do so. Not a compelling reason NOT to do so.
I remember sitting through a few council meetings when the County Market or Trigs people sought a waiver for a higher sign by the highway, since it was not visible at the existing height. I remember at least three people coming forth and being part of the presentation.
This waiver was denied by the Common Council as a whole.
As an alderman what process would you like to see happen in this case? How can this be reconciled in time for the event in order to have strolling chardonnay? Is it possible to call an emergency meeting, or something else? Or would that smack of further favoritism for downtown interests?
You can argue for the process if you would like to. I take issue with the DECISION, you’re right. This is not about waiving an ordinance. The waiver provision is IN the ordinance. I don’t think it’s correct to compare it to zoning. You’re right: I disagree with the decision. That can be fixed more easily than the ordinance, but I agree that both should be. While I think it’s an unfortunate decision, I don’t see it as some kind of “emergency.”
Dino…
in the case of the waiver two years ago, why would there be public outcry if the city official acted in agreement with the person or organization requesting the waiver? The case was presented, and Mrs. Hadley apparently signed it. No one complained about her having to much power because the desired outcome was reached, If she would have refused to sign it, maybe this debate would have started then.
It seems like the ultimate goal here is to give citizens as much freedom as possible, as long as other citizens freedoms aren’t taken away. So in the case of the Exhibitour or the Brewfest, if the organizers, businesses, and attendees want a waiver-why not grant one? If you don’t like the scope of an event-don’t go to it.
People are not going to complain when they get the outcome they want. If there was outcry to be had (2 years ago)-it would have had to come from the people who didn’t want the waiver signed. I wasn’t paying much attention 2 years ago, but I don’t recall any people against this coming forward, do you? (I am not trying to be funny, I just really don’t know)
Tyler,
A position has been taken by many, including Jim, that this process places too much power in the hands of too few. Calling this decision a ‘whim’ even.
A case was made and a waiver was signed 2 years ago.
This time a case was made, and a waiver was not signed.
No opportunity has changed at all. The ability to appear, seek a waiver, make a presentation. Those are all still intact, and still remain.
What is different is the denial of waiver.
The process was acceptable before, and a claim has been made that it is not now. Even though it is the same process.
Many variables are different, but the process is the same.
In the past it was Deb Hadley…now it is Lisa Rasmussen.
In the last it was Leah Alters, now it is Kari Rasmussen.
It appears from what Jim has said, a presentation (the opportunity) was made. For reasons known only to Lisa and Chief Hardel, the waiver was denied. But, they are elected and professional officials empowered with these decisions by job title or Mayoral appointment. Are we saying that we do not like the process, and if so what are you saying should be done instead?
Wausau Area Events made the presentation. They were given a chance, at a public meeting to make a case for a waiver.
I agree that 2 years ago no one cared about the process, because they got the outcome they wanted.
What I am pointing out is in this case, the process is exactly the same. So, to decry the process as has happened here, rings false to me.
I think it is directly applicable to zoning. A guideline exists, no signs over X feet.
A guideline exists, no open intoxicants.
The County Market people petition the city for a waiver for their larger sign on whatever basis.
WAE petitions the city for a temporary waiver in regards to the open intoxicant rule for Exhibitour.
In the case of the sign, the city said no (I think).
In the case of the waiver, the city said no.
These are parallel streams.
I also question how this decision can be fixed easier than the ordinance. Counciperson Rasmussen has decided. So, there it is.
There is not another meeting until after Exhibitour.
I may be wrong, but I think it would require an open meeting to bring something like this back in front of the Chairperson. At least I hope it would, otherwise the possiblity seems to ring out that this would be rife with tomfoolery.
I state what I think to be the obvious again. This process has not changed one bit since Deb Hadley signed a waiver.
The outcome has changed.
If we accepted the process before because we got the outcome that we wanted, but seek to challenge the process now because we received an outcome that we did not like…than the issue is NOT with the process, but rather the outcome.
I believe that everyone in the comments here have made comments about this being a case of too much power in the hands of too few. Which is in direct opposition to the acceptance of the amount of power in the hands of too few before.
It’s not a process and it’s not a meeting. It’s a ministerial action. It could be changed right now, with no meeting and no case. It is not on par with zoning and not a parallel stream. The problem is that there really isn’t much of a process because there is no way to appeal. Yes, it is an issue with the outcome. You bet it is. I agree with Tyler’s take on it.
Two years ago most people were unaware of how much power rested in the hands of so few. Now, having made some relatively unpopular decisions, those in power have brought themselves to the forefront.
When the decision was first made to grant a waiver for this event, a precedent was set. The event has been repeated trouble free many times. The burdon of explanation should be on the decision makers who have changed this particular game. If they could back their decision with some well explained reason, perhaps there would not be this outcry.
So a decision could be made anytime, without any sort of public oversight? Which goes against what Tyler said. He called for more public involvement in the process. Now we learn that a councilperson can decide or be influenced to change her decision without any public awareness. Great, its gets worse.
I am pretty sure that makes this even crappier.
Sorry for the confusion Dino…
I was trying to point out the process is only to get one of two people to sign this.
That’s what I was trying to get across in my first post when I wrote:
“Hypothetically, If 30,000 Wausau citizens wanted to see a waiver signed for any event, and the Chief Of Police or the Chair of the PH&S committee didn’t…that’s the end of it, no discussion-no vote-that’s what I don’t like.”
The current process as I understand it, does not allow for public discussion. That’s why 2 years ago when Mrs. Hadely signed it, there was no problem. Because the desired outcome was reached.
This is why John, Jim, Boogenstein and I are saying if a waiver is not to be signed then there better be a compelling reason.
That’s what makes this particular case of the Art Exhibitour so interesting.
As I wrote in an earlier post:
“So in this specific situation we have an established event that has gone along great for many years (7 or 8 which means about 14-16 tours, I think), it’s very popular, hasn’t had any issues, is supported by a good number of downtown business owners, and attended by hundreds-if not a couple thousand visitors and citizens….and despite it’s proven safety, popularity, and success-STILL no waiver.
I am left wondering, what circumstances would need to be met to be able to get one of these waivers signed by either one of the two people that can sign it?”
I never claimed (or meant to imply) there is a currently public involvement in this process. But I do think to fix it, if the waiver isn’t signed, that would be the time to have public involvement-especially in the Exhibitour example where we have an event that has gone of for years, and now for no reason the waiver will not be signed.
That’s the problem with this…(as i early mentioned) it comes down to one of two appointed people. Doesn’t matter what the people want, because there is no debate, and no vote.
See Tyler, with all respect…the outcome and the desire for it is exactly the issue.
It appears to me that a group of people wanted a certain outcome, and when they did not get it, then they are upset.
Yet, the process was exactly the same when they got the outcome they wanted, and that process was okay.
So this rings selfish to me.
This also goes the other way…if the waiver can be signed for something NO ONE wants. A nazi chardoney stroll or something (I love invoking Nazis).
But, I think it is a mistake to focus on the outcome instead of the process. The process in this area seems flawed, and the council should spend the rest of the summer rectifying it.
Because if not, it reads to me like pouting. Like someone said no, and now suddenly we need to do all the mudslinging.
6 months ago this process existed, WAE knew or did not know about it, and that is that.
Leah Alters dropped the ball for two years it would appear, and at the last minute Kari tried to save it. And Councilperson Rassmussen made a decision.
It is exactly Lisas role to make that very decision. She did what she is supposed to do, decide.
Nothing out of the ordinary happened here. Nothing.
Save for some people NOT GETTING WHAT THEY WANT.
The event will go on. Art will be hung. People will walk around looking at it passively, and wine will be drunk.
Just not on the walk.
Like today I cannot walk from Inner Sleeve to Janke Books with a beer in my hand.
Nothing is different. If anything the people that want to change the outcome are doing what I said.
No one was denied opportunity. No one.
OF COURSE THE OUTCOME IS IMPORTANT! If a Justice of the Peace in Louisianna performs thousands of weddings and then decides he will not perform one for a mixed race couple, that’s important. You’ve got to have a justifiable REASON for what you do. Having the authority to make a decision doesn’t mean that making ANY decision gives ANY outcome some kind of legitimacy (legal or not.)
I agree with Jim here.
There should be some kind of reason given for a NO. The core value of all our elected officials is to:
“provide services in the most effective and efficient manner in order to promote and enhance our living environment. Plan and encourage positive growth. Promote a positive community image by encouraging citizen involvement and civic pride.”
Personally, I think the signature on this type of waiver should be nearly automatic, unless there is good reason not to sign it. If any group of citizens wish to try to enhance our community with an event-and no one is against it, and it isn’t illegal (if the waiver is signed)-what possible basis is a “no” decision being reasoned upon?
With Exhibitour as an example-we have an event that has caused no harm, no one speaking against it, and tons of people supporting it. PLUS it’s been going on for YEARS!
Why a “no” given now? What reasoning? Are there issues with all the previous ones no one is talking about?
I am sorry Tyler, I disagree completely. Waivers should not be automatic, or even seen as automatic. Waivers should be sought through a defined, objective, and public process.
The process is that WAE had to go to the City, seek a waiver, and present a case for one.
Like everyone else who would like a waiver for the things that they work on.
The point is not the outcome, the point is the process. The process is flawed in your opinion. And the process should be changed.
This outcome is part of the process, and any speculation on the part of anyone is simply speculation.
Speculation is worthless.
What happened is this…Kari sought out a waiver. The waiver was denied by the people who have been placed in position to do that very thing.
Now, SUDDENLY, the process.
Governance is grown up business. There is a way to change the process. The focus and demonization on the people involved does not serve anything. In fact I think it gums up the works, and makes people look petty.
An elected official was tasked with this committee, and as chair this set of responsibilities. She acted accordingly, and there is no evidence to state otherwise.
And what is more, everyone has the opportunity to change the process.
If I understand this correctly, there was no waiver issued in 2008 and 2009? And Hardel and Rasmussen were aware of the event? And Rasmussen, having signed the waiver before, could have been reasonably assumed to have known the event was in violation of the ordinance? And it never occurred the police in that district during both years that hundreds of people milling about on the street with alcohol MIGHT have been a violation of said ordinance?
Rasmussen had her chance to voice her opposition to the holding of the event sans waiver for two years and she failed to do so. Now she’s trying to play CYA in the most inept of ways.
Second, this should be a licence, not a waiver. As noted elsewhere, the onus for denial should be on the issuing authority. And given there were no reported violations in the years they did not get a waiver, I’d think that’d be like a dismissed charge on CCAP – you don’t consider it.
That is not correct. Deb Hadley was the chair of this committee. Not Rasmussen.
Another good question would be, did Wausau Area Events seek a permit for the past two years? Why or why not?
I assume that this is public information, and I will seek it out tomorrow.
I like the license idea and I think it’s worth exploring because it changes the context of the question. As for the rest, well, I believe in our justice system but I still think O.J. Simpson was guilty and it was a bad decision by the criminal court. C’est la vie.
First – I have a problem with the premise that a waiver should be granted when asked for unless there is a clear reason not to. If that were the case, why would a law even exist when a waiver is a foregone conclusion. For me personally, there has to be a compelling reason for the waiver, the law creates an unreasonable hardship. And, the event has been done both ways, so no hardship that I can see.
Second – As I stated before, for this police chief to say no to a waiver such as this one is completely expected. Most leaders in law enforcement whom I know are not big fans of waiving laws, especially laws that have to do with alcohol.
Third – For a couple of years, participants in this event broke the law, because no waiver was actually given. I just assume that everyone thought one was there, probably even the PD.
Fourth – Although there have been “no issues” in the past, maybe Chairperson Rasmussen doesn’t want to take the risk of something happening this time – and if it does, that decision to allow it to proceed was hers. I have no idea if that is the case – but I know if it was me, it would be a factor in my decision making.
Fifth – Does the reason for the waiver being denied need to be justified? I don’t know – does the ordiance say that a reason is needed? For example, if I want to send a 5 day or 14 day notice to a tenant, I need cause. If I want to terminate a month to month agreement, I need no cause – no reason. If the law doesn’t require a reason, then one isn’t needed – don’t like that, change the law.
Finally – do you really need the wine aspect of this thing to be a success? If you had the various artwork featured in various downtown businesses – but no wine aspect at all – would this event not be able to function?
Personally, I have lived many years in Europe so many of our rules and regulations on alcohol dont make sense to me… but it is a culture thing. Should I be able to walk down the sidewalk of 3rd Street with my Lienies instead of my Cherry Coke – yes. But… I can’t.
If the venue can continue without a waiver, then that in and of itself is, in my mind, sufficient reason to say no.
I am not saying every possible event just be able to obtain a waiver…I think if private citizens get together and have a reasonable plans for an event, (the event it’s self still needs to pass through all the applicable committees-this waiver is a separate issue) that is supported by all people involved, why not grant it-especially if no one is against it?
I don’t see this problem revolving around wine at all. I see it revolving a process in which outcomes can be reached based on the whim of two people. I’m not sure if they HAVE to give reason or not….but that’s a whole other problem. (This isn’t meant to be an attack on either Mrs. Rasmussan or Chief Hardel-They didn’t choose to get this ordinance in the books)
If the response to a request for this waiver is “NO” then I feel like one of my original questions still stands: What circumstances need to be met to get one of these waivers signed? If no one can provide an answer for this-why do the waivers exist in the first place?
Dino-I don’t know why the waiver was overlooked for the last 2 years-I hope you do find out more about this, it is an interesting little policy our city has here…
John H. Fischer: ” If the venue can continue without a waiver, then that in and of itself is, in my mind, sufficient reason to say no.”
And that’s where we differ. If you want to live in as free of a society as possible, then you would be far better off putting the onus on justifying restrictions, rather than justifying liberties. It might sound like a heady concept to apply to a relatively petty thing, but it’s a perspective that has a lot more going for it than the converse, in my view.
Tyler…what I am saying is that very process you outlined happened. And someone was against it.
So the very thing you outlined occured. And again the OUTCOME is the issue.
Kari presented something to get a waiver for Exhibitour.
There was an objection, Lisas, and the waiver was not granted.
It worked perfectly.
And furthermore…the citys end of this worked PERFECTLY. A committee exists to hear these waiver applications. And did, and chose to deny it.
The part that clearly has not worked perfectly in this is WAE. For two years it appears that Leah did not resubmit paperwork for the waiver. And now this happened.
Jim…does that onus apply across the board then? In the case of the highway grocery sign (a waiver) there was no reason given in open session. Just a series of no or yes votes. The people made there case, and the votes happened.
Where is the onus then? Where did councilmembers step forward and give their reasoning?
We can point to lots of decisions that the council just simply decides and moves on. Never discussing the vote itself. Not accountable.
But, suddenly again, in this case where the outcome is not desired, we want to shift the onus from petitioner to the city. I find that unfair.
If not allowing people to leave an event with alcohol promotes overconsuming, then I assume that some of you are also in favor of “to go” cups at bars? Afterall, we don’t want people to slam their drinks before leaving, we’d rather have them savor and enjoy that last drink on the way home. Right?
If you say no to that, what’s the difference? What’s the difference between Joe’s Bar letting people leave with an open beer after watching Wrestlemania 300 and people being allowed to leave with wine after looking at a painting? Why the restriction for one but the demand it be allowed for someone else?
Dino-
I was at the Trigs sign waiver things too, I thought the whole issue was the lot the store it on isn’t level (That’s why they don’t let you take carts in the parking lot there).
I don’t remember to outcome of that, but I remember they were trying to figure out were the measurement for the sign should take place on the lot, because of the slant of the property.
Thedbc-you are sort of on a different tangent here. The reason why this Exibitour case is so interesting is because the waiver is actually part of the ordinance-and apparently we can’t figure out how to get one signed.
I don’t know (and I really doubt) if a waiver allowing open intoxicants togo is an option. I see your point about the last call jug it down mentality…I guess the idea is the bartender lets you know when you are approaching the end of the night, so you don’t get a full drink 3 minutes before bar time-I know that doesn’t always happen, but I think it’s the goal…
In the example of “last call” cited by thedbc, I think a that good case can probably be made for the restriction vs. not having the restriction in the areas of both underage drinking and public safety. I don’t see it as comparable to the Exhibitour event in those respects. The venues, context, attendance, number of incidences, etc… None are comparable.
See DBC is getting at something. What is the reason for this event seeking this waiver? This event seeks to allow people to leave establishments and walk about with open containers of alcohol. That is what this event seeks in the case of this waiver.
That is literally no different than Joes Bar seeking a post wrestlemania waiver.
The law is the open container law. And Exhibitour seeks to waiver that law or ordinance.
Make a case for the need for glasses of alcohol on the streets during that time for me. And how is that time different than say…tonight.
What safety features will the organizers create to ensure that open containers do not end up in say, the Newman Parking lot? Is the waiver location specific? What steps would take place to ensure that this location is controlled?
Or do we seek a change in open container laws(ordinance) for the evening? Everywhere?
Also Tyler, the sign thing is a perfect example. There is a rule about the height of signs. The grocery store sought a waiver of that rule. Came and presented a case at three meetings if I recall correctly. And the waiver was denied.
WAE has sought a waiver, presented a case, and the waiver was denied.
The difference is the process. Which is a large difference, but the opportunity is the same. Both groups were given chances to present, be heard, answer questions.
If the problem is the process, then we remain at loggerheads…because the process was acceptable for Leah and Deb Hadleys deal.
If the problem is the outcome, then I think I have an opinion on that as well.
But, as long as WAE was given a chance, given the current process, to make a presentation and seek a waiver, then no one has had anything bad or incorrect happen to them.
The opportunity was there. No one was denied fair access to the process as it existed before, and was acceptable.
I don’t recall how I vote in the Trig’s sign case, but I frequently vote in favor of variances. I also spent the better part of a term liberalizing the sign rules in downtown Wausau to provide for overhanging signs and sandwich boards, which were banned since the late the 1970s. The reason is simple: The public good being accomplished by overly-strict sign ordinances may often not outweigh the downside to the businesses involved. There has to be some proportionality to these things.
I think the safety control thing that Dino mentions is a valid point that I ponder myself – when it is that I actually have some time to ponder.
If they got the waiver, and if I buy a bottle of wine and sit out on a park bench on 3rd Street drinking it in the general area of the function – but I, myself, have zero interest in the art… am I covered.
I know, this is a far fetched example… but still it gets to the point. One of the reasons (I assume) for the current law is to keep alcohol away from minors. Although I have simliar issues to that concept as Jim does (for the same reason – time spent in Europe), the fact remains it is what it is. And, by having wine as the alcohol of choice, that in and of itself discourages underage drinking.
I say this – I really don’t care if they have wine or don’t have wine – I really don’t care if the wine can leave the building or not. I do think that the decision to grant a waiver should be a committee decision, and not the decision of a single indiviual (or two).
I can come up with some pretty good reasons why the waiver should be allowed, and probably just as many good reasons to deny it.
So for me, the “issue” is the process and the solution is change it.
Along with an issue comes a question that I don’t get – does one really need wine to get people to come in an appreciate the exhibits?
Dino in your and thedbc example they aren’t really the same kind of event.
Speaking purely conceptually about open intoxicants outside a bar or home, it doesn’t make sense I can drink on a boat, in my yard, in a plane, in a park, in a bus or limo-but not a car or truck.
On the grass or paths of the 400 block but not an inch on the sidewalk surrounding it-We can drink next to minors at the Ballpark, Grand Theater, Every Park, Every restaurant, Church, and other places…but not at the fair or in a bar.
There are inconsistencies all over the place, but the issues here, is how can obtain use of the current waiver in the current ordinance?
If there were a group of places that wanted to give a way alcohol so people go watch wrestlemania and wonder in and out of businesses I’m for that too…
I don’t see why if all the downtown merchants were on board we couldn’t have a brewfest with 3 stages at different parking lots couldn’t happen, and we could have a mini summerfest.
A waiver’s purpose is to suspend the ordinance for a pre-determined area and time….the reason you can’t go outside today and walk down the street with a beer, is no one signed the waiver.
Again speaking just conceptually I completely agree all these laws are arbitrary, that’s what make this whole thing (and a lot of laws in our country) so absurd.
Why can I drink at 1:59 but not 2am, unless is it Friday, Saturday, or New Year’s Eve?
We all have different rules in each community…in our community we currently have an ordinance contains a waiver IN SAME THE ORDINANCE (a waiver which has the purpose to suspend the ordinance when signed). We just can’t figure out what it takes to get it signed!
Dino-I get your point of view, I think we are both out for more personal freedoms.
But in this case even if we focus on just process and not outcome, we still can’t figure out how to use the process to get the waiver.
John…
Actually, last year they had volunteers at every place involved making sure only wine was on the street in the glasses that we used for the event.
It obviously in fool-proof, but they are trying to make sure actual participants in the event are the ones with glasses on the street…
“But in this case even if we focus on just process and not outcome, we still can’t figure out how to use the process to get the waiver.”
Which is why the process needs to be changed, to make this a committee decision.
By resting the decision in the hands of two individuals (one of which, by the nature of the job, is almost certain to say no every time) – the process is doomed to fail.
You are faced with 1 of three options
1) a person who is for the event and will say yes because of it.
2) a person who is against the event and will say no because of it
3) a person who will weigh the pluses and minuses and say yes or no based on how comfortable they feel with the entire situation.
By limiting this decision to one person (and not a full committee), you have zero chance of success in situation 2), and limited chances of success in situation 3.
- a per
exactly…what might also be helpful is a list of criteria that would need to be met to obtain a waiver.
This way citizens looking to put on an event would have something to guide them.
Right now Tyler, a criteria exists, and was followed.
You petition a committee, chaired by a person, and said person heres your petition and decides.
That is how it is done today. Do you want to change that?
Again, if you do I will simply point out that two years ago that was an acceptable process.
A waiver is a waiver is a waiver. In the case of the Trigs sign, they wanted the council to waiver the height restriction.
In the case of the Exhibitour, they want to waiver the wine strolling rules.
Waivers.
And finally, John you should not get used to that sort of point of intelligence from me. This will all wear off soon enough.
Dino you are not describing a criteria…you are describing a process. I am saying maybe if we formed a list of criteria an event would need to meet (insurance, supervision, and so on) in order to get a waiver, there would be a way to get it.
Currently, apparently, it’s a mystery what an event needs to have to obtain a waiver.
We all understand the process, and agree it’s flawed. What I keep asking is in the current process what requirements need to be met to get a waiver? (In this specific example of Art Exhibitour, What would the Chief or Chair need to be changed to get one?-if there isn’t an answer to this, then there is no way to get the waiver, which is included in the ordinance.)
Of course you are. Of course I am
Right now at this moment, both WAE and the elected officials, followed the process as agreed upon.
And still the outcome is not acceptable. And suddenly, the process is wrong.
But, yet I point out again…that 2 years ago the process was totally acceptable, because the outcome was different, and allowed for a chardoney stroll.
Given the existing legal and accepted process WAE was given an opportunity to do their proposal. It was heard. And it was denied.
The opportunity exists now, as it did 2 years ago. So, nothing has changed.
The process was wrong then… the process was wrong now.
The process was wrong when it was created (and I stand by my cherry coke wager that how it was drafted was NOT the intent)
If a decision had to be made based on certain criteria, like Tyler points out, then you knew what you had to do. You knew the hoops you had to jump through.
The sign thing had hoops to jump through, criteria had to be met before the waiver could even be brought forward to the City. Then additional criteria had to be met to actually get the waiver. With zoning, normally a key criteria is a subjective one – hardship. Not getting the waiver results in hardship – and that is a judgement call.
If one person made the decision, but critera had to be met – that would make more sense.
But the way it is now, if someone is just against drinking in the streets (as I bet 90% of police chiefs are) – the answer will be no. It is making a rule (the waiver), then making it impossible to do.
(Such rules do exist – a state law was passed in 1999 saying I could charge tenants actual cost, up to $15, to run their credit report. However, the same rule says if I charge them, they get a copy of the report. However, a different law says that I cannot give them a copy of their report, only a credit bureau can do that. So, a law that allows me to do X if I do A, B, and C. ONly problem is, B is not allowed because of a different law.
Here.. the law allows a waiver to granted, but no obligation for the city to grant one, no matter the circumstances. 2 people say no – its done.
Dino, in many of your posts, I see the word committee – that is the problem, there is no committee. It is calling the chief, he says no – don’t bother even applying for one. It is calling the Chair of PH&S, they no – dont even bother applying for one. Done.
That, my friend, is not due process and therefore reaks of unfair.
I agree John. But, it reaked of unfair when Deb Hadley signed a waiver.
And no one objected then.
That is my point. When people got their way, no one minded the problem. Now we seek to demonize a process which the event used in the past.
That does not work for me.
That my friend is human nature….
When things go the way we want, we are happy….
When the situation is the same, but there is a different outcome, the system is bad and needs to be changed.
I have never been a fan of the electorial college, and when Bush won the electorial vote without winning the popular vote, Dems were screaming the system isn’t fair and the Reps didn’t have a problem with it. I will wager a lifetime supply of cherry coke that if the same thing happens and the Dems win the electorial college but not the popular vote, the system the R’s thought was okay then is corrupt now.
Whenever someone feels that they have been victimized by a system or a procedure, they will be up in arms about it, even if they benefited from that same system or procedure not that long ago.
So what you say, Dino, is very true. However, it is not an uncommon phenomenon…. not uncommon at all
It’s not very compelling to try to make an intellectual argument about process. When you’re getting what you want anyway, there’s no reason to worry about a non-squeaking wheel. The time is ripe for change when there is an issue in play. There was no constituency working AGAINST granting a waiver for Exhibitour.
But is the wheel squeeky? It worked before, when WAE got what they wanted. But, suddenly, when they do not get what they want, then it is squeeky?
Actually it is FAR MORE compelling to discuss process PRIOR to one group not getting what it wants. Because then it does not reek of self interest.
The public outcry against Councilwoman Rasmussen and the passing of the buck to Leah Alters seems ill advised.
If suddenly the process is bad, then it should have been bad when Deb Hadley signed the waiver.
#1 factor in getting laws passed, changed, revoked.. etc.
Motivated Self Interest.
Would I be fighting for a shut off policy for wausau’s water utility if I didn’t have something to gain?
When you see a problem, you try to fix it. Often, you don’t know you have a problem with something until you have a problem with something.
Motivated Self Interest – #1 reason for almost everything
On THAT, Mr. Fischer and I agree. I didn’t pass the buck to Leah Alters. Dino, you’re wrong about it being far more compelling to discuss before there is a problem. Most people — including me — have better things to do that to chase down hypothetical possibilities. This is all about outcomes. You can defend this restriction as long as you want to and talk about process. I think it’s something that does no good and is not what I would call a best practice. If the process needs to be changed to fix that in the future, then I’m all for changing the process. If a good outcome could reliably be secured with the current process, then I wouldn’t really care to get into a process discussion.