|
Smith: Cody, I have a couple follow up questions. So, I agree with Paula, I think it's a
<br />burden on the community and the applicants if we had to cancel a meeting and they
<br />have to wait a month because of things out of their control. I mean, they're trying to run
<br />a business, get permits approved and everything to be able to open. So, just to provide
<br />options, does Gerald have the opportunity to approve some of the applications that
<br />come before us, and then we ratify them next month? If we cancelled today's meeting,
<br />does he have the authority to approve it, and we ratify later?
<br />Takase: The things that I have approval over are listed in the rules, and everything that
<br />do have authority over I've taken action on them, so really it was just the liquor
<br />licenses, I can't approve it without the Commission, so we would have that problem.
<br />And, if we miss a meeting, it will probably be pushed back a month.
<br />Smith: Two months, not until we come back to Kona again?
<br />Takase: No. We can move it into the next month because all the notices were filed.
<br />There's some questions about notices here, but I think even if the meeting got
<br />cancelled, we would appear and notify anybody that appeared for the licensee or the
<br />public, that we didn't have quorum so the Board is not going to meet. But we will
<br />resend it to them, and I think we kind of treated that as meeting the requirements. So,
<br />even if the meeting wasn't officially started, everybody was given notice as to, we
<br />continued it till the next Board meeting. But I would say that it meets the requirements
<br />in terms of carrying over our business meeting so that the applicants and the public,
<br />they have notice when to appear again. And if they cannot appear, a lot of times, we
<br />will let them give testimony on the record, and we will present it at the next hearing. So,
<br />if we had members of the public that can't come to the next meeting and wanted to say
<br />their peace here, we'll record them so it can be presented, to try and be as fair as
<br />possible to all sides, and make the accommodations to them. That's how I think we
<br />would deal with that.
<br />Smith: Alright, thanks, Gerald. So, you know, just my feedback on this, I think it's not
<br />only the cost of government, but it's a cost to the public to run their meetings. I mean,
<br />you know as an example, Robert Ueoka flew in from Honolulu today. He probably
<br />charged his client, Mauna Kea Market, from the time he got to Honolulu Airport, flew
<br />over here, rented a car, drove up here, so that's probably 4-5 hours. He's billing them
<br />at $500.00 an hour, so that cost Mauna Kea $2,500.00 for him to just be here today and
<br />not prepare the application, so I'm very supportive of having hybrids, especially for the
<br />applicants. For us, we're going to be here for the whole meeting, but some of these
<br />folks, they waited 20 minutes and then they're on for a minute. You know, so I think we
<br />need to be cognizant of the cost to the public too, so I would support hybrid meetings.
<br />Okay, any other comments to Item No. 5?
<br />There were no further comments from Commissioners.
<br />MINUTES - LIQUOR COMMISSION MEETING - THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 2022 - KONA PAGE 25 OF 31
<br />
|