11/24/1981 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

110 November 24, 1981 Surman and his Attorney. Mr. Surman also indicates in his letter that he is acquiring 100% interest in Rocky's through an exchange of contract holdings in a resturant for full ownership of Rocky's North. I think if the Council has read the reports that they have received from the Police Department and have talked to some of the officers and if they recall some of the hearings that have been held in the past on Rocky's, this amounts to another paper chase, another shuffling of corporations to conceal the idenity of the owners of the operations. In the original report that was received, Mr. Surman and Mr. Seccombe and some other partners were involved in a corporation called 'the Sixteen Corporation', I'm not sure which corporation was involved with Rocky's in St. Paul, they shuffled some corporate paper, bought MITRA, Inc., shuffled some more corporate paper and put Mr. Seccombe in charge of that corporation - now we've shuffled some more corporate paper and put Mr. Surman in charge of the corporation. It seems to me that we're using the guise of corporate identity and shuffling of corporate identities to conceal the owners of the operation. We've known all along that Mr. Surman was involved in the previous operation and that he's been involved in at least two other operations with these people and their track record is not good. That's the purpose of the investigation that we performed under the law. Also, the Council had before it a report and a recommendation from our Chief of Police - that recommdedation was in the negative that the City should not issue the license. Now I assume that the Chief of Police was placed in that position with some measure of confidence and it's my opinion that the Council, in this instance, has placed too little confidence in Mr. Myhre's investagative efforts and his capabilities to make recommendations of this sort. It would be my opinion that the Council should accept the Chief Law Enforcement Officer's recommendation with a lot more credability than it was given when they took the action that they did at the last meeting. I realize that we cannot hold Mr. Surman responsible for the record of Rocky's North but I think there's a history that goes along with the pre- mises and if the Council members that are sitting here tonight will take a minute and reflect back on the history, we've seen that operation go from bad to worse over the past decade. In my opinion it's gonna take a lot more in the way of management that just dusting off the tables and turning on the lights to turn that operation around and make it an operation that operates in the best interest of the public. Which leads to my next point, which is the law merely requires that the Council members be convinced that the presence of the liquor establishment is not in the best interest of the public - that is all that is necessary to vote, No, on the issuance of the license. It's my belief that the issuance of this license to Mr. Surman and to the MITRA Corporation or any other corporation that Mr. Surman is connected with, is not in the best interest of the public, based on his track record that he has with previous bar operations. So when it comes right down to it, the only reason I would have to vote in favor of the issuance of this liquor license, would be the threat of a law suit. Now I guess, com- paratively, I haven't had too many large corporations come out and threaten- ing me with a law suit if I didn't do something for themi, in the City. I haven't seen too many people who are doing business within the City come to me and threaten me with legal action if I didn't give them an affir- mative vote on something. It would just seem to me that it's not a re- asonable way to do business. When you stop and consider everything I've talked about tonight and this Council knows has been going on down at