|  |
 |
|
Pagosa Pub Wars, Part One |
Bill Hudson | 3/19/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When local realtor and business owner Frank Schiro appeared before the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners two weeks ago, for what most people probably assumed would be a routine liquor license transfer, he found himself facing a somewhat unexpected problem.
As it turned out, Commissioner Ronnie Zaday had taken issue with the fact that Schiro’s wife, rival Commissioner Robin Schiro, had participated in the liquor license filing process at the County Clerk’s office — in a way that raised Zaday’s ethical hackles. With Robin Schiro absent from that meeting — she was representing the BoCC at a conference elsewhere — Zaday chose to abstain from the routine vote, thereby causing the item to be tabled for two weeks until yesterday’s March 18 meeting. Continued...
Pagosa Pub Works owner Frank Schiro handed out green beer cups and green plastic necklaces during Monday's annual St. Patrick's day parade on Main Street. A routine liqour license application approval on Tuesday's BoCC meeting revealed a simmering rivalry with neighboring brewery owner Tony Simmons, complete with letters from lawyers over trade name infringments. Photo by Bill Hudson. |
The war over this routine transfer only heated up further at yesterday’s meeting, with rival pub owner and Pagosa Springs Town Council member Tony Simmons throwing his hat into the ring.
The liquor license transfer in question relates to the bar and restaurant on North Pagosa Boulevard, variously known in recent years by a string of different names, including The Rendezvous, The Coyote Cantina, The Office, and its original name, Bob’s Cabin. Every successive owner has struggled to build a thriving business at the location, but thus far no one seems to have found the magic formula — hence the string of new names.
Frank Schiro — who told the Post in an interview yesterday that he and Robin have been talking about opening a brew pub for many years, dating back to their time living in Leadville, Colorado — purchased the restaurant recently, and settled on yet another name for the establishment: Pagosa Pub Works. Schiro’s long term plan, he says, is to brew local beer and serve it at the Pub Works; for the time being, however, he has twelve taps and plans to serve various craft-brewed beers.
According to Robin Schiro, the whole decision to take over the restaurant happened suddenly.
“It all happened so quickly, just to help [current leaseholders] Tony and Jeanie out — and to get [building owners] Jack and Patty out of their portion, that we don’t really know what Frank’s going to do with the business yet.”
The liquor license dispute that began two weeks ago apparently had its origins in some financial troubles on the part of the previous leaseholder. The restaurant had been closed since last September, and the leaseholder had allowed his business incorporation to lapse at the state level — which caused some confusion at the County Clerk’s office when Frank Schiro came in last month to apply for the liquor license transfer — a process that first required the renewal of the existing license.
As was revealed at yesterday’s BoCC meeting, County Clerk June Madrid has been handling liquor license applications on behalf of the BoCC for the past 20 years, even though liquor licenses are not technically part of her statutory duties.
Robin Schiro said in an interview last week that Madrid had mistakenly believed the liquor license transfer could not proceed due to the previous holder’s lapsed business license. Schiro said she found herself on an awkward situation around the license application, because though she and Frank are jointly purchasing the real estate, Robin does not have a financial interest in the restaurant operation.
Naturally, the fact that Frank and Robin are married causes an obvious blending of business interests, no matter whose name is on the lease.
Robin said she had recused herself from all discussions of the license transfer during previous agenda work sessions, and said she told the County Administrator and the County Attorney that she would continue to take a hands off stance as Commissioner. But when Tony, the current license holder, ran into the confusion around the business incorpoation lapse, Robin took it upon herself to check out the facts with the Colorado State Liquor Board — where she found that Madrid could, in fact, proceed with the transfer so long as the previous license holder reinstated his former business corporation.
“I knew that [the BoCC] had approved transfers like this in the past, and when Tony told me June [Madrid] was not allowing the transfer to proceed, I called the state as I would for any constituent.” The transfer involved a renewal of an expiring license, as well as a transfer — so time was of the essence, Robin explained.
Robin also handled some details of Frank’s application — dropping off checks and so forth — and said she was hesitant to deal with Madrid’s staff during normal business hours “because I would be accused to doing personal business on County time,” so she did some of her errands after the Clerk’s office doors had been closed to the public.
As became evident at yesterday’s meeting, Madrid was upset about Robin’s involvement in getting the license renewal and transfer pushed through her office.
Two weeks ago, Commissioner Zaday abstained from voting on the routine transfer, causing the item to be tabled. She later issued a press release explaining her actions, stating in part:
“What has happened behind the scenes that the public has not witnessed, are things that the regular Archuleta County resident would not have access to. I believe this is a breach of the code of ethics and in that I cannot be unbiased on this issue. I do not feel it is right for any Commissioner to use their position to influence the outcome in a matter that is a conflict of interest. In the past the public has been very disgruntled over conflict of interest issues, examples of this are: Board members approving contracts for other board members, with obvious conflicts of interest; and for the Board members to vote on issues for another Board that they sit on (even if assigned to that seat by the BoCC).
“And this is why I have chosen to abstain on this issue.”
Although Zaday is correct in stating that commissioners, town councilors and other government officials are ethically bound to recuse themselves from legislative discussions and votes on issues that could affect their personal financial gain or loss, Zaday’s press release suggests that Robin Schiro — who has, in fact, recused herself from all Commission discussions and votes — was also remiss in using her “position of influence” to help her husband complete a routine liquor license application.
Yesterday, Frank Schiro’s license transfer was first on the agenda, immediately following the Pledge of Allegiance and the Moment of Silence.
From my limited experience at BoCC meetings, the normal flow of an agenda item is to first hear from the County staff, followed by a presentation by the applicant, and then questions of the staff and applicant by the Commissioners. Finally the Chair asks for comments from the public, and finally the issue is voted on by the commission.
In an unusual turn, Commission Chair Bob Moomaw approached this particular hearing differently. Following a brief statement of the request by County Clerk June Madrid, Moomaw skipped the usual applicant’s presentation and the questions from the commission of the applicant, and asked right out of the gate:
“Okay, is there any public comment?”
And we were off and running.
Read Part Two |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|