2020-02-20 Liquor Adjudication Board Minutes

Home

Gonzalez: Thank you. As far as this case goes, Mr. Armstrong is correct. This Licensee has had no previous violations, so they have a clean record. The original issuance of the license was April 30, 2015, for this location. For historical purposes, there have been twenty-two previous Rule 5-2 violations within the County within the last five years. The typical fines have been an imposition of a thousand -dollar fine with a certain portion suspended, usually five hundred to seven hundred and fifty suspended, based on the circumstances. In this case, Mr. Armstrong called the office and we spoke at length discussing his options. He did not want to contest the charge. He explained the circumstances. We will be recommending a $1,000 fine with $750 suspended, so $250 to be imposed. That takes into account their clean record, taking responsibility, full cooperation during the investigation, and unfortunate circumstances. Gonzalez: If you take a look, in the report, they only had two people listed as the persons in active charge and one of them had to be let go. That left them short-handed. We discussed this within the office. They are fortunate to have a Dispenser operation, so they brought someone from the Dispenser side to help in the Retail side. But, they're not a person in active charge for the Retail side. If they had called to let us know, that might have helped us to help them through the situation. We're taking into account, too, that they did their best in the situation and they immediately scheduled all their employees at that location for the next available class which was November 13, the following week. They've taken steps to remedy the situation and ensure that it does not occur in the future. Smith: Sounds good, thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Armstrong, do you have any comments as to the proposed penalty? Armstrong: I, of course, would like it to be zero. But, two hundred and fifty is way better than a thousand, so I would accept that. The one thing that did come out of this, and I appreciate you bringing up the fact that we can call the Department and Brandon, is that I'm more aware of the situation now. If something like that happens, I would definitely make sure that we are covered before we terminate an employee. It was an oversight on my part, and I definitely take the responsibility for it. As General Manager, I have to. Smith: Okay, I appreciate that. Mukai: I move that we accept the recommendation of the Department. Taniguchi: Second. Mr. Mukai moved that the Licensee in Case No. 2020-001, be assessed a penalty in the amount of $1,000 with $750 suspended for one year from the date of service of the Decision and Order, on the condition that there be no similar violation of Rule 5-2 of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, Person in Active Charge, and that $250 is to be paid within thirty (30) days upon receipt of the Decision and Order; seconded by Mr. Taniguchi. Smith: Motion by Dwayne, second by Art. Any discussion? FEBRUARY 20, 2020 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 7