2019-02-21 Liquor Adjudication Board Minutes (2)

Home

Smith: Renee, can you read the report from the Department? Schoen: Sure. The original license was issued in August 2009. There is one prior violation in 2014, and that was related to consuming liquor while on duty in violation of Rule 5-4(B). They were fined $2,000 for that. There is no other similar violation for this, so we are recommending for Count 1 a $500 fine with $250 suspended for one year from the date of the service of the Decision and order, on the condition that there is no similar rule violation and that the $250 is to be paid within thirty (30) days. on Count 2, $500 fine with $250 suspended for a year from the date of the service of the Decision and order, on the condition that there be no similar violation of Rule 3-1(F)(3), and this is also to be paid within thirty (30) days upon the receipt of the Decision and order. The Licensee did take responsibility in this case, they took immediate action to register the two hostesses, and on that basis, recommended the $250. Mukai: I move to accept the recommendation of our legal counsel. Taniguchi: Second. Mr. Mukai moved that the Licensee in Case No. 2018-009, be assessed a penalty for Count 1, a $500 fine with $250 suspended for one year from the date of the service of the Decision and order, on the condition there is no similar rule violation and that the $250 is to be paid within thirty (30) days; and for Count 2, a $500 fine with $250 suspended for a year from the date of the service of the Decision and order, on the condition that there will be no similar violation of Rule 3-1(F)(3), and that is also to be paid within thirty (30) days upon the receipt of the Decision and order; seconded by Mr. Taniguchi. Smith: Any discussion? Taniguchi: I have a question. Why was Count 1 less? Schoen: I'm sorry, I might have misspoke. It was $500 and $500. Mukai: It was the same. Taniguchi: The $250 will be waived for both (Counts)? Schoen: $500 fine with $250 suspended. Mukai: What is the rationale for dismissing Count 3? Gonzalez: Thank you for that question. In discussion with the Director, the more troubling violation here was the fact that they had hostesses working there that were not registered with the Department. Those were the more serious violations we were looking at. If they gave us the excuse that they were off-duty, the only way we can verify that is to cross-check with the schedule. Because they took responsibility for having the hostesses registered so quickly, they came in the next day and did not want to contest the charge, the Director thought it was fair to them to dismiss Count 3. It is already on the record that they violated it and they FEBRUARY 21, 2019 -- LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 12