Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-10-18 Liquor Adjudication Board MinutesCOUNTY OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR CONTROL LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD October 18, 2018 WEST HAWAII CIVIC CENTER, 74-5044 ANE KEOHOKALOLE HIGHWAY, BUILDING B, 2ND FLOOR, KAILUA-KONA, HAWAII I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Sidney Fuke at 10:00 A.M., in the Meeting Room, Department of Liquor Control, West Hawaii Civic Center, 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building B, 2nd Floor, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. The following were present and constituted a quorum: Adjudication Board: Sidney Fuke, Chair Geraldine Giffin, Board Member Dwayne Mukai, Board Member Andi Pawasarat, Board Member Absent and Excused: Riley Smith, Board Member Others Present: Gerald Takase, Director Brandon Gonzalez, Administrative Officer Renee Schoen, Assistant Corporation Counsel (Department Prosecutor) Craig Masuda, Deputy Corporation Counsel (Board) Dorsi Lim, Secretary to the Board and Commission Fuke: Please turn off your cell phones or turn it onto silent (mode). I'd like to have the Board members and the staff introduce themselves. First of all, my name is Sidney Fuke. I am the Chair of the Liquor Adjudication Board. We'll start with Mr. Mukai on my far right. Mukai: I'm Dwayne Mukai, the newest addition to the Board. I'm a member of the Adjudication Board. Pawasarat: Andi Pawasarat, Board Member. Masuda: Craig Masuda, Board Counsel. Giffin: Geri Giffin, Board Member. Takase: Gerald Takase, Director. Lim: Dorsi Lim, Secretary. Fuke: Brandon? For the record. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 1 Gonzalez: Good morning, Brandon Gonzalez, Administrative Officer. Schoen: Good morning, Renee Schoen, Assistant Corporation Counsel for the Department. II. Approval of Minutes Fuke: We have a quorum. The first order of business is the approval of the minutes for December 7, 2017. First of all, are there any revisions or additions to the minutes? Giffin: None. Fuke: I do have just one. On page 32, in reference to Gerald's comment, "That's why I'm seriously considering changing our rules to day..." I think it's supposed to be "to say..." Giffin: Where is that? What paragraph? Fuke: On page 32, the first (paragraph), under Mr. Takase, the second to the last line. It says, "I'm seriously considering changing our rules..." I think he said, "...to say that if you're shut down for liquor..." rather than "... to day..." Are there any other corrections or additions to the minutes? There were no other corrections or additions to the minutes. Fuke: If not, can I have a motion to accept the minutes (as corrected)? Giffin: I so move. Fuke: Is there a second? Mukai: Second. Ms. Giffin moved to approve the December 7, 2017, minutes as corrected; seconded by Mr. Mukai. Fuke: All those in favor? The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Nay? There was no opposition by the Board. Fuke: Motion's carried. The motion was carried unanimously. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 2 III. Hearings Fuke: First item, Case No. 2018-001, we are waiting for one of the representatives of the Licensee to attend, so with the rest of the Board's indulgence, can we move on to Case No. 2018-002? The Board was in agreement to take Case No. 2018-002 out of order. 2. CASE NO. 2018-002 (10:01 A.M.) In the Matter of the Accusation Against Food Pantry, Ltd., dba Holo Holo Market, located at Keauhou, Hawaii. Informal Hearing (Alternative I) on violation of Rule 5-2 of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, for failure to have a Person in Active Charge of the premises at all times while the premises was open for business to provide proper supervision in the exercise of the liquor license in accordance with the liquor laws. Fuke: Assistant Corporation Counsel, please read the Complaint & Accusation and Answer to the Complaint. Schoen: Thank you Mr. Chair. The Complaint states that on or about the 11th day of June 2018, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Food Pantry, Ltd., dba Holo Holo Market, did fail to have a person duly approved by the Department of Liquor Control as a person in active charge of the premises at all times while the premises was open for business to provide proper supervision in the exercise of the liquor license in accordance with the liquor laws, in violation of Rule 5-2 of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawai'i, State of Hawai'i. Fuke: Thank you very much. The Licensee, Food Pantry, Ltd., dba Holo Holo Market, has admitted to the allegations and stipulates that disciplinary action may be taken without the presence of the licensee and that the licensee has waived its right to a hearing and appeal. Fuke: Is there a motion to find the Licensee in violation of the charge? Mukai: So move. Giffin: Second. Mr. Mukai moved that the Licensee in Case No. 2018-002, be found in violation of Rule 5-2, of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii; seconded by Ms. Giffin. Fuke: Further discussion? OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 3 Mukai: Mr. Chair? Did the Food Pantry, Ltd., dba Holo Holo Market have any prior... Masuda: That'll come later. Fuke: After we go through the certification of violation, during the discussion on the penalty, I think we can discuss that. Mukai: Okay. I retract. Thank you. Fuke: Sure. Giffin: Mr. Chair? When I was reading through the information on this case, it shows this is a vendor in the hotel, right? Takase: Yes. Fuke: Correct. Giffin: Okay, I just wanted to be clear on that. Fuke: We're just trying to make a decision on whether we're going to find the Licensee in violation as charged. There was a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? There was no further discussion from the Board Members. Fuke: All those in favor say, "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Those opposed, "Nay." There was no opposition by the Board Members. Fuke: Motion is carried. The motion was unanimously carried. Fuke: Can I ask the Assistant Corporation Counsel to read the report from the Department, the date the license was issued, past violations and the recommendation for penalty? Schoen: Yes, Mr. Chair. The date of the original license was March 22, 2005. There are no previous violations by this Licensee. The Department is recommending a $1,000 fine with $500 suspended for one year from the date of service of the Decision and Order, on the condition that there's no similar violations relating to Rule 5-2, and that $500 is to be paid within 30 days upon receipt of the Decision and Order for the violation, and made payable to the Department of Liquor Control. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 4 Fuke: Is there any discussion on the penalty? Again, the Counsel and the Department is recommending a $1,000 fine with a $500 suspension. Is there any discussion on the penalty? Schoen: In this case, Mr. Chair, the Licensee took responsibility for this offense. They quickly addressed the issue and there was no previous violations. There were no actual liquor sales during the period of a person not in charge. That's the basis of recommendation. Fuke: Thank you. Could I have a motion on the penalty as recommended by the Corporation Counsel? Mukai: I move that we accept the recommendation as presented to us by the Corporation Counsel. Giffin: I second. Mr. Mukai moved that the Licensee in Case No. 2018-002, be assessed a penalty in the amount of $1,000 with $500 suspended for one year from the date of service of the Decision and Order, on the condition that there's no similar violations relating to Rule 5-2, and that $500 is to be paid within 30 days upon receipt of the Decision and Order; seconded by Ms. Giffin. Fuke: Any discussion on the penalty imposed? I just have one question. The report mentioned that there were two individuals on the premises and within the store when the inspector came out and noticed the violation. Because the report was not clear, my question is, was there any alcohol sale during that time and if so, whether the sale was consummated? Schoen: My understanding is there was no alcohol sale during that time. Gonzalez: That is correct. The investigator did not observe any sales while he was in the store; however, in his report he does note that between the hours of 3:00 P.M. and 4:00 P.M., the receipts from the register showed that there were four liquor sales totaling $60. Fuke: Okay. One other question, do you know what kind of immediate corrective action they took? They mentioned that business was slow, they had difficulty getting (employees) to come in that were PIAC, Person In Active Charge. Do you know how they rectified the situation and whether the next day they were able to open? Gonzalez: For that day, they immediately called someone in and someone was able to arrive there shortly after 4:00 P.M. to be in active charge of the premises. Subsequently, they made sure to have at least two people on shift. They actually have 54 employees and had all of them sign up to become card holders so this issue for scheduling doesn't occur. It's a small convenience store in the hotel so it's not going to have 10 or 12 staff at a time. That's what they did to rectify the situation. Fuke: Thank you very much. Any further questions by the Board Members? OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 5 Mukai: For point of information, again, this is my first Adjudication Board meeting. I totally support the recommendation of Corporation Counsel, but I have just a general question. I've looked at the past minutes and noticed that we do suspend some of the fine assuming they don't violate the conditions that they had imposed on them. Historically, has anyone that we suspended their penalty actually violated (the condition), where we incurred the remainder of the penalty? Takase: Yes, we have had in the past. Not very often, but maybe one out of ten cases did come in for another violation so that we end up collecting for example (referring to this case), the next fine would be a straight $1,000, but we would also collect the $500 (that was previously suspended). Mukai: Okay, thank you. Fuke: Any further questions by the Board Members? There were no further questions from the Board Members. Fuke: We already have a motion on the floor, seconded to accept the recommendation of the Assistant Corporation Counsel. All those in favor say, "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Those opposed, "Nay." There was no opposition by the Board Members. Fuke: Motion is carried unanimously. The motion was unanimously carried. Fuke: A written Decision and Order will be prepared and served upon the licensee, which shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days of its receipt. Fuke: (10:13 A.M.) Ms. Twentyfive hasn't arrived yet, so we'll move on to Case No. 2018-004. Giffin: Mr. Chair, I have a question about not just the case that we just had, but all of the other cases. I want to ask Brandon or Renee. How are the Licensees informed of today's proceedings against them? Is it in writing and it's mailed to them? Takase: That's what the Chair just said. A written Decision... Fuke: Yes. A written Decision and Order will be sent to the Licensee and with the instructions when to pay, within the thirty days upon receipt of... Giffin: So that's all spelled out? Fuke: Yes. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 6 Gonzalez: We specifically have an investigator personally serve the business with your (the Adjudication Board) Decision and Order after it's written out. Fuke: Do you mail it certified mail or just USPS? Takase: No, we actually send the investigator... Gonzalez: We serve, we send the investigator with the documents. They signed received. Fuke: You collect the check then? Takase: No. Gonzalez: No. Sometimes they do arrange it, but not necessarily. Masuda: They have thirty days to pay. Fuke: On Case No. 2018-004, in the Matter of the Accusation Against Wakayama Family Store, Inc., dba Kamuela Liquor Store, located at Kamuela, Hawaii. 3. CASE NO. 2018-004 (10:13 A.M.) In the Matter of the Accusation Against Wakayama Family Store, Inc., dba Kamuela Liquor Store, located at Kamuela, Hawai'i. Hearing (Alternative I) on violation of Rule 5-2 of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, for failure to have a Person in Active Charge of the premises at all times while the premises was open for business to provide proper supervision in the exercise of the liquor license in accordance with the liquor laws. Fuke: Before asking the Assistant Corporation Counsel to read the Complaint and Accusation, I know a number of us know the Licensee. If you have any questions about, or want to clear the air before getting involved in this application, my recommendation is to bring it up so that at least on the record it'll be clear that we know the Licensee but we can reasonably conclude that we won't have any conflict in reviewing and dispensing of this application. Mukai: Mr. Chair, I would like just inform the body that the Wakayama family and the Matsubara family, which is my mom's maiden name, go way back to the early 60's in Hilo, Hawaii. However, having said that, I have no financial interest in the Wakayama's and their business. Masuda: Mr. Chairman, may I? Fuke: Sure. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 7 Masuda: Mr. Mukai, can you be fair and impartial in sitting and hearing this? Mukai: Definitely. Masuda: Thank you. Giffin: Mr. Chairman, my husband and I have resided in Kamuela for over forty years now and during that time, we've known the Wakayama family including Alvin during that time. We've known them well. However, I can honestly say that I can sit here and make a very prudent decision on this case. Masuda: Can you be fair and impartial? Giffin: Yes. Fuke: Thank you. Masuda: That's the standard. Fuke: As Chair, I have the same situation as Board Member Giffin. The conclusion would be the same, Counsel? Masuda: Yes. Fuke: Can I ask Assistant Corporation Counsel to read the Complaint and Accusation and Answer to the Complaint? Schoen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Complaint states that on or about the 5th day of June 2018, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Wakayama Family Store, Inc., dba Kamuela Liquor Store, did fail to have a person duly approved by the Department of Liquor Control as a person in active charge of the premises at all times while the premises was open for business to provide proper supervision in the exercise of the liquor license in accordance with the liquor laws, in violation of Rule 5-2 of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Fuke: Thank you very much. The Licensee, Wakayama Family Store, Inc., dba Kamuela Liquor Store has admitted to the allegation and stipulates that disciplinary action may be taken without the presence of the licensee and that the licensee has waived its right to a hearing and appeal. Fuke: Can I have a motion to find the Licensee in violation of the charge? Giffin: I so move. Mukai: Second. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 8 Ms. Giffin moved that the Licensee in Case No. 2018-004, be found in violation of Rule 5-2, of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii; seconded by Mr. Mukai. Fuke: Any discussion on it? There was no discussion from the Board Members. Fuke: All those in favor say, "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed, "Nay." There was no opposition by the Board Members. Fuke: Motion is unanimously carried. The motion was unanimously carried. Fuke: Can I ask the Assistant Corporation Counsel to read the report from the Department regarding the license issued and the violation and the recommended penalty? Schoen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The original license was issued in July of 1986. There has been no previous violations. The Department is recommending $1,000 fine with $750 suspended for one year from the date of service of the Decision and Order on the condition that there are no similar Rule 5-2 violations, and that $250 is to be paid within thirty days upon receipt of the Decision and Order for the violation and made payable to the Department of Liquor Control. The Licensee did take responsibility for this violation. There has been no previous violation, and they did take action to address the issue by signing up for classes. There were no actual liquor sales during the period of no person in active charge. Fuke: Thank you very much. Is there any discussion on the penalty? Again, the recommended penalty is $1,000 with $750 suspended, unlike the previous application where it was $1,000 with $500 suspended. Schoen: Mr. Chair, I need to correct myself. I said there were no active sales. There actually were. Giffin: During that time? Schoen: During that time. Pawasarat: So why is it different than the other? OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 9 Takase: I can answer that. I'm glad you asked. The reason we differentiated between the two is because the person that was there actually was a card holder. Her card had just expired. The difference is that at least they had somebody (there) that knew the rules. Pawasarat: So she was educated and it's just that her license expired? Takase: Yes. Technically it's a violation. It's like if you don't have a driver license, it doesn't mean you don't know how to drive. Looking at that and the length of time that they had a license, we differentiated between the two. Fuke: And that being the first violation? Takase: Yes. Fuke: Any other questions regarding the recommended penalty? Pawasarat: I wanted to talk about that a little more. I can see the reasoning for that, but I could also see the reasoning likewise, if somebody does have that higher level card, they should be more aware. They should know better and know and understand the responsibility that it takes and know when their card expires, and be more "on it." Takase: Yes. Gonzalez: And that's why we filed the charge; to convey that seriousness and they should pay more attention to when their card expires, and keep up on that aspect. Right after being notified, she called the very next day to take her class to get her card renewed. Pawasarat: Okay, thank you. Fuke: Any further questions on the penalty? Again, the staff's attorney is recommending $1,000 with $750 suspension. I hear one of the Board Members suggesting that there may be some questions regarding that. This is the time, if you want to make a motion on the penalty whether to go the whole nine yards which is $1,000 with nothing suspended, or suspending the entire thing. That's within the purview of the Board, so I'll leave it up for discussion among the Board Members. Giffin: I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. I can understand Andi's question. Sid and I go round and round almost at every meeting that we've had about the fines and the thought behind the suspension of a certain amount of the listed fine. If it's any comfort to you, I want you to know that the suspension of a certain amount of the fine is usually done. Fortunately, we always have the wisdom of our Director to explain to us the rationale behind it. Usually that bodes well with me. Mukai: Mr. Chair? Point of information, what's the procedure in notifying card holders that their license (card) is expired? Takase: We don't. The card is good for five years. A lot of times, they're not at the same place (of business) anymore, so we don't send out notices. If we did, it becomes our OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 10 burden ("you didn't notify us so that's why we didn't come in to take the test"). There is no re -notification on our side. Gonzalez: It just has an expiration date on the card. Masuda: And it's to the person, not to the premises. Takase: Really, like Andi is saying, whoever the manager is, they have to update their list of who their managers are. They should be checking the dates at least annually when they renew their list with us, seeing who's (card is) going to expire in that year. It's on the individual, but it's also part of the Licensee's responsibilities at some point. Fuke: Did that answer your question? Mukai: Yes. Actually, I'm not really in favor of all these suspensions of fines. But, given the situation where the length of time the organization has been dispensing alcohol, and this is the first offense, I'm thinking this is really an oversight on their part. If this establishment, did you mention how long they've had a license? Schoen: (Since) 1986. Mukai: They've had a license for more than thirty years. To me it was mere oversight. Fuke: Any further comments by the Board Members? There were no further comments from the Board Members. Fuke: In a way, you don't really want to take economics into consideration when you look at the previous fine that was imposed. I think the previous fine was $500 suspended, but the volume of activity in terms of alcohol sales between Kamuela Liquor and the Pantry, I think, is substantially different. There is a potential for that level of gravity to magnify. The other thing, if they were actually selling the liquor during the time when there was technically no authorized PIAC, they were actually selling; whereas with the previous one, they weren't selling anything. It was more food oriented. That combined with the comment about them being more aware because they've had this license for a long time and ignorance is no excuse leaves me a little torn. But I'm not in a position to make any motion on penalties, so I'II leave it up to the Board Members to either accept whatever the Corporation Counsel is recommending or make your own suggestion. I'm open for any motion. Mukai: Point of information. If the Board Members feel that the fine should be a different figure than presented by Corporation Counsel, then we would actually vote nay on this motion? Takase: There's no motion on the floor. Fuke: No. There was no motion. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 11 Schoen: It was just a recommendation. Mukai: So we have to make our motion? Fuke: Exactly. Gonzalez: The rationale for the recommendation takes into account the circumstances of the violation, which takes into account pretty much every view you expressed. We could consider just a flat fine, nothing suspended. But this was different from the other case because they are not a general store. They sell alcohol. With the suspended fine there, it conveys the severity of the offense, recognizing the type of business being run. We could have not filed any charge at all, and it would never have come before you. We could have felt that it was a clerical oversight and their card expired and they had someone on duty making sure that sales were being done properly. But, we didn't do that because we still feel that the severity of the offense and keeping on top of your books, your paperwork, is important. That's digging deeper into what the recommendations take into account. It's trying to take into those factors. We take into account also whether or not a sale is actually occurring at that time, if it's an on -premise type of business, or if it's a retail we try and take a look at how many sales occurred during the time period that they're open for business. We've had people say in the past that there were no alcohol sales during the time we didn't have a person in charge, so maybe we should be given a more lenient penalty for that. That's the thinking behind the recommendations. Giffin: Mr. Chair, I have another question for Brandon. What is the schedule or how do you go about inspecting various licensees in our district, in the County? Gonzalez: We have four investigators for East Hawaii, three investigators for West Hawaii, and when I say West Hawaii, I am including North Kohala, a portion of Waimea, all the way down to Ka`u, Na`alehu side. But we actually have the Hilo investigators go through Kali and Na`alehu. With that being said, when they are on schedule, they are required to check on the licensees when they are on shift to look for violations. Some of the violations are to see if they have people on duty or if there's under -aged sales occurring, if they have proper signage, if they have their rules and proper paperwork there. We tend to see a lot more of these types of violations occurring around the renewal period, may be in May or June. Like how we might see more cases of people forgetting their reports of liquor sales, around those deadlines. These cases are possible throughout the year, so they go out daily to check. But they don't hit every licensee everyday because of the ratio of licensees to investigators. I hope that answered your question. Giffin: Yes. Takase: In general, I'd like them to hit every place maybe once a week. But for Waimea and Kohala are outlying areas, so maybe they get there once a month. Usually there's nothing, but they're supposed to go through their paperwork and see that everything is in order. If you read the report on this one, Investigator Frendo was out there so he checked up on them. The person that was the card holder, Alicia Brady, is (one of) their managers. When he got there, he was talking to her while thinking of something else (that she might be under the influence, or maybe she's was older or a little frail). That's what they're assigned to do, make sure the place is in good order. With stores, especially with a liquor OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 12 store Tike this, their paperwork should be (updated); they don't usually have kids frequenting the place. Mukai: Mr. Chair, I have a two-part point of information or question. First, as part of the liquor inspector's list of things to do, when they go to an establishment like this, do they ask to see a list of all the card holders and expiration dates? Is that a normal procedure? Gonzalez: We instruct the licensees that their license needs to be posted for clear visibility and that the card holder list which you're referring to has to be ready for ease of inspection. Our advice to them is to post it next to their license so it's in the same area. Sometimes because they don't want people ripping it down, it's in the general vicinity like by the register or by the manager's desk. Mukai: The second part to my question is in instances where the inspector actually gets to view the list of permit holders, what percentage of their inspection do they find a person's name listed on there that their card has expired? Not just the employees that are on the premises, but any of the card holders on the list. Do you have any record of that? Gonzalez: We don't keep that specific statistic. What happens more often is people quit or don't work there, so you can see the names on the list that are crossed out. According to our rules, the duty is upon the licensee to update that persons in active charge list with us whenever there are changes. Sometimes, for whatever reason, we'll have a situation where the most recent list was taped but it fell because the tape wasn't good, so the most recent list wasn't up there. Takase: We tell them that they should renew it annually. When they do their renewals, they should update their list because we find that they have people that are current card holders but they don't appear on the list. That would be a violation. But sometimes, they have notified us, so it won't be a violation. We will send them a new list each time they notify us of changes to it. But between us sending it to them and them actually posting it, it sometimes doesn't happen. Our investigators won't know off -hand what the current list is. We're trying to get modernized online so the investigators could actually pull up all of that information on their phone or tablet we go to. Right now they have to rely on the list and that's why we have it posted. Sometimes, (the employees) don't carry their cards with them. They're supposed to, but it's not required. The investigator can just look at the list to verify that they are a carded manager. That's the "check -off' for the investigators. If a person says they're the manager but they don't have their card on them, then they can refer back to the list to double-check whether they are in fact listed. There's still some paper involved. We're trying to move past that. We're starting to get there, but until then, we still rely on those things. Pawasarat: Director Takase? They only sell liquor at this establishment? Takase: Primarily. I believe they have some other things, but it's not like a 7 -Eleven. Fuke: Can I follow up on your question, along those lines? Does Kamuela Liquor have a different license than for example, Holo Holo Pantry? OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 13 Takase: No, I think they're both retail general licenses. It's just that their focus is (alcohol sales). We don't have too many actual liquor store left anymore. There's Kamuela Liquor, Kadota's Liquor, Kona Wine Market on the west side. Fuke: Kadota's and Kamuela Liquor would have the same license as Holo Holo Market? Takase: Yes. Even KTA-they are all just retail general. A lot of our convenience stores have the same license, but they probably have a lot more non -alcohol sales, and they have consequently a lot more traffic in their store with people buying other things. One of the big issues with all the stores is to combat under -aged sales. The other places have a lot more of it just because they have a lot more traffic and a lot more under -aged people in the store. If kids walk into Kamuela Liquor Store, they'll (be noticed). Maybe they'll have sodas or something, but they probably won't be their primary customers. Mukai: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make the motion that per the recommendation of the Corporation Counsel, to accept a fine of $1,000, $250 penalty now and $750 suspended. I'll explain further the rationale for my motion. Giffin: I second. Mr. Mukai moved that the Licensee in Case No. 2018-004, be assessed a penalty in the amount of $1,000 with $750 suspended for one year from the date of service of the Decision and Order on the condition that there are no similar violations to Rule 5-2, and that $250 is to be paid within thirty (30) days upon receipt of the written Decision and Order; seconded by Ms. Giffin. Fuke: There's a motion and and a second. Can we have a discussion on the penalty? Mukai: Mr. Chair, let me explain the rationale for my motion. True, being a liquor store and liquor sales are higher than say a Holo Holo Pantry. There were liquor sales that day. To me, a more severe violation would be to have someone on the premises that's not a card carrier (holder). I've noticed in the past that the fines for establishments that for whatever reasons did not have a card carrying personnel on the premises at the time of the inspection, assuming they had decent rationale as to the reason, I think those cases are more severe than someone like Wakayama where the person was a card carrying person. He or she knows how to handle sales of liquor, but due to clerical or managerial oversight, her card wasn't renewed. Not having someone with a card on premises is a more severe violation. In the past, the fine for that violation was $1,000, $500 up front, $500 suspended. From where I sit here, I believe this is a less severe violation than if someone did not have a card carrying person on the premises. Fuke: Is there any further discussion? Giffin: Just for clarification, Mr. Chair, the maker of the motion is suggesting that we accept what Corporation Counsel... Fuke: The motion, which is seconded, is $1,000 fine with $750 suspended. That's the motion, which is what the Counsel is recommending. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 14 Giffin: Yes. That's what I wanted to validate. Fuke: Any further comments on that? I can understand the rationale and I have a bit of heartburn because the previous applicant to begin with didn't have any violation, so when you look at it from that standpoint, they're even. Secondly, it's true you have a person with an expired license as opposed to, like in the Holo Holo situation without any license to begin with, the question is whether there was any (liquor) sales during that time. It seemed like there was alcohol sales at Kamuela Liquor and no alcohol sale on the other side. Thirdly, which has really very little relevance, given the circumstance of Holo Holo where they say they're struggling and having difficulty getting the personnel; and knowing Kamuela Liquor (Store), they're much more, from an affordability standpoint, able to withstand a $500 fine versus a $250 less than the other one. Masuda: Mr. Chairman, if I may correct you on a factual point? I believe in the previous case, there were four sales. Fuke: But not during the time of... Giffin: It was. Fuke: During the time? Masuda: Yes. Fuke: Okay, thank you. Takase: When these cases come to us, Brandon, myself, Corporation Counsel, we go through all of the cases to come up with a recommendation. We try to take everything you are talking about into consideration. Once you see the Island Naturals case, you may be more confused. There are three of the same violations, but we've come up with different fine amounts for each one. We take each case and try to determine a fine. The standard fine is $1,000 with $500 suspended. In this case, we looked at two things to mitigate it: 1) at least she had a card, so she's aware of what has to happen. That's why I say that even though her card expired, she still has the knowledge; 2) they have been in business a long time and they have had a clean record. One of the things I wanted to do when I came in was to try to recognize good licensees. As a Board, we just punish bad behavior, but we take into almost no consideration what your past record was like. If you had a bad record, we will recognize that. But, where you had a good record, there seems to have been no real recognition of that. We try to at least give them some recognition of that. Those are the two reasons why we reduced their fine in this case. In the last case, you'll see we actually increased it. We are prepared to explain that as well. Fuke: Very interesting. Go ahead (to Mr. Mukai). Mukai: In favor of my motion, to reason one again, the length of time the enterprise has been in operation, and I spoke previously as to the rationale of why I made the motion, and I'd like to also add that I noticed in the past minutes, the violator's ability to pay has been taken into consideration. To me, that shouldn't be a part of the equation. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 15 Gonzalez: That's a good observation and I think it comes into play if the Director is going to set up a payment plan with the licensee. But you're right, it shouldn't. Mukai: I just see in past minutes, because of someone's inability to pay, shouldn't have too much to do with the... Gonzalez: ...how much fine is imposed. Mukai: Right. If you have a DUI conviction, it doesn't matter if you're a multi -millionaire or someone that's destitute. It's still a DUI conviction. Gonzalez: Right. That's a good observation. Takase: We have toyed with it in the past and looking at their ability to pay. In general, punishment should not so much fit the crime, but it should be punishment to that individual. So $1,000 fine to a Costco is probably nothing. But $1,000 or $500 to a small licensee, is probably substantial. We tried to look at their sales in the past and fit the punishments to the crime. We could probably taylor the punishment to that individual licensee, but across the board it was (all over the place), and it was becoming too cumbersome to administer that way. We went back to the flat fines where it's pretty much the same for everybody. It makes it easier for us to enforce. We were getting accused of favoritism for adjusting the fines and we didn't have a strong formula for it. We looked at the gross sales and decided you were either a big or small (licensee). That's how we would distinguish the two. In the end, we felt it was much harder to justify that way. Fuke: Any further discussion? Because this is a very sensitive issue, the Chair is going to ask for a roll call vote. Masuda: That's a good vote. Fuke: I'll ask the maker of the motion, Mr. Mukai, for your vote. Mukai: Aye. Fuke: The seconder? Giffin: I am, and my vote is Aye. Fuke: Andi? Pawasarat: Aye. Fuke: I vote Aye. The reason being that I stood corrected when I thought and said there were no liquor sales for the previous applicant. Since there was liquor sales and the fact that there was no experienced PIAC, expired or otherwise, I feel accounts for the $250 extra dollars Holo Holo will have to pay. Given that, I vote Aye. Fuke: The motion is unanimously carried. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 16 The motion was unanimously carried. Fuke: We will take a short recess. The Board recessed at 10:45 A.M. The Board reconvened at 10:48 A.M. Fuke: The meeting is called to order. 1. CASE NO. 2018-001 (10:48 A.M.) In the Matter of the Accusation Against Island Naturals Kona, Inc., dba Island Naturals Market & Deli (Kona), located at Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Informal Hearing (Alternative II) on violation of Rule 5-2 of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, for failure to have a Person in Active Charge of the premises at all times while the premises was open for business to provide proper supervision in the exercise of the liquor license in accordance with the liquor laws. Julia Twentyfive, representing the licensee, was present. Fuke: Can I ask the Assistant Corporation Counsel to read the Complaint and Accusation and Answer to the Complaint? Schoen: Sure. Mr. Chair, before I begin, sitting to my left, representing the licensee, is Julia Twentyfive and I'm Renee Schoen, Assistant Corporation Counsel on behalf of the Department. I will read the charge for the Board. The charge states that on or about the 26th day of February 2018, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Island Naturals Kona, Inc., dba Island Naturals Market & Deli (Kona), did fail to have a person duly approved by the Department of Liquor Control as a person in active charge of the premises at all times while the premises was open for business to provide proper supervision in the exercise of the liquor license in accordance with the liquor laws, in violation of Rule 5-2 of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Fuke: Thank you very much. Before we go into the motion, I would like to explain that you (Julia Twentyfive) will get a chance to provide testimony after the Board makes an initial decision on whether to find the licensee in violation of the charge. (to the Board) Could I have a motion to that effect? Giffin: Mr. Chair, I so move. Mukai: Second. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 17 Ms. Giffin moved that the Licensee in Case No. 2018-001, be found in violation of Rule 5-2, of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii; seconded by Mr. Mukai. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded to find the licensee in violation of the charge as read by the (Assistant) Corporation Counsel. Any discussion? There was no discussion from the Board Members. Fuke: All those in favor say, "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Those opposed, "Nay." There was no opposition by the Board Members. Fuke: Motion is carried. The motion was unanimously carried. Fuke: Please identify yourself and say whatever you want to say regarding the charge. Twentyfive: Yes, thank you. I want to apologize for being late. I accidentally messed up the time. Fuke: No problem. Twentyfive: My name is Julia and I've been with Island Naturals for about two and a half years. I was the acting manager that day and I did leave at 5:00 P.M. with the thought in mind that my closing supervisor's card was valid. However, it had expired. His was the only one that expired, but he was the one there, and I did believe. An officer came in the last two hours and within that three-hour gap from 5:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. there was no one in active charge because his card had expired. I do know how serious this is and as soon as I found out about this citation, I signed up three people at a time every week thereafter and now as you can see from your records, I believe we have almost twenty with valid cards. I do want you to know that I did take this very seriously and acted on it right away. I have been eager to get here to this case so we can do what's necessary to put it behind us. That's all, thank you. Fuke: Thank you very much. Are there any questions from the Board to the licensee's representative? Giffin: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Is a list posted in your store? Twentyfive: Yes, absolutely. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 18 Giffin: So it was readily available for you to look at and to see if the person you were going to have take your place, because I think the record says that you were 01? Twentyfive: Yes. Giffin: So you did not check the list even though it is posted? Twentyfive: Yes, I failed to know that, to check those expirations, I did. Absolutely. On that day, I did, at that time. Fuke: Mr. Mukai? Mukai: In regards to the list, I noticed that the copy that we have provided to us was dated February 14, 2018, and know that the violation was sometime thereafter? Was the list that was posted prior to this one that we have photocopied, was the individual in question on that previous list? Takase: She was talking about Mr. Vine. Twentyfive: Yes. Takase: He was not listed as a manager. His card expired in February 2016. Fuke: Any further questions? Mukai: Actually, I have another question. In regards to Mr. Vine, did he express to you prior that he had a valid card? Twentyfive: That was always my understanding, yes. The entire management team has recently taken over. The general manager, his assistant and myself, all within the last year so it's been quite a learning curve for us all. It was pretty much sink or swim and this just happened to get caught in the middle of that. Unfortunately, a very serious thing. Mukai: I have another question. Fuke: Sure. Mukai: So going forward, is Island Naturals implementing some kind of procedure where a new hire says I have a card; is there a procedure in place where you can actually verify their statement? Twentyfive: We're just going to have all opening cashiers and closing cashiers get a card if they don't have one, no matter what. That's why we have so many now. Mukai: Thank you. Fuke: Any further questions? OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 19 Giffin: I have a question. So if I understood you correctly, please correct me if I'm wrong, it's my understanding that you said Mr. Vine implied to you that his card was current. Is that correct? Twentyfive: When I asked him he said, "no it expired." But up until that point, when we would all discuss cards and so on, he never gave me any impression that it had expired. If he knew that or not, I don't know. I don't know if he honestly knew that his card was expired or not. But, my impression was that it was valid up until they came in. Then we all found out it was expired. No, it's not something we look at all the time, and yes, we didn't have it posted where we could...we lost track of that one, the most important one. Fuke: Thank you. Andi, any questions? Can I ask the (Assistant) Corporation Counsel to read the report regarding the license issued and recommended penalty? Schoen: Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. The date of the original license was December 24, 2008. There's been no previous Rule 5-2 violations, but the licensee does have other prior charges. One with respect to, in 2013, sale of liquor to a minor. There's also, in 2014, failure to have the liquor Rules and Regulations on the premise. Our recommendation, basically, is that $1,000 fine be imposed with $250 suspended and that $750 be payable to the Department of Liquor Control within thirty days of issuance of the Decision and Order. The basis for that recommendation is just looking at the circumstances of this violation, we feel like the licensee was not very forthright about the time that the person in active charge left the premises. The worker said that the person in active charge left at 6:00 P.M. The schedule shows 6:00 P.M. but you hear Ms. Twentyfive saying she clocked out at 5:00 P.M. That's the basis for our recommendation. Fuke: The recommended penalty is $1,000 with $250 suspended. We're into discussion before going to a motion. Do you want to say anything or to clarify? Twentyfive: Just quickly that I clocked out of the system at 5:00 P.M. but I stayed and shopped and I had to pull the forklift in and so I left the building at 6:00 P.M. However, and not exactly, around 45 minutes to an hour later, but I was not clocked in, just for clarification. Fuke: Thank you very much. Is there any discussion before the motion on the penalty? Again, Counsel is recommending $1,000 with $250 suspended. Mukai: Mr. Chair, I move to accept the recommendation of the (Assistant) Corporation Counsel which is a $1,000 fine, $750 payable within thirty days, $250 suspended. Fuke: Is there a second on that? Giffin: No. Fuke: We'II do a second for discussion purposes only. Masuda: Yes, that's correct. Giffin: Then I will second. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 20 Mr. Mukai moved that the Licensee in Case No. 2018-001, be assessed a penalty in the amount of $1,000 with $250 suspended for one year from the date of service of the Decision and Order on the condition that there are no similar violations to Rule 5-2, and that $250 is to be paid within thirty (30) days upon receipt of the written Decision and Order; seconded by Ms. Giffin. Fuke: Moved and seconded that a $1,000 fine with $250 suspended. It's now open for discussion. Geri? Giffin: Brandon or Renee, did I understand you correctly in saying that there were two other offenses in the past? One was in 2008, for sale to a minor? Renee: 2013. Giffin: Okay. So there was no offense in 2008? The first one was in 2013? Fuke: The license was issued in 2008. Giffin: I see. So the issuance of the license was 2008? Renee: Correct. Giffin: Subsequent to that, in 2013, there was an offense, a sale to a minor? Renee: Correct. Giffin: And were there any other offenses? Renee: Failure to have the liquor Rules and Regulations in 2014. Giffin: Listed, I mean posted? Gonzalez: On premises. We give them a copy of the Rules and the laws and they're supposed to keep that on the premises for their reference. Giffin: Okay. So this is now their third offense? Gonzalez: Within five years, yes. Giffin: Yes. Takase: Yes, but I would caution you about using those prior offenses because typically, you have to treat similar offenses. You can't lump all offenses together and say you had priors so I'm going to punish you more. If it's a similar offense, then we would take that into account in how we sentence them. This is basically their first offense of this type. Fuke: Andi? OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 21 Pawasarat: I just wanted to clarify. You left work early because you were sick? But you went shopping for 45 minutes after? Twentyfive: Yes. Pawasarat: And you were under the assumption that there was somebody who was licensed on the premises when you left anyway. Twentyfive: Oh, yes, absolutely. It didn't even cross my mind once. I was thought everyone was active; especially our lead supervisor. Pawasarat: I can't see that his name isn't even on the February 18th list. That's kind of a big oversight by your organization. Twentyfive: Yes, I agree. And it's a very serious one. Fuke: Dwayne, do you have any questions? Mukai: No, I did make the motion and I speak for the motion. Kudos to Island Naturals and how they remedied the situation where they are actually having everyone carry a card. That's seems very ideal. So, for their remediation program for this violation, hats off to them. Fuke: Any further comments or questions of Counsel or the licensee? There were no further questions from the Board Members. Fuke: Ready for the action. Again, the motion is $1,000 with $250 suspended and penalty to be paid within thirty days upon receipt of the Decision and Order. All those in favor say, "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Those opposed, "Nay." There was no opposition by the Board Members. Fuke: Unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously. Fuke: Thank you very much, M'am, for being here. Twentyfive: Thank you. Fuke: A written Decision and Order will be prepared and served upon the licensee, which shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days of its receipt. Twentyfive: Thank you for taking the time. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 22 Fuke: Thank you very much. We are back to Item No. 4. 4. CASE NO. 2018-005 (11:09 A.M.) In the Matter of the Accusation Against DMM, Inc., dba Keaau Shell Foodmart, located at Keaau, Hawaii. Informal Hearing (Alternative I) on violation of Rule 3-8(A) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, for selling liquor before the hours established by the Commission (before 6:00 A.M.). Fuke: Ms. Schoen, can you read the Complaint and Accusation? Schoen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. On or about the 30th day of July 2018, in the County and State of Hawaii, DMM, Inc., dba Keaau Shell Foodmart, sold liquor before the hours of business established by the Commission (before 6:00 A.M.), in violation of Rule 3-8(A) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Fuke: Thank you very much. The licensee, DMM, Inc. dba Keaau Shell Foodmart, has admitted to the allegations and stipulates that disciplinary action may be taken without the presence of the licensee and that the licensee has waived its right to a hearing and appeal. Could I have a motion to find the licensee in violation of the charge? Giffin: I so move. Fuke: Is there a second? Pawasarat: Second. Ms. Giffin moved that the Licensee in Case No. 2018-001, be found in violation of Rule 5-2, of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii; seconded by Ms. Pawasarat. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded, with the seconded to Andi. All those in favor say, "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Those opposed, "Nay." There was no opposition by the Board Members. Fuke: The motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 23 Fuke: Can I ask you again, Ms. Schoen, to read the report relative to the dates of the license issued, violations and recommendation for penalty? Schoen: Yes, Mr. Chair. The original license was issued in 1999. There's been no previous violations within the last five years. No previous Rule 3-8 violation. Fuke: Can we go into the recommended penalty? Schoen: Sure. The recommendation is a $1,500 fine with $1,000 suspended for one year from the date of the service of the Decision and Order on the condition that there's no similar violations of Rule 3-8, and that $500 to be paid within thirty days from the receipt of the Decision and Order. Fuke: Can I have a motion on the penalty and then we'll go into discussion? Mukai: So move. Giffin: Second. Mr. Mukai moved that the Licensee in Case No. 2018-005, be assessed a penalty in the amount of $1,500 with $1,000 suspended for one year from the date of service of the Decision and Order on the condition that there are no similar violations to Rule 3-8, of the written Decision and Order; seconded by Ms. Giffin. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded to accept Counsel's recommended penalty which is $1,500 with $1,000 suspended. Is there any discussion on the penalty? Giffin: No, but at this point we're going to ask for the rationale, right? Fuke: Now's the time. So, is that your question? Giffin: Yes. Schoen: The basis of the recommendation is basically the licensee accepted responsibility for the violation. They immediately cooperated with the Department's investigation. They took immediate steps to better secure the alcohol during non -sale hours by purchasing a lock. They also took immediate steps with the staff about non -sale hours with respect to re-training and updating their cashier hardware to prompt the staff when it's not a permissible time to sell alcohol, and no previous violations within the last five years. Fuke: Any further questions? Mukai: Mr. Chairman, point of information. I think this a different class of violation that's why the fine is $1,500 versus the previous $1,000? Takase: Yes. So this was basically a sale after hours. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 24 Fuke: As opposed to the absence of a person in charge. So, the ceiling is different? Takase: Yes. We can actually go up to $2,000. It's a little more serious than the card. It's a little different than the norm we see. Normally we see one selling after hours; our cut-off for stores is 11:00 P.M. and 2:00 A.M. for bars, so you usually see the sales right after that. This one was actually 4:00 A.M. and it wasn't through our investigation. We actually got a complaint from the person that purchased it, so we followed up to see what was going on. To the licensee's benefit, they provided us with all the information that implicated them. That's one of the reasons we are recommending a greater leniency than we normally would. That, plus they did take steps to secure the liquor, which is not a requirement, but they did find a way to secure their coolers. We had recommended that they move the item (a flavored tea, hard tea) away from the other ice teas so that it wouldn't be mistakenly grabbed. The manufacturers try to manufacture those types of things very similar to non-alcoholic beverages which does create some problems. Fuke: Any further questions? Andi. Pawasarat: Yes, I wanted to discuss a little just because you said that the register does come up with a prompt saying that it is an alcoholic item, and the only way to get through is to override. Takase: Yes. Brandon and I went out to look at this. That was one of our first questions. Just looking at the two cans, you may not necessarily know, but when we scanned the can, it does say "ask for birthdate," so they have to override it. Probably in 99% of our cases, people have the equipment that will notify them that they're selling alcohol. What we see happening is the cashiers just override through it. That happened in this case. The only other thing I can think of is that the hours were so far off that nobody was expecting liquor sales during those hours. Pawasarat: I mean, it's just a good thing there wasn't a DUI checkpoint and she had gotten over and had an alcohol beverage level that turned out positive, in which case would've been a huge problem. Takase: When she got home to drink her tea, she noticed and reported it to us. She was upset that she was sold... Gonzalez: ...an alcoholic beverage when she wanted to buy a non-alcoholic beverage. But the thing to remember, too, is the transaction wasn't only for the ice tea itself, she paid for gas and she bought cigarettes, and it was at 4:00 A.M. and I believe the cashier said they may have been tired and fatigued at the time. So it was part of a bundle transaction and she thought she was buying regular tea. Takase: The owners said that going through their machine now, they can actually lock out all sales during those hours, so that's what they've done. We tried to give him some credit that he's working with us and he's implementing measurers to prevent this problem in the future. That's why, rather than being a $750 suspension, we gave him a $1,000 in this case. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 25 Masuda: Gerald, not related to the liquor sale, but when they buy cigarettes, do they have to key in another birthdate? Takase: I'm not sure, but I suspect there is. Pawasarat: There's probably a prompt for that. Takase: She was in her forties, so it wasn't a question of her age. Masuda: If the register comes up with a prompt, she might've thought, "ok, I already did the birthdate thing." Takase: Maybe. We didn't really get a good response as to why. Fuke: Is there any further discussion? Again, the penalty is $1,500 with $1,000 suspended, payable within thirty days on receipt of the D&O. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor of the penalty please say, "Aye." There was no further discussion from the Board Members. The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: All those opposed, "Nay." There was no opposition by the Board Members. Fuke: The motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously. Fuke: A written Decision and Order will be prepared and served upon the licensee, which shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days of its receipt. IV. Unfinished Business There was no unfinished business. Takase: No (unfinished business), but we will have a meeting in November. You will meet in December. The meeting is going to be in Hilo. Fuke: December 6, 2018, at 1:30 P.M. Takase: Yes. V. New Business There was no new business. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 26 VI. Announcements Meetings of Liquor Adjudication Board December 6, 2018, 1:30 P.M., Hilo Lagoon Centre, 101 Aupuni Street, Unit 230, Hilo, Hawaii. January 17, 2018, 10:00 A.M., location TBA. VII. Adjournment Fuke: Having no business to consider, can I have a motion to adjourn? Giffin: 1 so move. Fuke: Second? Mukai: Second. Ms. Giffin moved to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Mukai. Fuke: All those in favor please say, "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: All those opposed, "Nay." There was no opposition by the Board Members. Fuke: The motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 A.M. Id Takase Director The October 18, 2018, Liquor Adjudication Board minutes were approved as circulated via email/mail on November 29, 2018, by the Liquor Adjudication Board of the County of Hawaii on December 6, 2018. OCTOBER 18, 2018 - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES 27