Sebeka Liquor Store employees reprimanded
Written by REBECCA KOMPPA   

At the Nov. 10 meeting of the Sebeka City Council, Liquor Store Manager Michelle Olson was directed to place letters of reprimand in the files of two liquor store employees, Missy Wattenhofer and Cinda Ritari, for not following the “proper chain of command.” That reprimand was in regard to an incident which occurred in the liquor store on Friday, Sept. 18, when the scheduled entertainment did not show and Bryon Lalum filled in at the last moment.

During the discussion at the November meeting, it was reported that the employees had attempted to contact Olson and assistant manager Sue Wieseler to get permission for Lalum to provide entertainment, but were unsuccessful in reaching either. It was also reported at the November meeting that the employees told Lalum that he could provide karoake, but they could not guarantee he would get paid. They explained to him that he would have to attend the October City Council meeting to request payment. 

Lalum submitted a bill to the city for $250 for his services on Sept. 18. At the November meeting, the council approved paying him $200 for what they believed to be two hours of service. Olson was then instructed to write letters of reprimand to be placed in the employees’ work records for allowing Lalum to entertain without proper authorization.

Lalum attended the Dec. 8 council meeting to inquire why he did not received full payment. 

The council inquired if the employees told him that they did not have authorization to approve his karaoke services or guarantee payment. Lalum replied that they did, but then stated that Councilman Michael Lillquist, who was in liquor store at the time, had said he (Lalum) would be paid his normal rate. 

Councilman Lillquist denied making that statement.

Lalum responded that there were three people present (himself and the two liquor store employees) who thought that authorization had been given for him to entertain. 

One of the employees reprimanded, Missy Wattenhofer, told the council that Lalum had been that told they did not have authorization and could not guarantee he would get paid. She added that Lillquist had said that Lalum could set up. Wattenhofer said that when she inquired of Lillquist if they would get in trouble for allowing Lalum to play, his reply to her was to let Lalum play and if any questions arose he would answer for it.

Councilman Lowell Ste­wart opined that Lalum should have known that one councilman does not have the authority to authorize any payment – that requires the full council – and that he (Lalum) was rendering service at his own risk. Stewart noted that Lillquist is not even on the Liquor Store Committee and he was sure Lillquist would not say that he guaranteed Lalum payment. Stewart suggested that Lalum misunderstood.

Lalum reiterated that he had the impression that he had been given authorization.

Councilmember Ann Klue­nenberg queried why Lalum was not happy with the $200 payment, stating that the council was told that he had not played the entire evening.

Lalum questioned that timeframe, but after further discussion succumbed to the council’s resistance and left the meeting. 

Wattenhofer then questioned the council concerning the reprimand placed in her work record. She asked why they (the two liquor store employees) were reprimanded when no one had even questioned them about the incident.

Mayor David Anderson replied that they had acted outside the chain of command.

Kluenenberg spoke in defense of the employees, saying that they had trusted Lillquist.

Stewart interjected that at  the previous meeting, the council did not have the “full report.” In fact, Lillquist remained silent about his involvement in the incident at the November meeting.

Mayor Anderson suggested the letter of reprimand be replaced with a verbal warning. He then issued a warning to Wattenhofer to not step outside the chain of command again.

Stewart and Anderson commented to Lillquist that his statements in the liquor store on Sept. 18 served to give an impression of authority where none existed. And the matter was closed.