Laserfiche WebLink
Gonzalez: As the plain language of the Rule says. <br />Fuke: With this and the Waikoloa situation? <br />Gonzalez: Correct. With the Waikoloa one there's even more distinguishing factors for <br />that one. <br />Masuda: Let's not get to the Waikoloa one now. <br />Gonzalez: What I want to focus on in this case is, and in my analysis I was aware of the <br />Bite Me Fish Market case where a $1,000 fine was imposed, $1,000 was suspended also <br />on the condition because they were actually looking to go out of business so their license <br />was going to be relinquished anyway. What struck the investigators and myself in <br />reviewing the case is that it seemed as if the Licensee was taking no action to remedy the <br />situation and my understanding of what the investigator brought forth to me in the <br />investigation, until he walked in there and told them that they should have gotten <br />somebody to take the class, they probably wouldn't have been motivated to do so. No one <br />was there with a card since July 16. Our investigator walked in on the 21St. A few days <br />later they submitted a request to have somebody take the class. There wasn't a request <br />pending with the Department from the five days before when they didn't have anybody. <br />Also, we have had Licensees in the past who have called when they were in a sticky <br />situation and asked what they can do. Usually if it's a one- or two-day situation, we make <br />note of it, we let the investigators know and we work with the Licensee. <br />Masuda: What was the recommendation, again? <br />Gonzalez: $1,000, suspend $500. <br />Fuke: Related to that question, it's interesting because this business has a Dispenser <br />license and they're not selling alcohol and the amount presumably of revenue generated <br />only by the burgers would appear to be proportionately much smaller. Why would they not <br />want to have a person in charge so that they can now sell alcohol both on and off <br />premises. <br />Gonzalez: Yes. I think part of that is highlighted in the fact that people quit, people they <br />had designated before. <br />Fuke: But wouldn't you assume that this is your money maker and the food portion is so <br />small so you'd want to keep the money end? <br />Gonzalez: Because they're not a restaurant, they're not required to submit their food <br />sales. I really don't know. I'm just generally explaining how I distinguish. I see a <br />restaurant where maybe they're known as a chain and they're primary operation is the <br />food side, but who knows? They could have been at 29 percent food and still 71 percent <br />alcohol. <br />Fuke: Do you have any statistics regarding what their alcohol sale was during the month <br />of April, May, June, July and August? <br />DECEMBER 7, 2017 — LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 27 <br />