December 01, 2011 - On July 2, 2011, did the Licensee violate the St. Paul Legislative Code by allowing an underage individual to be present on the premises, selling alcohol on the premises, and creating a serious danger to the public health, safety or welfare? If so, is a $1,000.00 matrix penalty with additional imposed license conditions the appropriate licensing sanctions? On August 19, 2011, did the Licensee violate the St. Paul Legislative Code by selling alcohol on the premises? If so, is a $1,000.00 matrix penalty the appropriate licensing sanction?
November 30, 2011 - Has the Department established that there is reasonable cause to believe that a failure by Licensee to comply with applicable law or rule, the actions of Licensee or other individuals, or conditions in the program, pose an imminent risk of harm to the health, safety or rights of children served by Licensee?
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that there is not reasonable cause to believe that children in Licensee’s care are at imminent risk of harm.
November 29, 2011 - Did the Respondents engage in acts or practices that demonstrate that they are untrustworthy, financially irresponsible, or otherwise incompetent or unqualified to act under authority or license granted by the Commissioner, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 45.027, subd. 7(a) (4) (2010)? Did the Respondents violate the insurance laws of another state’s insurance commissioner, contrary to Minn. Stat. § 60K.43, subd. 1 (2) (2010)? Have the Respondents been subjected to discipline in another jurisdiction, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 60K.43, subd. 1 (9) (2010)? Did the Respondents fail to report to the Commissioner any administrative action that had been taken in another jurisdiction by another governmental agency within 30 days of the final disposition of the matter, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 60K.54, subd. 1 (2010)? The ALJ concludes that the Respondents have violated the provisions of Minnesota law enumerated above.
November 21, 2011 - The issues presented in this case are as follows:
(1) Whether BlueSky is in compliance with State academic standards and graduation requirements.
(2) If not, whether BlueSky has a history of major or repeated violations of law.
(3) If yes, whether termination of the contract between BlueSky and Novation is an appropriate sanction.
As described more fully in the report, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Blue Sky was not in complete compliance with State academic standards and graduation requirements, but that the Department has not met its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that BlueSky has a history of major or repeated violations of law. The Administrative Law Judge recommends that the Department’s termination of the existing charter school contract between BlueSky and Novation be RESCINDED and the matter DISMISSED.
November 21, 2011 - In the Matter of the Proposed Expecited Rules Relating to Local State-Aid Route Standards, Chapter 8820. On November 8 and 10, 2011, the Department filed documents with the Office of Administrative Hearings in support of approval of the above-entitled rules.
November 16, 2011 - Should the temporary immediate suspension of the family child care license of Connie Bokman remain in effect because there is reasonable cause to believe that there is an imminent risk of harm to the health, safety, or rights of children in her care? The Administrative Law Judge concludes that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Licensee’s failure to comply with supervision rules poses an imminent risk of harm to the health, safety, or rights of children in Licensee’s care and recommends that the Commissioner affirm the order of temporary immediate suspension.
November 10, 2011 - 1. Did the City prove by a preponderance of the evidence that on April 10, 2011, the Licensee violated License Condition No. 6 (“The establishment shall close no later than 2 a.m. every day and all patrons shall leave the establishment no later than 2 a.m. every day. The establishment shall open no earlier than 8 a.m. every day.”)?
The ALJ finds that the City proved that the Licensee violated License Condition No. 6. 2. Did the City prove by a preponderance of the evidence that on July 1, 2011, the Licensee violated License Conditions No. 1 (“The number of patrons and employees inside the establishment shall be limited to 52 in compliance with fire regulations.”); No. 2 (“No one under the age of 18 shall be permitted inside the establishment. The establishment shall verify the age of all patrons using government issued identification.”); No. 3 (“The business shall monitor the sidewalk and parking lot for loitering or other unlawful behavior. Any persons gathering on the sidewalk surrounding the property or in the parking lot shall be asked to leave the area. The business shall report any refusal to leave the area or other suspicious activity to SPPD.”); and No. 5 (“Music inside the establishment shall not be audible on the exterior of the premises.”)? The ALJ finds that the City proved that the Licensee violated License Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 5. The ALJ finds that the City did not prove that Condition No. 3 was violated.
November 09, 2011 - Whether the Air Quality Control System ("AQCS") project proposed by Otter Tail is reasonable, prudent and in compliance with the requirements set forth in Minn. Stat. § 216B.1695. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the proposed AQCS project, as modified so as to eliminate the originally-proposed baghouse, is reasonable, prudent and in compliance with all of the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 216B.1695. The ALJ recommends the Commission grant, subject to the reporting requirements recommended below, Otter Tail’s Petition for an Advance Determination of Prudence (“ADP”) for the Big Stone AQCS.