I pulled the 2007 report and passed it to the selectmen and suggested consistency be present with 60 day suspension. Ramada had there license suspended for 2weeks for improper paperwork not selling to minors. I feel the 5 days isn't enough. I life could have been lost. Also the suspension should have been immediately not the week after. I also suggested all licenses in feature be given out with the understanding that all employees selling alcohol be S.T.O.P certified. Mr. Cavaco wanted a harsher suspension to set an example and to show the board has low tolerance for this behavior

IMO, John shouldn't have a job of responsibility at this time... particularly one involving children. A 15-year old is still a child after all.

As far as i understand, the 2007 incident had two proven and documented cases of selling to a minor. This is a first offense. Even though the minor may be truthful about other instances, it is still possible she is lying in order to show more cooperation with police. It would be irresponsible and dangerous to react to an accusation without evidence.

The law states five days for a penalty, and our police chief and attorney recommended that punishment. I believe the majority of Selectmen did the right thing.

John Whelan should be checked out by a doctor, something is wrong with him.

Peter the police gave the 15 yr old a $20 bill wich had serial numbers written down. She went in with it and came out with booze. The point is the selectmen should of been consistent and give them the same suspension. If it went to state level and they decreased the suspension at least we can say our selectmen was fair and didn't give them a slap on the wrist. What if it was death resulting ? I guess you would be ok with just a 5 day suspension. Because it's the law.

I'd go with the 5-day suspension that the police chief recommended. There are going to be an awful lot of 15-year old kids drinking alcohol this weekend for Passover and Easter, served by their parents. Not selling liquor to minors, as noble as that may be, is not going to solve the problem of kids drinking and driving. The kids will find it. And what is the ethics of sending a 15-year old into a liquor store to try to buy liquor anyway? If it's wrong to sell liquor to a minor, it's also wrong to send a minor to try to buy liquor. Why are we using children this way? In this case, both the police and John were wrong.

These 'sting' operations are common. Without them it would be a free for all out there. There are no police personel who are underage, so who could they use? At least with the massage/prostitute parlors, they can use one of their own.

Of course underage kids are going to find alcohol...they're going to send some 15-year old out to buy it for them. Then there's an accident, or a kid dead from alcohol overdose. Whatever it takes for the police to slow this down, I'm all for it.

There's no need to send a 15-year-old. The police can use some who's 20. The point is the liquor store is supposed to be asking for ID and should ask for ID from everyone, no matter the age. Adults who appreciate the need to refuse to sell liquor to minors will not object to pulling out their driver's license. Banks require ID, hospitals ask for photo ID. What's the big deal? A good liquor store should ask ID. And customers can urge them to ask ID of everyone. A 15-year-old IS a child. If the police don't want parents to send a 15-year-old to try to get liquor, then they shouldn't either. They can accomplish the same thing with someone who's a month short of 21.

According to the article, the 15 year old LOOKED 15 years old. I did not hear the store owner deny the allegations. He stood before the board and seemed completely oblivious to the seriousness of selling this potentially lethal toxin to a 15 year old .

Officer Mello said the girl LOOKED 15. The transaction was allegedly consummated by our former selectman WHILE HE WAS STILL SERVING as selectman. Again. The child looked 15. And supposedly he still works there.

Let's hope it is all a big misunderstanding.

In January a under age party was broken up in barrington by police and one of the 15 year olds stated she gets the liquor all the time by whelan at the country liquor store. The police with the permission of the 15 year olds parents had the 15 year old prove to them during the sting they performed. I asked the owner if John was still employeed. He said yes. Not for nothing but 4 months later and the owner had no training

for any of his employees

I question whether this is an issue of "training". Just sayin...

Not having read the actual report the knowledge that we have is limited to what has been spoken about. But here's another point, if in fact this female has been in there before and was carded, how many times do you keep carding the same someone?

Again, I dont know how it all happened other than what has been said by others but if you card an individual how many times do you keep carding a person? And I think another poster mentioned this but could this female have been using this sting as way to reduce her own penalty? After admitting she had used this site before..
And that brings the question was this person ID'd on previous visits using a false ID and basically set up this entire thing? And she knew it?

John missed many meetings because he had to work. If his job is so important, why would he risk it to serve a child? Something has been off with him for quite some time and I recall thinking the same thing when I was watching him on tv and he was making a big deal about calling a firefighter, "lieutenant" because that is his rank. Medication?

The police ought to be using 20-year-olds if they want to check whether liquor stores are selling to minors, not 15-year-olds. The adult public (i.e., customers) should insist that all purchasers of liquor be carded and boycott liquor stores that don't card them. This would be a far more effective method of stopping sale of liquor to minors than police using 15-year-olds to conduct sting operations. Those who are concerned about selling liquor to minors can start this movement the next time they're in a liquor store, telling the employees that they do not intend to patronize the store if it doesn't care everyone. Meanwhile, it would be great advertising for some liquor store in the community to announce this policy, phrasing it as their contribution to reducing alcohol abuse by young people. If the problem is underage drinking, the solution is in our hands -- that is, if we really care.

When you go to the Dunk or Gillette they ask for I.D. even if your hair is white.

I dont think anyone knowingly would sell liquor to minors regardless.

Again making judgements about circumstances without having first hand knowledge is faulty. We can sit back and type what ever we feel like without ever having to worry whether or not the data that we based it on was correct. I go back to what I posted before, if the person had been in the store other times and was carded (assumption) why would you continue to do it? You have already verified the supposed ID of this person on previous visits. How many people would get angry or otherwise disgruntled and just not go back there? They are there to make money. Thats no excuse but for the owner etc. its not good business to tick off your customers if you can avoid it.

If the person had a fake ID how good was it and how can a person tell? The guides that are out there only go so far. With todays technology it seems like its very easy to copy something accurately if you wish.

Dave: I will make an assumption. You did not watch the hearing? I think if you had, your questions would have been answered and you might not be as unbiased. You might also agree that the board was too lenient given the circumstances.

Also, I think it is pretty naive to believe that people won't knowingly sell liquor to minors. On the down low, stores have been known to market themselves to minors. Usually in cities. But I suppose it can happen anywhere. There is no reason to suspect that this is the case here. This appears to be simply a case of poor judgement on the part of one employee.

He may have been trying to hook up with the girl.

This is how rumors get started. It's best to hold your thoughts, lest folks conclude that you're the type of man who would want to do this.

Everyone was thinking the same thing, including the cops.

Rumors also get started because "justice delayed is justice denied".

Maybe this is one of the alleged lies being spread to which he insists he will be vindicated. But if the allegations are proven to be fact during the court proceedings, it will be near impossible to prove an intent in selling to a young girl and the rumors will persist. Especially if he did so more than once.

Speaking of justice delayed, justice denied, is it just a coincidence that this hearing was not held until after the election? Does it always take this long to for the BOS to schedule a hearing on such a violation. I don't even recall seeing a media report. Just some random thoughts...

Paul, where did you get that "everyone was thinking the same thing, including the cops?" I didn't hear that anywhere. If you have some actual sourced information, please post it here or email it to jonathan.friedman@patch.com. That is a very serious charge you made and you should have something to back it up before making it.

Please, everybody, keep in mind that there has only been a Board of Selectmen hearing on this matter, and that hearing was not directly about Mr. Whelan, but rather about the business. Mr. Whelan has not had his day in court.

Having grandchildren its disturbing the owner had a I Don't Give a Crap attitude and when answering questions would have a blank look on his face. Cameras dont lie. Any other business would have fired the employee. Wonder why he's still there. Just like that lady stated it's the responsiblity of the owner not a 15 year old girl and there was no reason there should not have been training. Where does this man get off blaming the girl. Thats a business owner that should not be in business.