2017-12-07 Liquor Adjudication Board Minutes

Home

Takase: And that's why I say they made a good effort to try and stop it, and I'm going to assume that they did stop it because they had their signs up without any prompting from us. But the fact that they were going to just let the situation go without—where Bite Me went down the list and he couldn't get anybody in that day, so we'll stop sales for the day, he still had people scheduled to come in the next day. That's the only distinction. It's fine if we're told and they made a good effort. We can recognize that. Smith: What could they have done to stay open that would have been okay? Takase: They could have tried to schedule someone. If they told us they didn't have anybody and they didn't have anybody left, but can I schedule some people for the next class, we probably would have told them, yes, put up the signs and don't serve. But it seemed they weren't going to do anything until we had caught them for it. That's really the distinction between the two. They didn't have any more managers that were going to come in. Fuke: So, they didn't have any intent to have anyone until you told them to. Takase: Yes. Until we caught them. To their benefit, I do think they weren't selling as well. If we go on a technical basis, was there somebody there while sales were being made? I'll say that I don't think they were selling without a manager on duty. We just bring it forward because we thought there's a distinction there. Fuke: Brandon, you were saying earlier that you're looking at that particular provision of the Rules. I was looking at it now and it says that "a person duly approved to serve as a person in active charge of the premises shall be on duty at all times while the premises are open for business even during hours in which liquor is not offered." Essentially, if you are a restaurant, and you have a liquor license and you offer breakfast with no liquor, you still need to have a person in charge, right? And this is also like the second case we haven't heard yet, like in Waikoloa. Gonzalez: Yes. Takase: Yes. We did change the language to clarify it. Previously it just said you need to have a manager on duty. When I came in to the Department that was how they were interpreting the law—even when you open for business but not serving liquor, you should have somebody on duty. We had many violations when I first came on, many were hotels and some condos. It was confusing to them because they were thinking "we're closed for business, the liquor's locked up, we didn't realize we had to have somebody on duty." The reason Brandon says we are re-evaluating now is Honolulu has moved away from that. They felt that it was overly burdensome to the Licensees. If you are closed up then they see no reason to have a manager on duty. We're looking at that as well, saying if there's no access to the liquor then maybe they don't need to have a manager on duty. When we get around to doing the Rules, that maybe one that changes. Fuke: But technically at this point in time, it's still a violation? Takase: Yes. DECEMBER 7, 2017- LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 26