At their regular meeting on Monday evening, the Mercer Island City Council discussed the viability of the imposition of a $250 fine to a person who allows underage drinking on their property.

After a discussion considering the intent and efficacy of a fine, the council voted to direct staff to come back with a draft ordinance later in the year.

In January, the City Council had directed staff to examine the option of creating a civil infraction as an additional method of deterring underage drinking on the Island.

The idea for the civil penalty comes from the need to add another tool in the fight to stop underage drinking.

Background data prepared by city staff states, “Underage drinking is an item of great concern that brings the city’s police department, city attorney’s  office, Youth and Family Services Department, and the Communities That Care (CTC) Coalition together to protect the city’s youth and the general public from the dangers of underage alcohol abuse.”

In recent years, preventing and punishing adults for providing places for underage drinking has become a new way to discourage this behavior.

The state of Washington has some of the most stringent criminal laws with respect to providing alcohol to minors and/or knowingly providing a premises for minors to consume alcohol.

In Washington, it is a gross misdemeanor, punishable up to 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine, to permit a person who is under the age of 21 to possess or consume alcohol within one’s premises.

The staff analysis goes on to state: “Even though the criminal sanctions are powerful tools at punishing and deterring underage drinking, large gatherings at which underage individuals consume alcohol still occur within the city. One reason is that imposition of criminal penalties requires law enforcement and the  prosecutor to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the violator knowingly permitted the use or possession of alcohol on his or her premises. The person in control of a premises can avoid criminal liability  by demonstrating a reasonable doubt that he or she was unaware of the possession or consumption of  alcohol by minors on his/her premises.”

Without criminal penalties for hosting underage drinking, counties and cities in California where there are no such laws developed civil  penalties for such offenses. City staff examined several ordinances from California and concluded that the creation of a civil infraction covering underage  drinking “could fill a gap in the city’s current enforcement tools.”

The Council also held a special executive session prior to the Monday meeting as requested by Councilmembers Mike Grady and Mike Cero to discuss matters related to conclusion of the Lindell v. City of Mercer Island case.

The two councilmembers wrote to the mayor and deputy mayor, saying in part: “That the lawsuit did not ‘clear the names of Rich Conrad (and others.)’” The memo went on to list several other items that they wish to have discussed regarding procedures or actions that were not proper or that related or contributed to a hostile environment.

The memo included the statement, “The executive session is to ‘discuss the performance of employees pursuant to RCW 42.30.110 (1)(g).’” The memo went on to request that certain staff and department heads be excluded from the session.

A letter sent late Monday to Councilmembers Grady and Cero from attorneys representing city employees named in the memo, Kryss Segle and Johnny Segle, took issue with statements about them. The letter, from attorney Brett N. Wiese to the two councilmembers, said in part:

“This letter is to inform you that the statements written about my clients in your memo contain grossly inaccurate, false and misleading information.” It continues, “Your actions may be in violation of applicable law.” The letter goes on to “correct and clarify” several statements made in the Grady-Cero memo about the couple, who are married and both work for the city. In her case against the city, Ms. Lindell referred to incidents that involved the couple. Neither were named as defendants in the lawsuit against the city.

Adding to the mix was an email written to Islanders by Councilman Dan Grausz who apologized for the lawsuit and its outcome. The letter, dated Sept. 13, says in part:

“Today, the final shoe fell in the litigation surrounding the employment termination of a former city employee, Londi Lindell. There is no way to sugarcoat this situation and I will not insult your intelligence by trying to do so. In my almost 12 years on the City Council, this is clearly the low point.

“…The city and councilmembers have withheld public comment on advice of legal counsel. As acting contrary to the advice of counsel could have jeopardized the city’s insurance coverage, this silence was unavoidable. It was particularly frustrating because we wanted to discuss this with Islanders.”