My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2017-12-07 Liquor Adjudication Board Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Liquor Control
>
Liquor Adjudication Board
>
Minutes
>
2017
>
2017-12-07 Liquor Adjudication Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2018 4:04:30 PM
Creation date
2/12/2019 11:09:58 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Takase: Maybe you can void the other $500. <br />Fuke: Can you send this letter informing them of the Decision to pay $2,000 with $1,000 <br />suspended? You send them a letter, right? <br />Gonzalez: We have an investigator give them the written Decision, the Findings of Fact. <br />Fuke: Is it possible to incorporate a statement to the effect that the fine is $2,000 with <br />$1,000 suspended, but if there's any subsequent or similar type of violation that the Board <br />would seriously consider suspending the license? <br />Gonzalez: We can include that if that is part of your decision especially. <br />Masuda: There's the Order and there's also the Finding of Fact. You can include that in <br />the Finding of Fact. <br />Gonzalez: We can include that type of language? <br />Smith: I'm supportive of that. <br />Giffin: I am too, because it gives it more depth. <br />Smith: Yes. <br />Takase: Even if the Board goes with what's recommended, if they have a subsequent <br />violation, it'll really be $3,000 we would be collecting. They'll be fined $2,000, no <br />suspended, but we'll also fine them the $1,000 that was suspended in this case. <br />Fuke: It could be a different type of violation. I'm more concerned about the Sale to a <br />Minor. If the next infraction is like the other case where there were people in the <br />establishment after hours, even if it's a different type of violation. <br />Takase: If you listen to the verbage, we're saying that $2,000 with $1,000 suspended for <br />no similar violation. A totally different violation wouldn't kick in. <br />Giffin: Within that period, right? <br />Takase: Yes. I don't know what happened to the employee in this case. We could find <br />out. I would think as the owner, this person is a liability. I know that the managers came <br />in. We didn't get the owner to come in. We informed them what was going to happen. <br />Twelve out of thirteen got the message. That it was the same person that did it both <br />times, I would think if you're the owner, you'd probably terminate them. <br />Fuke: Unless there's a special relationship between the owner and an employee. <br />There's a motion on the floor to accept what the Department is recommending, $2,000 <br />with $1,000 being suspended, with the restoration of that $1,000 for similar infraction. <br />Do you want to amend it? <br />DECEMBER 7, 2017- LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.