Lynn tavern owners seek restrain order on rollback

LYNN – Infuriated bar owners across the city are refusing to accept a decision made by the Licensing Board on Dec. 19 to rollback bar hours from 2 a.m. to 1 a.m. and they are taking their dispute to court.Attorney Frederick Riley, who is representing the proprietors, said the next stage of the clash would be to pursue the issue of a temporary restraining order in Salem Superior Court on Wednesday at 2 p.m.However, unless the court ultimately decides to reverse the Licensing Board’s decision, bar owners must abide by the new city wide 1 a.m. closing.”We’re basically asking the court to stave off the rollback from 2 a.m. to 1 a.m. until such time that we have had a chance to do a discovery and an independent deposition of the Mayor (Edward J. Clancy Jr.), Lynn Police Chief (John Suslak) and the members of the Licensing Board (Dick Coppinger, Michael Phelps, and John F. Pace),” he said.Riley said the temporary restraining order would allow for a 60-day window of time to conduct the deposition, which would be held to obtain information regarding allegations of an open meeting law violation that he said are both arbitrary and capricious actions related to the Board’s public hearings concerning the rollback.After the information has been reviewed and the time has elapsed, Riley said he plans to return to court once the discovery is completed for a preliminary injunction, which would in essence restrain the city from enforcing the rollback until the case has been decided.According to Riley, the Plaintiff’s have already lost a significant amount of money since they have been ordered to close one hour earlier, and that the only harm to the defendant would be a delay in the enforcement of its decision.”It is fair and accurate to say that they have noticed a serious effect on their businesses and they are very upset,” he said. “These people are good businessmen and owners and the rollback has definitely had an economic impact on them.”However, regardless of Riley’s plan of action or the plaintiff’s pleas for a rollback reversal, City Attorney Vincent Phelan said the city is prepared for its upcoming court appearance and stands by its decision to rollback bar hours.”We feel very confident in both the city and the licensing board’s stance because they have complied with all of the aspects of any court order and law,” he said.Still, Riley said he disagrees with the Board’s and the city’s decision.”In the Licensing Board’s rush to achieve the result it desired, the Board failed to provide adequate notice and violated the open meeting law in the first hearing and admitted that it did not review any of the police reports upon which their decision was based on incomplete and inaccurate testimony and information,” he said.Having reviewed the information and documents prior to the hearings, Riley said statistics showed that the reported bar incidents were of such a nature that they were likely to occur regardless of the hour and regardless of whatever steps the Board took to prevent them.Data provided by the Massachusetts State Police revealed that amongst Saugus (which has a closing time of 2 a.m.), Peabody (1 a.m.), Danvers (1 a.m.) and Lynn, Lynn had the fewest operating under the influence of alcohol (OUI) arrests and crashes.Lynn was also found to have had the second fewest amount of OUI arrests between 12 midnight and 3 a.m.In addition, Riley said at the very least there are serious and substantial questions going to the merits that exist and are fair ground for litigation and more deliberate investigation by the court.Specifically regarding a second testimony made by Suslak at the hearing on Dec. 19, which Riley said was not only in violation of the Board’s vote to close the hearing for testimony in favor of the rollback, but also in violation of the court’s orders to reopen the hearing for added testimony.Furthermore, Riley said the Board acted egregiousness in allowing Suslak to testify and was underscored by the refusal to permit of the