Laserfiche WebLink
burden ("you didn't notify us so that's why we didn't come in to take the test"). There is no <br />re -notification on our side. <br />Gonzalez: It just has an expiration date on the card. <br />Masuda: And it's to the person, not to the premises. <br />Takase: Really, like Andi is saying, whoever the manager is, they have to update their list <br />of who their managers are. They should be checking the dates at least annually when <br />they renew their list with us, seeing who's (card is) going to expire in that year. It's on the <br />individual, but it's also part of the Licensee's responsibilities at some point. <br />Fuke: Did that answer your question? <br />Mukai: Yes. Actually, I'm not really in favor of all these suspensions of fines. But, given <br />the situation where the length of time the organization has been dispensing alcohol, and <br />this is the first offense, I'm thinking this is really an oversight on their part. If this <br />establishment, did you mention how long they've had a license? <br />Schoen: (Since) 1986. <br />Mukai: They've had a license for more than thirty years. To me it was mere oversight. <br />Fuke: Any further comments by the Board Members? <br />There were no further comments from the Board Members. <br />Fuke: In a way, you don't really want to take economics into consideration when you look <br />at the previous fine that was imposed. I think the previous fine was $500 suspended, but <br />the volume of activity in terms of alcohol sales between Kamuela Liquor and the Pantry, I <br />think, is substantially different. There is a potential for that level of gravity to magnify. The <br />other thing, if they were actually selling the liquor during the time when there was <br />technically no authorized PIAC, they were actually selling; whereas with the previous one, <br />they weren't selling anything. It was more food oriented. That combined with the <br />comment about them being more aware because they've had this license for a long time <br />and ignorance is no excuse leaves me a little torn. But I'm not in a position to make any <br />motion on penalties, so I'II leave it up to the Board Members to either accept whatever the <br />Corporation Counsel is recommending or make your own suggestion. I'm open for any <br />motion. <br />Mukai: Point of information. If the Board Members feel that the fine should be a different <br />figure than presented by Corporation Counsel, then we would actually vote nay on this <br />motion? <br />Takase: There's no motion on the floor. <br />Fuke: No. There was no motion. <br />OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 11 <br />