Laserfiche WebLink
Giffin: Yes. That's what I wanted to validate. <br />Fuke: Any further comments on that? I can understand the rationale and I have a bit of <br />heartburn because the previous applicant to begin with didn't have any violation, so when <br />you look at it from that standpoint, they're even. Secondly, it's true you have a person with <br />an expired license as opposed to, like in the Holo Holo situation without any license to <br />begin with, the question is whether there was any (liquor) sales during that time. It <br />seemed like there was alcohol sales at Kamuela Liquor and no alcohol sale on the other <br />side. Thirdly, which has really very little relevance, given the circumstance of Holo Holo <br />where they say they're struggling and having difficulty getting the personnel; and knowing <br />Kamuela Liquor (Store), they're much more, from an affordability standpoint, able to <br />withstand a $500 fine versus a $250 less than the other one. <br />Masuda: Mr. Chairman, if I may correct you on a factual point? I believe in the previous <br />case, there were four sales. <br />Fuke: But not during the time of... <br />Giffin: It was. <br />Fuke: During the time? <br />Masuda: Yes. <br />Fuke: Okay, thank you. <br />Takase: When these cases come to us, Brandon, myself, Corporation Counsel, we go <br />through all of the cases to come up with a recommendation. We try to take everything you <br />are talking about into consideration. Once you see the Island Naturals case, you may be <br />more confused. There are three of the same violations, but we've come up with different <br />fine amounts for each one. We take each case and try to determine a fine. The standard <br />fine is $1,000 with $500 suspended. In this case, we looked at two things to mitigate it: 1) <br />at least she had a card, so she's aware of what has to happen. That's why I say that even <br />though her card expired, she still has the knowledge; 2) they have been in business a long <br />time and they have had a clean record. One of the things I wanted to do when I came in <br />was to try to recognize good licensees. As a Board, we just punish bad behavior, but we <br />take into almost no consideration what your past record was like. If you had a bad record, <br />we will recognize that. But, where you had a good record, there seems to have been no <br />real recognition of that. We try to at least give them some recognition of that. Those are <br />the two reasons why we reduced their fine in this case. In the last case, you'll see we <br />actually increased it. We are prepared to explain that as well. <br />Fuke: Very interesting. Go ahead (to Mr. Mukai). <br />Mukai: In favor of my motion, to reason one again, the length of time the enterprise has <br />been in operation, and I spoke previously as to the rationale of why I made the motion, <br />and I'd like to also add that I noticed in the past minutes, the violator's ability to pay has <br />been taken into consideration. To me, that shouldn't be a part of the equation. <br />OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 15 <br />