Laserfiche WebLink
Gonzalez: That's a good observation and I think it comes into play if the Director is going <br />to set up a payment plan with the licensee. But you're right, it shouldn't. <br />Mukai: I just see in past minutes, because of someone's inability to pay, shouldn't have <br />too much to do with the... <br />Gonzalez: ...how much fine is imposed. <br />Mukai: Right. If you have a DUI conviction, it doesn't matter if you're a multi -millionaire or <br />someone that's destitute. It's still a DUI conviction. <br />Gonzalez: Right. That's a good observation. <br />Takase: We have toyed with it in the past and looking at their ability to pay. In general, <br />punishment should not so much fit the crime, but it should be punishment to that <br />individual. So $1,000 fine to a Costco is probably nothing. But $1,000 or $500 to a small <br />licensee, is probably substantial. We tried to look at their sales in the past and fit the <br />punishments to the crime. We could probably taylor the punishment to that individual <br />licensee, but across the board it was (all over the place), and it was becoming too <br />cumbersome to administer that way. We went back to the flat fines where it's pretty much <br />the same for everybody. It makes it easier for us to enforce. We were getting accused of <br />favoritism for adjusting the fines and we didn't have a strong formula for it. We looked at <br />the gross sales and decided you were either a big or small (licensee). That's how we <br />would distinguish the two. In the end, we felt it was much harder to justify that way. <br />Fuke: Any further discussion? Because this is a very sensitive issue, the Chair is going to <br />ask for a roll call vote. <br />Masuda: That's a good vote. <br />Fuke: I'll ask the maker of the motion, Mr. Mukai, for your vote. <br />Mukai: Aye. <br />Fuke: The seconder? <br />Giffin: I am, and my vote is Aye. <br />Fuke: Andi? <br />Pawasarat: Aye. <br />Fuke: I vote Aye. The reason being that I stood corrected when I thought and said there <br />were no liquor sales for the previous applicant. Since there was liquor sales and the fact <br />that there was no experienced PIAC, expired or otherwise, I feel accounts for the $250 <br />extra dollars Holo Holo will have to pay. Given that, I vote Aye. <br />Fuke: The motion is unanimously carried. <br />OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 16 <br />