Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-19 Liquor Adjudication Board Minutes KonaCOUNTY OF HAWAI`I DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR CONTROL LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MINUTES — DECEMBER 19, 2024 HANAMA PLACE 75-5706 KUAKINI HIGHWAY, SUITE 107 KAI LUA-KONA, HAWAI `I I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Sidney Fuke at 10:00 A.M. at the Department of Liquor Control, Kona Meeting Room, Hanama Place, 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 107, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. The following were present and constituted a quorum: Board Members: Sidney Fuke, Chair Howard Kelly, Vice Chair Ceci Davenport, Board Member Michael Hughes, Board Member Dawn Raymond, Board Member Absent and Excused: None Others Present: Gerald Takase, Director Brandon Gonzalez, Administrative Officer Ihna Kandatsu Kang, Deputy Corporation Counsel (Department/Prosecutor) Diana Mellon -Lacey, Deputy Corporation Counsel (Board) Stacie Waltjen, Licensing Officer Hau`oli Sayles, Board Secretary Fuke: So, we'd like to begin the meeting, first of all as a reminder could you please silence your phones so that we can continue the meeting uninterrupted. I'd like to have the Board members introduce themselves so that at least the public knows what they sound like. We can start from our far right, Mr. Hughes? Hughes: Mike Hughes, Board Member. Kelly: Howard Kelly, Board member. Raymond: Dawn Raymond, Board member. Davenport: Ceci Davenport, Board member. Mellon -Lacey: Deputy Corporation Counsel Diana Mellon -Lacey, advising the Board. Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Kandatsu Kang: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Inha Kandatsu Kang on behalf of the Department of Liquor. Gonzalez: Brandon Gonzalez, Administrative Officer for the Department. Takase: Gerald Takase, Director for the Department. Sayles: Hau`oli Sayles, Board Secretary. Takase: Stacie Waltjen is our Licensing Officer. II. Approval of Minutes (10:00 AM) Fuke: Thank you very much. First of all, approval of the minutes of May 16, if you had a chance to review them and if so any objections? Kelly: Move to approve. Hughes: Second. Board Member Kelly moved to approve the May 16, 2024, meeting minutes as circulated; Seconded by Board Member Hughes. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded to have them approved, any further discussion? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: All those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed, "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 2 OF 56 III. Hearings (10:02 AM) 1. CASE NO. 2024-002 (10:02 AM) In the Matter of the Accusation Against Troon Beverages, Inc., dba Volcano Golf Course, located at 99-1621 Pi'i Mauna Drive, Volcano, 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 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 supervision in the exercise of the liquor license in accordance with the liquor laws. REPRESENTING LICENSEE: Robert Ueoka, Authorized Agent, and Dawn Crozier, General Manager. Fuke: I understand Ms. Deputy Corporation Counsel, the licensee would want to waive the reading of the complaint? Ueoka: That's correct, Mr. Chair. Gonzalez: Mr. Chair, thank you. Can we have the licensee and the attorney for the licensee make their appearance on the record please? Ueoka: Good morning, Mr. Chair, Vice Chair, members of the Adjudication Board, Mr. Takase, I'm Robert Ueoka on behalf of Volcano Golf Course, present to my left is Dawn Crozier, she's the General Manager of Volcano Golf Course. We did submit a stipulation of waiver admitting to the charge, and we'd like to waive reading of the charge and the opportunity to provide additional information to the Board. Fuke: Thank you very much, Mr. Ueoka. Given that, could I have a motion to find the licensee in violation of the charge? Kelly: So moved. Hughes: Second. Board Member Kelly moved to find the Licensee in Case No. 2024-002 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, for failure 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 supervision in the exercise of the liquor license in accordance with the liquor laws; Seconded by Board Member Hughes. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded the violation as charged, is there any discussion among the members? MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 3 OF 56 There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed say "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: The charge is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: Prior to assessing the penalty, Mr. Ueoka, you may proceed with your presentation of the circumstances surrounding the violation. Ueoka: Great, thank you. This occurred in late 2023, it involves not having an employee with a manager card on duty. We were issued this liquor license in June 2023, about four to five months prior, so we're still in the process of developing our operations. We were short staffed unfortunately at that time. Since this incident, we did make various corrections, for example we added now have eight people with manager cards, I think at the time we only had about three. So, we shored that up and made sure we had more coverage with people with manager cards. Obviously, we're going to make sure that a person with a manager card is on duty at all times we're open. We've also revised our job description to require a manager card for any person working in the golf pro shop. I just want to put that out front as far as corrective measures. As to this specific incident, what happened was we had an employee that was on duty, he did have a liquor card but he was not 21. He was on duty at that time, so what we did at that time, we had a sign saying "No alcohol sales" when he was on duty. Since then, of course we revamped the operations, we eliminated that possibility, so now we do have a required person 21 years and older with a manager card on duty. We realize, maybe the interpretation is having a sign, "No alcohol sales" and having a person under 21 on premises could be acceptable but we realize that's not acceptable, and we did cure that so that will never happen again. And like I said we'll make sure to have a person on duty that is 21 and older with a manager card in the golf pro shop. Fuke: Board Members, do you have any questions of Mr. Ueoka or the Licensee? Davenport: So, you see the receipts here, and I understand that it doesn't show every single receipt individually, but it's a lot of American Express, Visa, Mastercard, what about cash sales? Because I don't see any receipts for cash sales, and how are those handled because that could be different than a card that is being swiped, a receipt that is being generated, and you have it and then the customer has it? MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 4 OF 56 Ueoka: Yes, I know we don't have many cash sales, but we make sure we keep a record, if I can just make some quick comments, and also whenever alcohol is sold if that person did sell any, we made sure that we did have a manager present at the time. I appreciate the Department's efforts to do the investigation and they were very thorough on it, but as far as when he sold to the best of our knowledge, was always a manager was there. I know he had to sign the employee code that he was the person that closed the transaction, but as far as we recall, a manager was present at all times, maybe if you want to say anything more, Dawn? Crozier: It's American Express because we don't accept cash, so if someone does have cash, it's rung under a credit card that's kept on file, so that we can accommodate all of our customers there, so that's why you see American Express a lot, instead of the cash. Davenport: So, American Express is treated as cash? Crozier: No, it's an American Express credit card, so basically it's my credit card and I take the cash for the day because we don't have bank deposits or anything like that. So, we can't be strictly no cash because we have so many customers who pay with cash, so this is our work around to do that. So, if there are a lot of American Express but it's the same number, it's my card, so it might have been cash for that day. Davenport: So, and then another question on page 4 of 48, the second paragraph, where it starts, "CROZIER then stated that SOISTIVIAN didn't even sign in yet because he had just gotten there an hour ago." So, I would think if I had an employee coming to work, he's not waiting an hour to sign in? Crozier: He had not signed the timesheet yet. Davenport: But yet he's selling though correct? Crozier: He was on duty, yes he was there to work, but he had not put his time down. Davenport: So that hour? Crozier: He was technically working and he put his time down at the end of his shift. We don't have a clock because we don't have electricity. Fuke: Anymore questions? I just have a few, maybe it's kind of directed to you or maybe to the staff, but I noticed that some of the sales were to you, so I guess maybe it's a question of the Department, so if for example the minor was like an adult 21 and above, would that have been a violation selling it to you because you are already a PIAC (person in active charge), right? Crozier: Yes, it would be. Takase: Well, if she was there on premises, I don't think we would have Crozier: I'm the PIAC (person in active charge), I would be at work so technically it covers the rule, right? But he wouldn't be selling it too, like he wouldn't be underage selling it, I was on duty I haven't left for the day. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 5 OF 56 Fuke: So, if he were 21 years old and he sold it to you because that's who he had sold the alcohol to, so there would not have been a violation? Takase: Well, since she was there it wouldn't be, but even if he's 21, they need to have a manager on duty. So if she's there, yes I don't think we would have charged them, but when she's not there, just because he's 21 he could not sell without having a manager there. Crozier: Ora blue card? Takase: Well, we gave him a blue card so he's taken the test but because he's not 21 he can't really be the manager. Crozier: Right, exactly, yes. Fuke: So, those times that he sold it to you, if that person were 21 and above, it would not have been a violation, correct? Gonzalez: Only if she was on duty. Crozier: Which I'm always on duty because I'm salary, yes so technically I was the manager on duty, so even if he had sold it to me, it falls within the correct legality. If he was under and nobody was there with a PIAC (person in active charge) card, then it would be illegal. Takase: Well, so if that was the only situation where he was just selling to her, we would not have charged that, even if she's I suppose she's not technically on duty because now she's buying the liquor, but you know she's there so you know it's kind of cutting things a little thin, so we would have not charged them. Hughes: So, Gerald, under the liquor regulations, can a manager be buying liquor? Takase: No, not while they are on duty. Hughes: But she's always on duty. Takase: Well, if she's there, you know. She was there but she was going home I think, that's why she was buying liquor. Crozier: It was the end of my day. Takase: Yeah, so you know technically it would still be a violation, but I don't think that's why we charged them for that specific instance. You know, he was there at times by himself basically and I kind of understood that they had some problems with staffing, but you know we kind of warned them the first time and told them what to do to just put up a signs. If he's the only one there he can't sell, but it kind of continued and that's why we're here. So, I think what Robert said they've corrected it now, they have sufficient personnel, so hopefully it will not be a problem in the future. Fuke: So essentially then, the sale to a person in active charge is okay as long as you're taking it home, you're taking it away. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 6 OF 56 Crozier: We're not drinking while working. Fuke: You're not drinking on the premise, because if you're drinking on the premises then you would have seen that you have another kind of violation, drinking on the job. Takase: And technically it's not, but since she was there we're not going to quibble about it, but technically while she's there and she's working, she really can't be buying the liquor herself. Fuke: Okay, and then the other thing is like you used the American Express and maybe you get credits so kudos to you, but it's another way for you to have a better accountability of what it's been sold then for cash sales? Crozier: Yes. Fuke: So, any other questions among the Board Members? There was no further discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, will the Department provide the recommendation for the penalty in this case. Kandatsu Kang: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Inha Kandatsu-Kang on behalf of the Department of Liquor. Brandon will be providing the recommendation. Gonzales: Thank you, Ihna. For the hearings today I will be providing the Department's recommendations for penalties just to make it faster going forward so she doesn't have to keep saying it. The Department's recommendation in this case is a $1,000.00 fine, the basis for that recommendation of the $1,000.00 fine to be paid within 30 days takes into account that the licensee has no previous violations. Also takes into account, as counsel for licensee stated, they were recently opened and still ironing out their operational staffing and their procedures. Since then, there have been no further issues with no PIAC (Person In Active Charge) on duty, they have corrected it, they have taken the steps to ensure that it is not repeated. As a matter of history, a $1,000.00 fine is what we typically recommend, however previous cases with similar violations have had a portion of the fine suspended, but of course it's all fact dependent on each case. And so, we feel that in this case the facts warrant a $1,000.00 fine with no suspension. Fuke: Okay, thank you very much. Any questions of the staff on the recommended penalty? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: I have one question, so the maximum penalty would be $2,000.00 then, this represents a reduction? Gonzalez: Yes. Takase: Actually, the maximum penalty now is $5,000.00. Gonzalez: But this is a reduction of what could be the max (maximum). MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 7 OF 56 Fuke: Yes so it is a reduction, and then as I understand the extenuating circumstances for first time offense, corrective action got taken, none since the first violation occurred? Gonzalez: Yes, Mr. Chair. Fuke: Mr. Ueoka, do you have any comments to make? Ueoka: We appreciate Brandon's response and generosity on this matter. We made corrective measures, and we can assure the Board that it will not happen again. Fuke: Thank you very much. May I have a motion on the penalty? Hughes: I'll make the motion for a penalty of $1,000.00. Kelly: Second. Board Member Hughes moved to accept the recommendation by the Department for penalty in Case No. 2024-002, that the Licensee is assessed a fine in the amount of ONE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1 000.00) to be paid within 30 days upon receipt of this Decision and Order, payable to the Department of Liquor Control; Seconded by Board Member Kelly. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded, any discussion on the penalty? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed say "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: The motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: A Decision and Order will be sent to your office. 2. CASE NO. 2024-003 (10:16 AM) In the Matter of the Accusation Against Kalikala Cuisine Inc., dba Kalikala Cuisine, located at the Kona Banyan Court, 75-5695 Ali`i Drive, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Informal Hearing (Alternative II) on violation of Rule 5-4(B) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, for an employee on duty consuming liquor. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 8 OF 56 REPRESENTING LICENSEE: Richard Bate, Co-owner Fuke: Ms. Kandatsu-Kang, could you please read the Complaint and Accusation, and the Answer to the Complaint? Kandatsu Kang: The Complaint and Accusation states that on or about the 28th day of January 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, Richard BATE consumed liquor while on duty in the licensed premises of Kalikala Cuisine Inc., dba Kalikala Cuisine, in violation of Rule 5-4(B) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. The Licensee selected Alternative II, admitting to the allegation and waiving its right to a hearing and appeal, but requests an informal hearing to present the circumstances surrounding the violation. Fuke: Thank you very much. May I have a motion to find the Licensee in violation of the charge? Raymond: So moved. Kelly: Second. Board Member Raymond moved to find the Licensee in Case No. 2024-003 in violation of Rule 5-4(B) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, for Richard BATE consuming liquor while on duty in the licensed premises of Kalikala Cuisine Inc., dba Kalikala Cuisine; Seconded by Board Member Kelly. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded to find the licensee in violation of the charge, any discussion? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed say "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: Mr. Bate, prior to assessing the penalty, you may proceed with your presentation of the circumstances surrounding the violation. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 9 OF 56 Bate: First of all, thank you for having the meeting here in Kona, it's very challenging for me to get to Hilo during the week. My job description varies because I wear a lot of hats at this restaurant, I do the shopping, I get there at 6:30 in the morning and blow the leaves for an outdoor cafe under a huge Morton Bay fig tree, so it's quite messy in the morning, and I really don't have a specific job description. I suppose I'm largely the host, and at the end of the day, sometimes back away from doing that position and let the servers do the hosting because there's not enough people to be worried about needing a third party on. And so at the end of the day, I was done with my job description and I had a glass of wine, I wasn't being secretive about it, I thought I was completely done with my responsibilities for the day because the servers had taken over, it's their job to do the closing and then put the closing paperwork for the day on my desk which I review the next morning. So, I was sitting there under this beautiful tree having a glass of wine when I forget the inspector's name came and issued me the violation. And he and I were talking, and my wife's granddaughter who goes to college in Hilo and works for us occasionally, and she had worked the weekend before, she showed up unexpectedly and had gotten paid for the work that she did the weekend before. And since she only works very rarely, I usually pay her with cash. And so in front of the inspector I was paying her cash for work that she did the week before, I had no idea she was coming, that would still have a responsibility to pay someone and I definitely was in violation I suppose because I paid her during the time I was drinking, and I thought my work day was over. So, that's really is about all I can say is that I did not know that Crystal's granddaughter was coming from Hilo to spend the weekend with her parents that are our neighbors on the Ackerman Ranch in Kealakekua, and she showed up very unexpectedly, and I said "oh let me give you some money," and I reached into my pocket and paid her in front of your inspector. And so that was the sense of my violation I suppose that I was still doing something related to the business while having a glass of wine pau hang. So really that's all I have to say, I'm sorry for the mistake I suppose but I really honestly did not know she was coming to get paid from the week before. Fuke: Thank you very much, Mr. Bate. Any questions of him by the Board members? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: I had a question, so the report says you were drinking out of a paper cup. Bate: Yes. Fuke: Is there a reason why you used a paper cup versus a standard wine glass? Bate: Well, I'm Italian and I talk with my hands often, I don't use glasses very much, at least the stem glasses, the typical wine glass, I usually use the short glass when I have a glass of wine, even when I'm out for dinner. Why it was paper as opposed to glass I don't recall, it was right there I wasn't trying to hide it. Fuke: So, I guess maybe more questions of the staff then, so if there was no transaction, you know he didn't pay his worker. Bate: Well, the other workers get paid on the payroll. Fuke: No, I know, but if there was no transaction like that, would that have been a violation then because he would have been like so-called off the clock? MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 10 OF 56 Takase: It's hard for our investigators to determine whether they're on the clock or off the clock, especially for an owner, you know. So, they can just go by based on what they see, you know the restaurant was still open. Gonzalez: He was cooking while he was drinking, that's what the observations were. Bate: Could you repeat that, sir? Gonzalez: You were observed to be cooking while drinking from the paper cup as well. Bate: No, we don't cook out there, sir, the kitchen is way in the back about 103 feet away, we took over the old Cebu Cafe in the Banyan Court Mall, our cooking facilities are at least 140 feet from the front of the house where we have the seating area, we run the food out to the front, and we're licensed with you folks for both areas for alcohol consumption. We just can't transport an open beverage from one location to the other, the kitchen to the front of the house. Raymond: I just think it's important to note as well that the Department had given him a prior verbal warning Friday, April 7t" of 2023, so previous to this incident, a warning was already given prior so I think that, you know we do make mistakes and whatnot, but a warning was previously given, a verbal one. Bate: I don't recall that incident. Raymond: That you shouldn't be drinking, yes? Fuke: Yes. So getting back to the first question then so, Mr. Director then so, if he was officially off the clock, his consuming liquor on the premises as a co-owner, would that be all right or not all right? Because he's still an owner, not like an employee? Takase: No, so he could if he was off the clock you know, like I said, I go back to what transpired. Since he's owner and I don't think, they don't have a time clock to punch in. Bate: I don't punch in, and quite honestly in the seven years we've been open, we've never even paid me, I've been living on my Social Security, so I've never taken a wage from Kalikala Cuisine. Takase: But if we cover all of the events that happened, the investigator had gone there at about 12:25-12:30 p.m. that day in response to a complaint about Mr. Bate drinking. So, he watched him, he was working at the time, he was carrying cooking pans from the kitchen to the serving area, so that's why they thought you were working. Bate: I was observed doing what, sir? Takase: Carrying a cooking pan from the kitchen to the serving area, this was about 12:30 p.m. that day. Bate: I've never carried a cooking pan from the kitchen to the front of the house, I have no idea what reference it is. In fact, nobody brings a cooking pan from the kitchen to the front of the house, it's always plated food. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 11 OF 56 Takase: Well, it may not have been carrying actual food, from this picture it looks like it was a serving tray. Bate: This man is the food runner carrying the food. Takase: No, but you're the one in the orange shirt, right? Bate: And I'm holding something but that's not a serving tray, that looks like it could be Gonzalez: It's a cooking tray that you put in the warmers, chafing warmers. Bate: Yes, I have no idea but it's certainly couldn't be holding food if I'm holding it the way it is in the picture. Looks like an empty pan. Takase: So anyway, that's kind of where our investigators are at, he was responding to a complaint that they received about you, so he was observing you. He seen you kind of doing things you know, this was over the course of about an hour he was there, he saw you, he thought you were working because you were carrying things around for the business, and then later he sees you at about 1:00 p.m. sitting there drinking. So, that's kind of the basis of the charge against you. Bate: Okay. Takase: He says that they talked to you in the past about it, and he said it was when you and your wife were there. Bate: It was during a dinner situation, my wife and I were having a glass of wine with dinner. Takase: So you know I would say you need to make it clear what your job is you know, it's a little dangerous for you to drink in those situations because if you're off the clock, then just say I'm off the clock, but you know if you're sitting down having dinner but then you get up to go pour yourself a drink, they will treat you as an employee or because you're not working as an employee, then that's another violation that as a customer, you're going and serving yourself. You have to make it clear when you're there that you're either working or you're not working, yes. Bate: I understand. Takase: If you're not working, just stay seated, have your employees serve you like you're a true customer. If you keep going back and forth, or they're not fast enough and here these guys are waiting there, you stand up to go seat them, they're going to treat you as an employee again, so it's hard for you as the owner to divorce yourself from one role to the other, but you almost got to do that and—. Bate: So that there's no confusion. Takase: Yes, and you know the fact that we had a complaint about it means somebody else is watching this and reporting to us that, hey I think this guy is not following the rules. So, it was probably another licensee that knows something about the rules and then they obviously knew who you were. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 12 OF 56 Bate: Maybe it could have been a disgruntled employee or previous employee, yeah. Takase: Or yeah maybe, you know but we don't know but you know we responded to a complaint. Bate: Of course. Takase: So that's kind of the long and short of it. So you know, I would say that you weren't necessarily trying to violate the law but by your actions you created the situation for yourself, and so I just caution you to try and be more cognizant of what you're doing and why you're there because you have a much different role than everybody else in your place. Bate: I understand. Takase: Okay. Fuke: Thank you very much for that explanation, so notwithstanding whether carrying that frying pan or whatever constituted a violation, you know the fact that still you know you're making payment to your niece or family member during your so-called work time is evidence and still having your wine so, nonetheless constitutes a violation and you yourself already conceded to that, so. Bate: Oh I understand, not trying to hide it, I was having a glass of wine for sure. Fuke: Thank you very much, yeah. So, do you have any further comments to make then? Bate: Well, just that things are pretty tough financially, I know you all know that things are slow in this industry and just tourism is down and we're just struggling to be alive, you know just to maintain through the lack of funds. We haven't made any money this year, we've been spending reserves and just trying to keep the business afloat. So, anything you can do for leniency on imposing the penalty, I would sure appreciate it. Fuke: Thank you very much. Given that, the Department, could you provide a recommended penalty please? Gonzalez: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Department in this case is recommending a $1,000.00 fine, with $500.00 to be suspended for one year from the date of service of the decision and order on the condition that there are no similar violations of Rule 5-4(B), drinking on duty, and that $500.00 is to be paid within 30 days upon receipt of the decision and order for the said violation payable to the Department of Liquor Control. This $1,000.00 fine with $500.00 suspended recommendation is based in part that Mr. Bate has no previous violations. However, it does take into account the severity of the offense that this investigation was started as a result of a public complaint and report that there was drinking occurring while they were on duty, and the investigation determined that the complaints were substantiated. And the other thing is the licensee took responsibility for selecting Alternative II in this case, and their actions as he has expressed today as well so he should be given some consideration for that. Thank you. Fuke: Thank you very much, Brandon. Any comments from the licensee on the proposed penalty? MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 13 OF 56 Bate: Well, I would only ask you to reconsider this suggestion. I appreciate first of all, that it's only half of what the penalty you were suggesting should be. I would sure appreciate the fact for the possible consideration of waving it entirely, the penalty, and just helping me to keep going, and maybe this season of tourism from December to April, which is normally busy, but it wasn't this year, it will help us to recover financially. Thank you for your consideration. Fuke: Okay, Mr. Bate, the Department is recommending a reduced penalty of $500.00, Mr. Bate is requesting that it be totally waived given the financial hardship and maybe the nature of the violation. Any comments by the Board Members? Hughes: Hey Gerald, question. In past like incidences I guess, has the Board reduced the amount to take into consideration hardship and things like that? Takase: Yes we have. Gonzalez: In 2016, the Department issued a $1,000.00 fine, suspended $500.00. In 2014, the Department issued a $2,000.00 fine, and suspended $1,500.00. And in other cases, in 2014, there was $1,000.00 fines with no suspension issued to two different licensees. And one more case in 2014, of a $1,000.00 fine, with $250.00 suspended, so $750.00 had to be paid. Hughes: Just as a business person, I know that things can be tough. On the flip side, you know the rules and regulations, and there was a violation. Bate: Yes. Hughes: I guess I try to have a little compassion, and I guess I'm thinking a lesser fine, not total elimination, a lesser fine if the board agrees. Raymond: Well I'm thinking, because it's already reduced to $500.00, is there a possibility that because the $500.00 would have to be paid in 30 days, that he still pays the $500.00 but it's prolonged like cut in increments? Because again, you know there are rules and regulations and it was broken. So, to be waived, I get that you know times are hard, but the Department is already suspending the $500.00, and to waive everything I think it's kind of like, it's almost like opening a can of worms to maybe other people who have the same kind of incident that could happen. So, if times are hard, you would still pay the $500.00, but maybe not the 30 days but maybe breaking it in increments to where the Department will receive the $500.00 but not in the 30 days, if that's even by law, Mr. Director. Gonzalez: A payment plan, essentially. Hughes: Well, I guess what I'm thinking is more of a $250.00 fine now within 30 days, and $750.00 if he has another violation, or even a $2,000.00 fine if he has another violation, that way you know what the rules are, and there's no gray area. Bate: Thank you for your idea. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 14 OF 56 Fuke: Any other comments from the Board Members? Because from what I hear it's like one of the Board Members suggesting perhaps a further reduction from what the Department is suggesting. Another Board member is saying you already have a reduced recommendation which is you know 50% less, but then the payment would be prorated over a period of time. So, any other comments? Kelly: For me, I would go by the recommendation of Corp (Corporation) Counsel, and have Dawn's suggestion in mind, maybe not 30 days, maybe 60 day or something, but the $500.00 by the recommendation should be imposed, and prolonging the payment maybe over 60 days rather than 30 might be more that I would be inclined to. Fuke: We haven't heard from you, Ceci. Davenport: Yeah, I'm wondering about, what are your business hours? Bates: The business hours for seating is from 8:00 a.m. in the morning until 1:00 p.m. We stop seating at 1:00 p.m. Davenport: But of course, you still serve, right? Bates: If there's a customer, and often there's not because we've hadn't had lunch items, we only do brunch. Davenport: Okay. Bates: And many people are looking for lunch items like from 11:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on, and we started doing dinners a few different times and as the years past we stopped doing lunch items. So, just in fact in the last week, we've added five or six lunch items served between 11:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. and that's beginning to sell, it's showing interest so but seating is almost dead between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. Davenport: So, are you the only person within your establishment in this capacity? Bates: In what capacity? Davenport: In a managerial owner, say maybe does your wife? Bates: No, my wife is in the kitchen, she's on premises also and she also has a card. Davenport: I was just wondering, my point was I was wondering if there was someone else that could have maybe, is that your niece that you paid in cash or granddaughter? Bates: It's my wife 's granddaughter. Davenport: I'm wondering if there was someone else that maybe could have done what you did since you were already off the clock, right you said? Bates: Yes, ma'am. Davenport: Yes. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 15 OF 56 Bates: Well, there's not usually much cash payments, see that's the thing, maybe we try to stay above Board with regard to taxes and all of that stuff, so it's just unusual for her, she may work three days in a year because of what she does otherwise, and in that situation I was the one that she came to for cash, I don't think my wife had any cash otherwise she wouldn't have sent her out to me. I'm sure she would have asked her grandmother for the money and she says, "Oh go see if Richard has some cash." I'm sure that's probably how it happened. Fuke: I have a few comments to make. Oh, I'm sorry. Mellon -Lacey: Mr. Chair, as a question to the Department while the Board is considering this, does the Department engage in payment plans in any typical way, and if that were done would that impose problems for the Department to track, monitor and that kind of thing? Takase: No, we do engage in payment plans for all payments and it's not that hard. Fuke: So, my question is, you said you've been operating for seven years, and if you take away the COVID (coronavirus disease) period, so after COVID (coronavirus disease) currently the last couple years, and during the course of the year, which months would be your so-called better months? Bates: Well usually in the past except for during the COVID (coronavirus disease) time of course, well let me just tell you this way, when we first opened $300-00 was a slow day, and $500.00 was a busy day, and before COVID (coronavirus disease) came upon us, we had graduated to, well we opened in March of 2017 and then COVID (coronavirus disease) hit in 2020, we had graduated to $3,000.00 being a slow day, and $5,000.00 being a busy day, total gross sales. I would say we're down about 40% from last year because we had a good recovery after COVID (coronavirus disease) people were still spending the monies that they received from the pandemic, and they were finally being able to go places and travel, remember the thing was shut down and so we started making some money, and then right now we're lucky to get maybe one day a week at somewhere around $3,200.00. Everything else is around $1,800.00 per day, something like that so we're down a considerable percentage from what we were the year following COVID (coronavirus disease). Fuke: My question was really like, are the better months during the winter months? Bates: December to April is our normal busy season, that's when the snow birds if you will like to travel to get out of their cold weather, and then there's a low, and then there's summertime travelers because school is out, and then there's a low, and then we have Thanksgiving, and usually each of those events will give us a good strong week if you will or a month for summertime travelers. But this year it didn't happen that way, it just didn't happen, I don't know why people are holding back but maybe it's because of the election, or people are concerned about how they spend their money. And even now with the election over, people are still a little bit concerned I think but we'll see, we're just hoping that it picks up and that we do have a genuine December to April season to help us to recover to get us through these slower months, slower times. Fuke: Thank you very much. Bates: No problem, thanks for the question. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 16 OF 56 Fuke: This is kind of like my position, you know I feel like overall it's kind of difficult for the Board to kind of like totally waive, you know there's got to be some sort of monetary penalty. like the concept that was advanced by one of the Board members to you know like have a deferred payment, and I was just thinking that you know if over the next three or four months are like your so-called better months, so you have the $500.00 payment, but then you don't necessarily have to pay it on an installment basis, but then it has to be paid no later than June 30t". It basically amounts to less than $100 a month, so I would assume that you'd be able to kind of set aside some funds, you know on a budgetary purposes? Or you can decide if you have one good month, you get rid of the $500.00 penalty, if not just take $100.00 every month and then you pay it off before June 30t". Bates: I understand and I appreciate that you want to impose something upon me, for me to maybe consider to be real, I'm here at your mercy you know, and I appreciate you coming to Kona so I don't have to drive over there, but whatever you choose we'll have to deal with it, and by the grace of God we'll get through it. Fuke: Okay, Board member, quite an interesting discussion so I can't make a motion but would like to suggest that a motion be made to keep the $500.00 penalty with the payment due no later than June 30t", 2025? Bates: Could I ask for one more consideration? Would you consider making it a one-time payment of something like $300.00 due immediately and let me get that money to you within 30 days? Fuke: Well, that's up to the Board to consider but Raymond: I'm just speaking as an individual again, I think the Department has already discounted the price, and again with the option of having the payments deferred for a longer amount of 30 days, I think $500.00 is a reasonable amount of money, that's my opinion. Hughes: I'll make a motion that we impose the $500.00 penalty due no later than June 1st, 2025. Kelly: Second. Board Member Hughes moved to accept the recommendation of the Department for penalty in Case No. 2024-003, that the Licensee is assessed a fine in the amount of ONE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1 000.00), with FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($500.00) to be suspended for one (1) year from the date of service of this Decision and Order, on the condition that there are no similar violations of Rule 5-4(B) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, for Richard BATE consuming liquor while on duty in the licensed premises of Kalikala Cuisine Inc., dba Kalikala Cuisine, within that period and that FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($500.00) is to be paid no later than June 1, 2025, payable to the Department of Liquor Control; Seconded by Board Member Kelly. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded that the penalty be reduced from $1,000.00 to $500.00, with the payment due no later than June 1st, of 2025. Any discussion on it? MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 17 OF 56 There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: All those against say "No." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: The motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: Thank you very much. Bate: Thank you for your time, Merry Christmas everybody. Fuke: Good luck, hope that you get a very good Christmas and New Years and the next months to make the payment earlier than June 1st Bate: Oh yeah, I hope so too, I'd like to think that that's gonna pick-up enough for us to take care of things like that, God bless you. Mellon -Lacey: Just for clarification, Mr. Chair, now the fine the Department had imposed was $1,000.00, with the $500.00 suspended in case there was any other violation, and then the motion was for a $500.00 fine, I want to be clear we are now eliminating the $1,000.00 fine. Fuke: Thank you very much. I had that understanding too, that was the front-end. Hughes: Sid, I guess I maybe misspoke during my motion but I was going along with Brandon's suggestion. Fuke: The back -end is still the same. Takase: Well, it's the Board that makes the motion, Brandon is just suggesting it, we'll deal with whatever you decide. Fuke: Just for clarity sake then, the maker of the motion is like it's a $500.00 fine with the payment due no later than June 1st, 2025, provided that there are no further violation and the added caveat that the staff had mentioned. Hughes: That is correct. Can we restate the motion? Takase: No, I think it's done already, I'm sure Mr. Bates understands. Bate: Thank you, we're done? Fuke: Yes, thank you. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 18 OF 56 3. CASE NO. 2024-008 (10:48 AM) In the Matter of the Accusation Against Aloha Petroleum, Ltd., dba Aloha Island Mart (Henry Street), located at the Henry Street Landing, 75-934 Henry Street, Kailua-Kona, 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 after 11:00 p.m. Fuke: Could we have the Complaint read? Kandatsu Kang: The Complaint and Accusation states that on or about the 6th day of April 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Aloha Petroleum, Ltd., dba Aloha Island Mart (Henry Street), sold liquor after 11:00 p.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. The Licensee selected Alternative I, admitting to the allegation, stipulating that disciplinary action may be taken without their presence, and waiving its right to a hearing and an appeal. Fuke: Okay, thank you very much. May I have the motion to find the Licensee in violation of the charge? Kelly: So moved. Raymond: Second. Board Member Kelly moved to find the Licensee in Case No. 2024-008 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, for selling liquor after 11:00 p.m.; Seconded by Board Member Raymond. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded, any discussion among the Board Members? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed say "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 19 OF 56 Fuke: Members, do you have any questions of the Department? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, could the Department please provide it's recommendation on the penalty? Gonzalez: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Department is recommending a $1,000.00 fine, with $500.00 suspended for one year from the date of service of the Decision and Order on the condition that there are no similar violations of Rule 3-8(A), and that $500.00 is to be paid within 30 days upon receipt of the Decision and Order. This recommendation takes into account there have been no previous violations, the licensee took responsibility by selecting Alternative I, and this fine recommendation is similar to previous cases with other licensees in the past. As a factual basis, there was a sale of beer after 11:00 p.m., after they weren't supposed to sell, so that's why. Fuke: Thank you very much, may I have a motion on the penalty? Kelly: So moved. Raymond: Second. Board Member Kelly moved to accept the recommendation of the Department for penalty in Case No. 2024-008, that the Licensee is assessed a fine in the amount of ONE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1 000.00), with FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($500.00) to be suspended for one (1) year from the date of service of this Decision and Order, on the condition that there are no similar violations of Rule 3-8(A) within that period and that FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($500.00) is to be paid within 30 days upon receipt of this Decision and Order payable to the Department of Liquor Control; Seconded by Board Member Raymond. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded, any discussion? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed say "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. The motion was carried unanimously. Fuke: No one's here, so I guess eventually they'll follow up, yeah? Gonzalez: Yes. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 20 OF 56 Fuke: Thank you very much. 4. CASE NO. 2024-010 (10:51 AM) In the Matter of the Accusation Against Kona Sunrise Charters, Inc., dba Hula Kai, moored at Keauhou Bay, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii; Informal Hearing (Alternative 1) on multiple counts: COUNT 1 Violation of Rule 4-6(B) 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 notify the Liquor Commission in writing within 60 Days of a Change in Officers or Directors; COUNT 2 Violation of Rule 4-6(A)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 notify the Liquor Commission in writing within 60 Days of a Change in Ownership of Outstanding Capital Stock less than 25%. Fuke: Could you please read the complaint, Ms. Kandatsu Kang. Kandatsu Kang: The Complaint and Accusation states multiple counts as follows: Count 1, on or about the 27th day of May 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Kona Sunrise Charters, Inc., dba Hula Kai, failed to notify the Liquor Commission in writing within 60 days of September 13, 2023, of the Change in Title of Melynda Dant, from Executive Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Director; to President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Director; Also, Change in Title of Alexander Dant, from Vice President to Vice President and Director; and the Appointment of Jennifer Dant and Zachary Dant, as Directors, in violation of Rule 4- 6(B) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Count 2, on or about the 27th day of May 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Kona Sunrise Charters, Inc., dba Hula Kai, failed to notify the Liquor Commission in writing within 60 days of September 13, 2023, of the 100% Stock Transfer from Orville Dant III, Melynda Dant, and Alexander Dant, to Zachary Dant, Jennifer Dant, Melynda Dant, and 1250 Moorings, Inc., in violation of Rule 4-6(A)2 of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. The Licensee selected Alternative I, admitting to the allegation, stipulating that disciplinary action may be taken without their presence, and waiving its right to a hearing and appeal. At this time the Department moves to dismiss Count 2, the stock transfer violation of Rule 4-6(A)2. Fuke: Thank you very much. May I have a motion to dismiss Count 2? Kelly: So moved. Raymond: Second. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 21 OF 56 Board Member Kelly moved to dismiss Count 2 in Case No. 2024-010, in violation of Rule 4-6(A)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 notify the Liquor Commission in writing within 60 Days of a Change in Ownership of Outstanding Capital Stock less than 25%; Seconded by Board Member Raymond. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded to dismiss Count 2, any discussion? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: May I ask like what's the reason for the dismissal? Gonzalez: Thank you, Mr. Chair. On behalf of the Department, over the course of the investigation, the licensee was making efforts to do succession planning, they did notify the Department of a change in their officers, and as a result of the Department asking for more clarification on the changes, the stock transfer information came up. So, we feel in all fairness to the licensee to dismiss the stock transfer count. Takase: So, it was kind of all -in -one transaction, so we could make it two but. Fuke: Got it. Any discussion among the Board Members? There was no further discussion by Board Members. Fuke: All those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed say "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously. Fuke: May I have a motion to find the licensee in violation of the charge in Count 1 ? Kelly: So moved. Raymond: Second. Board Member Kelly moved to find the licensee in Case No. 2024-010 for Count 1, in violation of Rule 4-6(B) 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 notify the Liquor Commission in writing within 60 Days of a Change in Officers or Directors; Seconded by Board Member Raymond. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 22 OF 56 Fuke: It's been moved and seconded, any discussion among the Board Members? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed say "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously. Fuke: Board Members have any questions of the Department? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, could the Department please provide its recommendation on penalty? Gonzalez: Thank you. The Department's recommendation is a $100.00 fine to be paid within 30 days upon receipt of the Decision and Order for said violation payable to the Department of Liquor Control. The fine amount is set by Liquor Adjudication Board Rule 1.12, and that's why it's straightforward in this case. Fuke: Got it, thank you very much. May I have a motion on the penalty? Raymond: So, moved. Hughes: Second. Board Member Raymond moved to accept the recommendation of the Department for penalty in Case No. 2024-010, that for COUNT 1, Licensee is assessed a fine pursuant to Rule 1.12, in the amount of ONE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100.00), to be paid within 30 days upon receipt of this Decision and Order payable to the Department of Liquor Control; Seconded by Board Member Hughes. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded to impose the $100.00 penalty for it, any discussion? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed say "No." MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 23 OF 56 There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously. Fuke: So, I guess you'll be providing the Decision and Order to the licensee. Gonzalez: Yes, Mr. Chair. 5. CASE NO. 2024-011 (10:56 AM) In the Matter of the Accusation Against Fair Wind, Inc., dba Fair Wind 11, moored at Keauhou Bay, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii; Informal Hearing (Alternative 1) on multiple counts: COUNT 1 Violation of Rule 4-6(B) 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 notify the Liquor Commission in writing within 60 Days of a Change in Officers or Directors; COUNT 2 Violation of Rule 4-6(A)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 notify the Liquor Commission in writing within 60 Days of a Change in Ownership of Outstanding Capital Stock less than 25%. Fuke: Ms. Kandatsu Kang, please read the Complaint. Kandatsu Kang: The Complaint and Accusation states multiple counts as follows: Count 1, on or about the 27th day of May 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Fair Wind, Inc., dba Fair Wind 11, failed to notify the Liquor Commission in writing within 60 days of September 13, 2023, of the Change in Title of Melynda Dant, from Executive Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Director; to President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Director; also Change in Title of Alexander Dant, from Vice President to Vice President and Director; and the appointment of Jennifer Dant, and Zachary Dant as Directors; in violation of Rule 4-6(B) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Count 2, on or about the 27th day of May 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Fair Wind, Inc., dba Fair Wind 11, failed to notify the Liquor Commission in writing within 60 days of September 13, 2023, of the 100% Stock Transfer from Orville Dant III, Melynda Dant, and Alexander Dant, to Zachary Dant, Jennifer Dant, Melynda Dant, and 1250 Moorings, Inc., in violation of Rule 4-6(A)2 of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. The Licensee selected Alternative I, admitting to the allegation, stipulating that disciplinary action may be taken without their presence, MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 24 OF 56 and waiving its right to a hearing and appeal. At this time the Department moves to dismiss Count 2, the stock transfer violation of Rule 4-6(A)2. Fuke: Thank you very much. May I have a motion to dismiss Count 2? Kelly: So moved. Raymond: Second. Board Member Kelly moved to dismiss Count 2 in Case No. 2024-011, in violation of Rule 4-6(A)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 notify the Liquor Commission in writing within 60 Days of a Change in Ownership of Outstanding Capital Stock less than 25%; Seconded by Board Member Raymond. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded that Count 2 be dismissed, any discussion among the Board Members? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: Okay, my question is, similar situation as the previous licensee? Takase: Yes, it's actually the same owners just different licenses. Fuke: Okay, thank you very much. All those in favor of the motion to dismiss Count 2, please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed say "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously. Fuke: Now, the motion to find the Licensee in violation of Count 1 ? Kelly: So moved. Raymond: Second. Board Member Kelly moved to find the Licensee in Case No. 2024-011 for Count 1, in violation of Rule 4-6(B) 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 notify the Liquor Commission in writing within 60 Days of a Change in Officers or Directors; Seconded by Board Member Raymond. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 25 OF 56 Fuke: It's been moved and seconded, any discussion? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: All those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed say "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Motion unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously. Fuke: Members, any questions of the Department? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, the recommended penalty, Brandon? Gonzalez: Mr. Chair, the recommendation is a $100.00 fine to be paid within 30 days payable to the Department of Liquor Control after we serve the Decision and Order. The fine amount is set in Liquor Adjudication Board Rule 1.12. Fuke: Thank you very much, may I have a motion to impose the penalty of $100.00? Kelly: So moved. Raymond: Second. Board Member Kelly moved to accept the recommendation of the Department for penalty in Case No. 2024-011, for COUNT 1, Licensee is assessed a fine pursuant to Rule 1.12, in the amount of ONE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100.00), to be paid within 30 days upon receipt of this Decision and Order payable to the Department of Liquor Control; Seconded by Board Member Raymond. Fuke: Moved and seconded that the penalty be imposed, any discussion? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: All those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed say "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 26 OF 56 Fuke: Motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously. Fuke: And then the Decision and Order will be sent to the Licensee. 6. CASE NO. 2024-012 (11:00 AM) In the Matter of the Accusation Against KBXtreme, LLC, dba KBXtreme, located at 75-5591 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Informal Hearing (Alternative II) on violation of Section 281-41(i) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended, for failure to notify the Liquor Commission in writing within 30 days of a Change in Members or Managers of a Limited Liability Company license. OBSERVING REPRESENTING LICENSEE: Calvin Higa, President and General Manager Gonzalez: Mr. Higa is observing for the licensee but he don't want to come up. Fuke: Let the record note that someone (Calvin Higa) is observing but the licensee will not be making any direct testimony. Ms. Kandatsu Kang, can you please read the complaint and accusation? Kandatsu Kang: The Complaint and Accusation states that on or about the 29th day of May 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, KBXtreme, LLC, dba KBXtreme, failed to notify the Liquor Commission in writing within 30 days of January 1, 2024, of the appointment of Shannon Gaspar, and Blossom Kuanoni, as Members, in violation of Section 281-41(i) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended. The Licensee selected Alternative II, admitting to the allegation and waiving its right to a hearing and appeal, but requests an informal hearing to present the circumstances surrounding the violation, however there will be no one providing a presentation of the circumstances. Fuke: So, may I have a motion to find the Licensee in violation of the charge? Raymond: So moved. Hughes: Second. Board Member Raymond moved to find the Licensee in Case No. 2024-012 in violation of Section 281-41(i) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended, for failure to notify the Liquor Commission in writing within 30 days of a Change in Members of a Limited Liability Company license; Seconded by Board Member Hughes. Fuke: Any discussion? MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 27 OF 56 There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed say "No." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Motion was unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: So I guess no one is here to contest or make comment on the penalty, so could I have the recommended penalty? Gonzalez: Mr. Chair the Department is recommending a $100.00 fine to be paid within 30 days payable to the Department of Liquor Control. We treat this similar to the previous two cases, a violation similar to our Rule 4-6(B), that fine is set at $100.00, so that's why we're being consistent, and it is important to note that the licensee did provide an explanation of the circumstances, their bookkeeper had to take emergency leave during Christmas to care for a family member and didn't realize that the paperwork wasn't submitted, but upon immediately returning to work, the took they steps to cure that defect. Fuke: Thank you very much. The recommended penalty is $100.00, may I have a motion on the penalty? Raymond: So moved. Hughes: Second. Board Member Raymond moved to accept the recommendation by the Department for penalty in Case No. 2024-012, that the Licensee is assessed a fine in the amount of ONE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100.00), to be paid within 30 days upon receipt of the Decision and Order, payable to the Department of Liquor Control; Seconded by Board Member Hughes. Fuke: Any discussion? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: All those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed say "No." There was no opposition by Board Members. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 28 OF 56 Fuke: Motion was unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: A Decision and Order will be sent to the licensee. 7. CASE NO. 2024-013 (11:03 AM) In the Matter of the Accusation Against Kohola, LLC, dba Laverne's Sports Bar, located at the Coconut Grove Marketplace, 75-5819 Ali`i Drive, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Informal Hearing (Alternative II) on multiple counts: COUNT 1 Violation of Section 281-78(b)(1)(A) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended, for selling, serving, or furnishing liquor to, or allowing the consumption of liquor by a minor (age 17); COUNT 2 Violation of Section 281-78(b)(1)(A) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended, for selling, serving, or furnishing liquor to, or allowing the consumption of liquor by a minor (age 20). REPRESENTING LICENSEE: Doug Sobaski, General Manager Fuke: Can you please state your name and relationship to the business? Sobaski: Doug Sobaski, night-time manager at both Laverne's and Humpy'S. Fuke: Thank you very much, Ms. Kandatsu Kang, can you please read the complaint? Kandatsu Kang: The Complaint and Accusation states multiple counts as follows: Count 1, on or about the 4th day of July 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Kohola, LLC, dba Laverne's Sports Bar, did sell, serve, or furnish liquor to, or allow the consumption of liquor by a minor, age 17 in this case; in violation of Section 281-78(b)(1)(A) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended. Count 2, on or about the 4th day of July 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Kohola, LLC, dba Laverne's Sports Bar, did sell, serve, or furnish liquor to, or allow the consumption of liquor by a minor, age 20 in this case; in violation of Section 281- 78(b)(1)(A) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended. The Licensee selected Alternative II, admitting to the allegations and waiving its rights to a hearing and appeal, but requests an informal hearing to present the circumstances surrounding the violation. Fuke: May I have a motion to find the Licensee in violation of the charge? Kelly: So moved. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 29 OF 56 Raymond: Second. Board Member Kelly moved to find the Licensee in Case No. 2024-013 for Count 1, in violation of Section 281-78(b)(1)(A) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended, for selling, serving, or furnishing liquor to, or allowing the consumption of liquor by a minor (age 17); and for Count 2, in violation of Section 281-78(b)(1)(A) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended, for selling, serving, or furnishing liquor to, or allowing the consumption of liquor by a minor (age 20); Seconded by Board Member Raymond. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded that the licensee be found in violation of the charges, any discussion? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed say "No." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: Prior to assessing the penalty, Mr. Sobaski, you may proceed with your presentation of the circumstances surrounding the violations. Sobaski: It was the Fourth of July after a nice busy parade which is good to see in Kona, and we basically got overwhelmed. Staffing that was supposed to be there wasn't there at the time, I believe this happened at approximately 8:00 p.m. in the evening so we were still in full restaurant mode, not necessarily carding at the door like we do for late night when it's a 21 and over establishment. But the people at the door that we had, I was one of them, were there to basically keep people from wondering outside with their beverages because apparently they can do that in lots of places around the country, and just to make sure people are behaving inside, because like you said it was you know just a busy time. We had some ladies come up, and I know the video stills that you see as the two gentlemen are coming up, the two ladies right before them, one of them had cut herself and asked for first -aid, and so at the time of me leaving to help the customer, the two people came in, but unfortunately like you said we at that time we weren't carding at the door. I hate the fact that it did happen, we did get to use this as a serious retraining for the whole staff, you know just to, it's never too busy to make sure that people are of age. You know, we have a lot of responsibility on our shoulders just because we are a busy place, we get a lot of people coming through our door and we just can't get complacent about it. Fuke: Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Sobaski. Any questions of Mr. Sobaski by the Board Members? MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 30 OF 56 Davenport: So, you said that at 8:00 p.m. is when you start party people, that's your 21 and over time? Sobaski: Generally, we're a full restaurant until 10:00 p.m., and then Laverne's will go into a nightclub to where it's 21 and over, but this being after the parade, we just had lot's of families coming in grabbing food after the parade. And so, we weren't necessarily, yes there were people at the door that if it's after 10:00 p.m., that's our first line of defense to make sure people are of age. I don't know why my staff didn't card but it just happened, but generally we don't card at the door until 10:00 p.m. because it's an all -ages establishment to come in and have some food. Davenport: So, really why is it up to the servers? I believe in here it said she assumed that these three young men were carded at the door, correct? Sobaski: It did, and in talking to the bartender, she was just in late -night mode, just assuming that people had been carded already. It's kind of fun to watch her now because when she's in there at 7:30 p.m., she's carding everybody, so she basically has taken it seriously of really how important this is, because it's too easy to let happen. Fuke: Any further questions? Davenport: Was there a meeting, or any kind of training after this happened with all your wait staff? Sobaski: We did, that night immediately after work we had a meeting, but then we also had to get together the other day for the communication aspect of what can we all do to make sure this doesn't happen again? You know, a lot of it was just imploring on them that you're never too busy, let me see your ID (identification). And, it just you're not going to lose any money on it, this and that, but it's just very important to where you look up, let me see your ID (identification). Davenport: So, you know what's interesting that I didn't know but I learned through this is that if you're a minor, your identification is vertical. Sobaski: Yes. Davenport: Yes, so that would have been very, very, easy. I mean, look I understand people get busy and it's a full house and you know that sort of thing. Sobaski: One thing is we regularly ask Steve, Stefan, and Preston, you know the guys out there working, you know suggestions from them, hey what can you see to help us improve? You know, we've taken like to where they've recommended for when checking ID's (identifications), gave us recommendations on good UV (ultraviolent) lights to check that they have used, and we appreciate it. And so, they've been extremely helpful as to just talking to the staff also and just saying, hey just remember guys. So, it's appreciative that some people like to complain around town, it's like wow the LC's (Liquor Control Investigators) is always at your place. So what, we're busy, I don't mind them being there, they're helpful, and that's one thing that they do a very nice job with us to where if we have any questions, we can ask them, they give us suggestions and it's appreciative. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 31 OF 56 Fuke: Thank you, Mr. Sobaski. Any further questions? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, what's the Department's proposed recommendation for penalty? Gonzalez: The Department is recommending for Count 1, a $2,000.00 fine with $1,000.00 suspended for one year from the date of service of the Decision and Order, on the condition that there are no similar violations of alcohol to minors, HRS (Hawai'i Revised Statutes) 281- 78, and that $1,000.00 is to be paid within 30 days upon receipt of the Decision and Order for said violation payable to the Department of Liquor Control. If the licensee needs to request a payment plan, that is also an option. For Count 2, same recommendation, $2,000.00 fine with $1,000.00 suspended for one year from the date of service of the Decision and Order, on the condition that there are no similar violations of HRS (Hawai'i Revised Statutes) 281-78, and that $1,000.00 is to be paid within 30 days upon receipt of the Decision and Order for said violation payable to the Department of Liquor Control, unless the licensee requests a payment plan. We're taking into account the severity of the offense for this recommendation. When it comes to the laws that we are enforcing, sale to minor is one of the top ones that we are most sensitive to. It also takes into account the violation history for the licensee. So, in the last five years, they only forgot to tell us that they had a change in member once, that's the only thing against them, right? So, they had a relatively clean record. We do like to see them busy, this case is an unfortunate incident and a good teaching moment to show when all the redundancy and safeguards break down, what happens? So, it's a good reminder for the staff and the workers, that's why multiple points of verification are important. The gentleman was shorthanded that night, he told our investigators that his security personnel didn't show up, so as the GM (general manager), he wears many hats and he was running around, and they didn't have people at the door when these three came in, and that was found on the footage of the cameras. And, as to the comment about the vertical I Ds (identifications), yes, all 50 states print the I Ds (identifications) of the minors vertically so that it's an easy visual indicator and cue to the staff and personnel that they may be underage. So, that's our recommendation for the fines. Fuke: Okay, thank you very much. Mr. Sobaski, as the licensee, do you have any comments on the proposed recommended penalty? Sobaski: None. Fuke: Okay, so may I have a motion on the penalty? Kelly: So moved. Raymond: Second. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 32 OF 56 Board Member Kelly moved to accept the recommendation by the Department for penalty in Case No. 2024-013, that for COUNT 1, Licensee is assessed a fine in the amount of TWO THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,000.00), with ONE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000.00) to be suspended for one (1) year from the date of service of this Decision and Order, on the condition that there are no similar violations of Section 281-78(b)(1)(A) within that period and that ONE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000.00) is to be paid within 30 days upon receipt of this Decision and Order, payable to the Department of Liquor Control; For COUNT 2, Licensee is assessed a fine in the amount of TWO THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,000.00), with ONE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000.00) to be suspended for one (1) year from the date of service of this Decision and Order, on the condition that there are no similar violations of Section 281-78(b)(1)(A) within that period and that ONE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000.00) is to be paid within 30 days upon receipt of this Decision and Order, payable to the Department of Liquor Control; Seconded by Board Member Raymond. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded that the penalty of $2,000.00, with $1,000.00 waiver for Count 1, similarly for Count 2, $2,000.00, with the $1,000.00 waiver subject to no further penalty within the next calendar year or anniversary year, one year from the date of the service. Okay, any discussion among the Board Members on the proposed penalty? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed say "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: The motion is unanimously carried, thank you very much. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: The Decision and Order will be served to you. 8. CASE NO. 2024-009 (11:16 AM) In the Matter of the Accusation Against Krislada, LLC, dba Royal Thai Cafe, located at the Keauhou Shopping Center, 78-6831 Ali`i Drive, Suite 402, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii; Informal Hearing (Alternative II) on multiple counts: MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 33 OF 56 COUNT 1 Violation of Rule 5-4(B) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii; for consuming liquor while on duty; COUNT 2 Violation of Section 281-78.5(a) and (c) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended; for engaging in practices that promoted excessive consumption of liquor; COUNT 3 Violation of Rule 5-6 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 more than a standard serving of distilled spirits (Johnnie Walker Scotch Gold Label Reserve) to a customer; COUNT 4 Violation of Rule 3-1(C) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii; for operating out of class by selling to its customers entire 750ML bottles of Johnnie Walker Scotch Gold Label Reserve that the customers served to themselves; COUNT 5 Violation of Rule 3-1(U) 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 prevent its customer, Rachel EDWARDS, from consuming liquor outside of the approved consumption area; COUNT 6 Violation of Rule 5-5(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 failure to prepare drinks in a manner that permitted any interested customer to view the preparation operation; COUNT 7 Violation of Rule 5-5(B) 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 prepare drinks in a manner that permitted any interested customer to determine if the drink contained the required minimum of one fluid ounce or its equivalent of liquor; MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 34 OF 56 COUNT 8 Violation of Rule 6-1(C)(1) 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 timely prevent or suppress any violent, quarrelsome, disorderly, lewd, or unlawful conduct of any person on the premises; COUNT 9 Violation of Section 281-79 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended; for obstructing Liquor Commission operations by a customer of KRISLADA, LLC dba ROYAL THAI CAFE, when that customer threatened with the use of violence, force, or physical interference or obstacle, or hindered, obstructed, or prevented a Department of Liquor Control investigator (FRENDO) from entering into and/or remain in the premises; COUNT 10 Violation of Section 281-79 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended; for obstructing Liquor Commission operations by a customer of KRISLADA, LLC dba ROYAL THAI CAFE, when that customer threatened with the use of violence, force, or physical interference or obstacle, or hindered, obstructed, or prevented a Department of Liquor Control investigator (TALERICO) from entering into and/or remain in the premises. REPRESENTING LICENSEE: Krislada Theidkittichayakul, Owner, and Kritthakorn Phakdeechueajai, Manager. Fuke: We have the co-owner here representing the licensee, Krislada, could I ask you to please state your name and your relationship to the business? Phakdeechueajai: My name is Kritthakorn Phakdeechueajai, and I live with the owner. Theidkittichayakul: Krislada Theidkittichayakul, I'm the owner. Fuke: Thank you very much. Ms. Kandatsu Kang, can you please read the Complaint? Kandatsu Kang: The Complaint and Accusation states multiple counts: Count 1, on or about the 21 st day of April 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Krislada, LLC, dba Royal Thai Cafe, employee, Phongphan TAWAN, consumed liquor while on duty, in violation of Rule 5-4(B) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Count 2, on or about the 21 st day of April 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Krislada, LLC, dba Royal Thai Cafe, engaged in practices that promoted excessive consumption of liquor, in violation of Section 281-78.5(a) and (c) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 35 OF 56 Count 3, on or about the 21 st day of April 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Krislada, LLC, dba Royal Thai Cafe, sold more than a standard serving of distilled spirits (Johnnie Walker Scotch Gold Label Reserve) to a customer, in violation of Rule 5-6 of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Count 4, on or about the 21 st day of April 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Krislada, LLC, dba Royal Thai Cafe, a restaurant class licensee, operated out of class by selling to its customers entire 750ML bottles of Johnnie Walker Scotch Gold Label Reserve that the customers served to themselves, in violation of Rule 3-1(C) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Count 5, on or about the 21 st day of April 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Krislada, LLC, dba Royal Thai Cafe, a restaurant class licensee, failed to prevent its customer, Rachel EDWARDS, from consuming liquor outside of the approved consumption area, in violation of Rule 3-1(U) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Count 6, on or about the 21 st day of April 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Krislada, LLC, dba Royal Thai Cafe, failed to prepare drinks in a manner that permitted any interested customer to view the preparation operation, in violation of Rule 5-5(A) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Count 7, on or about the 21 st day of April 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Krislada, LLC, dba Royal Thai Cafe, failed to prepare drinks in a manner that permitted any interested customer to determine if the drink contained the required minimum of one fluid ounce or its equivalent of liquor, in violation of Rule 5-5(B) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Count 8, on or about the 21 st day of April 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Licensee, Krislada, LLC, dba Royal Thai Cafe, failed to timely prevent or suppress any violent, quarrelsome, disorderly, lewd, or unlawful conduct of any person on the premises, in violation of Rule 6-1(C)(1) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Count 9, on or about the 21 st day of April 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Liquor Commission operations were obstructed by a customer of Krislada, LLC, dba Royal Thai Cafe, when that customer threatened with the use of violence, force, or physical interference or obstacle, or hindered, obstructed, or prevented a Department of Liquor Control investigator (FRENDO) from entering into and/or remain in the premises, in violation of Section 281-79 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 36 OF 56 Count 10, on or about the 21 st day of April 2024, in the County and State of Hawaii, the Liquor Commission operations were obstructed by a customer of Krislada, LLC, dba Royal Thai Cafe, when that customer threatened with the use of violence, force, or physical interference or obstacle, or hindered, obstructed, or prevented a Department of Liquor Control investigator (TALERICO) from entering into and/or remain in the premises, in violation of Section 281-79 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended. The Licensee selected Alternative II, admitting to the allegations and waiving its rights to a hearing and appeal, but requests an informal hearing to present the circumstances surrounding the violation. At this time, the Department moves to dismiss Count 3 and Count 7. Fuke: Thank you very much, may I have a motion to dismiss Counts 3 and 7? Kelly: So moved. Raymond: Second. Board Member Kelly moved to dismiss Counts 3 and Count 7, in Case No. 2024-009; Seconded by Board Member Raymond. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded that Counts 3 and 7 be dismissed. Any discussion among the Board Members? Hughes: What's the reason for the dismissal of Counts 3 and 7? Gonzalez: In Count 3, we feel that, that conduct and action is adequately covered in Count 2 and 4. In Count 7, the Department was unable to determine the quantity of liquor within the jello shots. Thank you. Fuke: Thank you very much. One with redundancy, and the other one is inability to verify. Any further discussion? There was no further discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed, "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: The motion was unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: May I have a motion to find the licensee in violation of the remaining charges? Hughes: So moved. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 37 OF 56 Raymond: Second. Board Member Hughes moved to find the Licensee in Case No. 2024-009 in violation of multiple counts as follows: Count 1, in violation of Rule 5-4(B) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, for employee, Phongphan TAWAN, consumed liquor while on duty; Count 2, in violation of Section 281-78.5(a) and (c) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended, for engaging in practices that promoted excessive consumption of liquor; Count 4, in violation of Rule 3-1(C) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, for operating out of class by selling to its customers entire 750ML bottles of Johnnie Walker Scotch Gold Label Reserve that the customers served to themselves; Count 5, in violation of Rule 3-1(U) of the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Commission of the Department of Liquor Control of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, a restaurant class licensee, for failing to prevent its customer, Rachel EDWARDS, from consuming liquor outside of the approved consumption area; Count 6, in violation of Rule 5-5(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 failure to prepare drinks in a manner that permitted any interested customer to view the preparation operation; Count 8, in violation of Rule 6-1(C)(1) 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 timely prevent or suppress any violent, quarrelsome, disorderly, lewd, or unlawful conduct of any person on the premises; Count 9, in violation of Section 281-79 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended, when Liquor Commission operations were obstructed by a customer of Krislada, LLC, dba Royal Thai Cafe, when that customer threatened with the use of violence, force, or physical interference or obstacle, or hindered, obstructed, or prevented a Department of Liquor Control investigator (FRENDO) from entering into and/or remain in the premises; MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 38 OF 56 Count 10, in violation of Section 281-79 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended, when Liquor Commission operations were obstructed by a customer of Krislada, LLC, dba Royal Thai Cafe, when that customer threatened with the use of violence, force, or physical interference or obstacle, or hindered, obstructed, or prevented a Department of Liquor Control investigator (TALERICO) from entering into and/or remain in the premises; Seconded by Board Member Raymond. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded that the licensee be found in violation of the remaining charges, any discussion? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: None, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed, "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: The motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: Prior to assessing the penalty, Krislada, you have an opportunity to present your case. Theidkittichayakul: I just want to let you know, this is my first time doing the party, and it's supposed to be a Thai New Year, we do play water, we call it "Songkran" is the water splashing festival for the Thai New Year, and it's the first time with the Thai community on the island. And, they really wanted to celebrate and no one you know, this is the first time that all the Thai people can get together and celebrate the Thai New Year, and the first time doing the party. Most of the time, we just open the restaurant and we both in the kitchens, and as you know right now, we short-staffed, and we have people that want to come to help us. But they said they want to come in and supposed to have the meeting right before the party, right before the day of the party, and they never show up. And, we supposed to have the meeting right before the hour that our customers are coming, the party starts at 5:00 p.m., but they never show up until like 6:30 p.m. So, everything got behind, and it all happen in just 2-3 hours, and things get overwhelming, yeah it's just overwhelming. And then, usually I work in the front, I take care of the customers, I try to learn all the rules, I do not try to break any law and rules, but it just got out of hand because someone supposed to be in the kitchen and help us in the kitchen, but they never show up. So, we short-staffed that night in the kitchen, and both in the front. And, for the past two years, we open the restaurant six days a week, and we open six days and we work six days a week, only two of us in the kitchen. And, we do have the dishwasher that comes and preps and do the dishes, and that day you know people are just coming from like 5:00, 6:00, 7:00, nothing happened. So, we think everything is under control but all of a sudden, people are sharing the bottles and everything, but I did not know until the Liquor Control came in and talked to me. But, after they talked to me, and then take control, I get out from the kitchen, and then just be in the front, be in charge. I tell all my employees that you know this is not right and it's not supposed to be like this, so I tell them to MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 39 OF 56 take the control. After 10:00 p.m., I tell people that are under -aged to leave, and you are not supposed to serve or just put the bottle on the table, and they think it's legal in Hawaii because they see like other places that have the bottle on the table, so they think it's legal. But, you know they didn't know, that's why they had the bottle and the wine, but the pitcher is just the water, it's not the beer pitcher, we did not serve the beer in the pitchers, yeah. But, after I talk to Steve, he came over and talked to me, this is the violations, you can get in trouble. So, after I talk to him, I tell him we're going to fix everything right away, and you know he say it's just a warning at first, but all of sudden you know things got out of control, that we had people playing the water outside. The thing is we cannot play the water inside because of the carpet, we have the carpet in the restaurant, that's why I told the people that if you want to play the water, you can do it outside, that's where I do the extensions, outside in front of the restaurant. If you can hold the glass and play the water, or whatever you can do, but make sure it's in the area that we had extended for the liquor. But, I guess it just got out of control, that's what's my explanation, and it was my first time doing the party, usually I'm just working, open the restaurant, business hours 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and then 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. after the COVID (coronavirus). We used to open six days a week for lunch and dinner, but now we have to cut down, we open from 4:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on the weekends, and we close on Monday, only two of us in the kitchen, yeah right now for the past two years, and we do everything ourselves. You know, we do not try like I say, we do not try to, you know things happen in just three hours and it just happened quick. And I can tell you right now, I learned a lot from this, and I can you tell you this is going to be our first time and last time this event, because we have a lot of people say they want to help, but you know when it comes and don't know where they at, they just left, they just playing, yeah. So, it just happened, yeah, and I feel sorry for it too, because we opened the business for five years at the Royal Thai, and I have Lemongrass Bistro eight years in town, and we do the business for a really long time and we never get in trouble of the drinking or selling of liquor, yeah. We try to be good, thank you. Fuke: Okay, thank you very much. Any questions from the Board of Krislada? I had a few questions, so both of you are the Person In Active Charge? Theidkittichayakul: Yes. Fuke: And then, so this is the first time that you've had this kind of event, and so was it kind of like open to the general public or was it a private party? Theidkittichayakul: We was not going to, it was just for the Thai people. Fuke: So, it was a private party? Theidkittichayakul: It was more like a private party, but we had a DJ (disc jockey) that, our friend's husband wanted to help out with the sound, but he was late so he say that he will have a few people or his friends that coming to join us, and he's American, he's not Thai. I think that's the only one group that is not Thai, which I do not know the, I just know the people who are inside the restaurant that they're all Thai. Fuke: So, was it by invitation? MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 40 OF 56 Theidkittichayakul: By invitation, yes, we put only the poster in front of the Thai restaurant, and they have to know that it's gonna get wet because we advertised it that we're going to have the party, we have the singer, and we have the water. We can open in public, but we try not to, we talked and we discussed about it, and I told him people might not understand because you can get wet, you can get really soaky because of the you know, we throw the water to each other. Fuke: So, the general public was not allowed to enter into the restaurant while you were at this gathering? Theidkittichayakul: Yes. Fuke: So, the other question I had is like, at what point in time did they place the bottle of Johnny Walker Scotch on each table? Theidkittichayakul: We were both inside the kitchen, we don't know the exact time, but I probably say about 8:00 p.m. Phakdeechueajai: After 7:30 p.m., the DJ (disc jockey), he finish the setup at 7:30 p.m., I think after 7:30 p.m. Theidkittichayakul: Yeah, he was late, he was supposed to be here by 4:00 p.m., but he was late to set up the stage, and the system and sound. He didn't finish until like almost 7:00 p.m. Fuke: So, who was the bartender? Theidkittichayakul: Bartender, we have the lady that she came to help us from Honolulu, she's the bartender, and I have one, Pichamol Kbilkam. Fuke: So, none of the other workers, employees at that time were like a PIAC (Person In Active Charge), only both of you were, and you were in the kitchen? Theidkittichayakul: There was four of them in the front, there was four of them. Fuke: I guess, my question is how were they able to purchase that bottle of scotch and put it on the table, so it must have been one of your employees that allowed them to? Theidkittichayakul: Yes, that was Pichamol, she's in charge, she's on the list but she say that she thinks it's legal to put the bottle because she see another restaurant was doing it, maybe she see it from different states, I don't know. Kandatsu Kang: I'd also like to note that in their point -of -sale system, also known as the POS (point -of -sale) system, page 51 and 59, Exhibit Q, they do sell the bottle, and the following page, Exhibit Q, Picture 2, they charge $120.00. They also sell the jello shot, it's in their POS (point -of -sale) system, just wanted to make note of that. Fuke: So, the other question I have is, so once the investigators came, and then explained to you certain things should not be done, what did you do? MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 41 OF 56 Theidkittichayakul: I tell all my employees to clean up and you know, put everything behind the counter, and if they want to have a drink, they can buy it at the counter, not just let them serve themselves. Fuke: So, the bottles were removed from the table? Theidkittichayakul: Were removed from the table, yeah to behind the counter. Fuke: What about the jello shots? Theidkittichayakul: Jello shots, after that I think she throw everything away, we didn't sell them at all, I told them that you know, Frendo told me that you not supposed to serve the jello shots, you not supposed to remake it, you supposed to make it in front of the customer when they order it. After he say that, I just throw everything away, yeah I did not sell them. Fuke: So, you had to get like a permit or some kind of authorization from the Liquor Department because you expanded your service area to outside, correct? Theidkittichayakul: Yes, correct. Fuke: So, during that time, did you have discussions with the Liquor Department staff in terms of what you were planning to do, what the requirements are, you know what you can or cannot do? Theidkittichayakul: Yes, everything supposed to be right, the same as in the restaurant area, yes. Fuke: Including placement of your bottles on the table? You didn't have that kind of discussion? Theidkittichayakul: No. Fuke: Anymore questions? There was no further discussion by Board Members. Fuke: Okay, will the Department provide its recommendation for penalty? Gonzalez: Thank you, yes the Department will, however the Department would like to address some of the questions that the Board had before throwing out numbers. We would like to note that this was an event on Sunday, April 21, 2024, to celebrate the Thai New Year. The licensee was granted a temporary increase for the use of the premises, the event was open to the public, tickets were being sold for $40.00, it was not closed as a private party. They said they were hosting a concert, Exhibit C is a Temporary Increase in Licensed Premises. So, they were anticipating a larger crowd than normal that could fit in the restaurant. Exhibit D is the picture of the poster that was placed for the concert, advertising that tickets could be bought for $40.00 to attend the event, and this was made available to the public. Exhibit E is a photo of what was observed inside, it looked like a really fun festive atmosphere, unfortunately when you're an on -premises licensee, the customers are not supposed to be able to serve alcohol to themselves. The quantity of amounts that's served at a time has to be controlled MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 42 OF 56 and monitored, the licensee has a duty to monitor the consumption of the patrons. The investigators also noted while it was a festive atmosphere, there were children present running around unsupervised, and they had access to the entire premises including the area behind the bar and everything on the table. So, as the table shows there's wine bottles, there's a pitcher empty that had water in it, but there's also alcoholic beverages and containers also on the table that anybody can grab. With that in mind, I'm going to go count by count of what the Department's recommendations are. As to Count 1, the Department is recommending a $1,000.00 fine with $500.00 suspended, this is for the worker that was observed cooking in the kitchen and drinking while working. Upon immediately being told that drinking while working was not allowed, the employee did pour the liquor down the sink. In Count 2, we are recommending a $1,000.00 fine. The licensee's own words says, "This is out of control." This is the type of situation that we try to avoid when it comes to the consumption of liquor. The customers were allowed to self -serve entire bottles of wine and spirits were placed on the table, and there was no monitoring service or consumption, no monitoring of children in the service area running around the entire restaurant. As to Count 3, we dropped that count so there's no recommendation or any fine that would be applicable. As to Count 4, operating out of class by selling entire 750 ml (milliliters) bottles of Johnny Walker, Ms. Kandatsu Kang already brought to your attention the exhibits point -of -sale records that indicate there were sales of entire bottles that night. So, we're recommending a $1,000.00 fine. In Count 5, we're recommending a $500.00 fine, this is when a customer Rachel Edwards was observed walking past the check -in area into the temporary increase area, through the temporary increase area and out of the area, into the parking lot and then drinking their beer and meeting another male patron there. Note none of the staff that were working the event took any steps to prevent Ms. Edwards from leaving the consumption area with her beer. As to Count 6, we're recommending a $500.00 fine. Our liquor Rule 5-5(A), addresses the intent of that is to address in part, public health and safety that the drinks that the customers get when they ordered, that they are poured what they ordered and that the ingredients are visible that's being placed into the drink. So, the preparation of the drink containing alcohol needs to be visible. So, the jello shots are prepared beforehand, nobody was able to see its preparation, if there are jello shots that are usually sold at these type of establishments, they're prepackaged factory sealed versions that the on -premises licensees can usually buy and then resell, okay but these were like homemade in the tray. Count 7, we dropped. Count 8, we are recommending a $1,000.00 fine for the failure to prevent a patron, Gary Perreira, from interfering with the liquor investigators that were trying to do their job. For Count 8, this is demonstrating a course of conduct that leads into what happens in Count 9 and 10. And, Count 9 and 10 isn't a cultural thing, it's a deliberate intentional action against the liquor investigators. That just builds upon the statements that Mr. Perreira made, telling our investigators, "There are no violations here, you need to leave." And, our investigators are MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 43 OF 56 telling him, the customer that, "No it's our job to be here and we can make observations." And in response, the customer Mr. Perreira says, "Wrap it up and leave." And, this is after Mr. Perreira refused to shake hands with Investigator Talerico, after Investigator Talerico saw Mr. Perreira staring at him while Mr. Talerico was doing his job, this was within the premises. That's the basis for Count 8. Count 9, is when Investigator Frendo and Investigator Talerico are outside of the main door of the premises talking with the security guard when Mr. Perreira walks up to them with a squirt gun and squirts them in the face and chest with the squirt gun and laughing and then claiming its cultural. So, at that point the investigators contacted the Police because of the actions of Mr. Perreira. We don't like to see these types of situations escalate to this, it could have been a lot worse, we try our best to deescalate the situation. Our liquor laws and rules make it clear that the licensee is responsible for the conduct of everyone working there and all of the people there including their customers to try and minimize this type of situation from occurring, and minimize any people in the public from getting hurt or injured. And, I'm not saying there was any people getting hurt or injured in this case but you can see how the conduct escalates because you have the full report in front of you. So, in Count 9 we are recommending a $2,000.00 fine. And, in Count 10, we're recommending a $2,000.00 fine. So, to total it all up, we are recommending a total of $9,000.00 in fines, with $8,500.00 payable within 30 days or through a payment plan. $500.00 of the $9,000.00 in fines is going to be suspended. We also ask that the condition be placed that there would be no approvals for Thai New Year event increases for Songkran because this was a party in conjunction with that, although based on what the licensee said during their presentation, this is the first time and last time they're ever going to do something like this. That condition might not be necessary, or it might not be too bad to impose, but it's just taking into account what happened in this instance. That was a lot to process, so if we got to break it down more, we'll be happy to. Hughes: One question, Brandon, have they had any violations prior to this incident? Gonzalez: That's a good question, thank you, sorry. No, there have been no prior violations, in fact they were issued their license on April 25, 2019, so that's a good question, thank you. Hughes: And in past situations that are similar to this, have we just pulled their license? Takase: I don't think we've ever had a situation like this. Hughes: Oh okay. Takase: You know, it was like the licensee said, it was really out of hand. I'll say to her benefit, it wasn't her creating the problem, it was her patrons, you know specifically this Gary Perreira, you should have him pay your fines for you. Fuke: I was wondering whether he was Thai? Takase: I bet you and say he's not. We've never had other than this incident she's been a good licensee. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 44 OF 56 Fuke: Any other questions or comments by the Board members of either the staff or the violator? There was no further discussion by Board Members. Fuke: My perspective, I think that like Count 8, 9, and 10, they kind of like they're all one in the same, they deal with whatever happened to this unfortunate behavior of that customer, so think that they should be you know from a penalty standpoint, pretty much take it like as one because you have this one guy that, if he didn't do all of that then Count 8, 9, and 10 pretty much would not be around. So, I think that this sum amount from the penalty standpoint, think it's severe, you have a responsibility to control your customers, whether you hire security, bouncers, whatever have you, you have some responsibility on that, but I think the violation in terms of the penalty, they're kind of like consolidated. As far as like some of the other violations, I think they're violations but as you had explained, I think little bit kind of innocent, you know like for example the jello shots, I mean yes I can see that you had it prepared but really don't think that the rules are necessarily designed to address situations like that. But, still then it's the rule and you know it falls under, and it's kind of unfortunate that maybe it didn't have a person out there, your bartender or bartendress, or whomever who was kind of like more knowledgeable about you cannot place a bottle on the table, you know. And maybe but still at the end of the day, it's your responsibility, you know so I think there are some extenuating circumstances, you know this being like your first, and maybe like your last. Theidkittichayakul: Last, it's going to be my last, yes I can tell you right here right now. Fuke: So, I was just kind of expressing my thoughts in terms of the penalty, the violations are there, but in terms of the penalties, I have some questions in terms of what it should be, you know so. Hughes: So, Sid when we make the motion, do we do it by each count or as a total package? Fuke: I think it should be by count because if you're going to do it by total package, you don't know how you're going to assign the values to each of the violation, so. Kelly: Can you do it as stated? Mellon -Lacy: Yes, you can do it that way. You can do it as stated if you're in agreement with the recommendation. Fuke: Oh, if you're gonna go like $9,000.00 less $500.00? Hughes: No, I was thinking if we were gonna manipulate the numbers somehow. Fuke: Oh, then yes I guess it could be as stated you know, but you have to assign each value to each count, yes? Hughes: Yes. Kelly: As far as I'm concerned, I go by recommendation of the Department on my part. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 45 OF 56 Fuke: Okay, any other comments? I would think it's best that we take each count and then do the violation accordingly. Gonzalez: That's the best way. Fuke: Okay, so Krislada you heard what the staff is recommending in terms of penalty? Theidkittichayakul: Yes. Fuke: You've heard the discussion, you have anything to say about the recommended penalty? Theidkittichayakul: No. Fuke: Okay. Hughes: I'll make a motion. Fuke: Okay, on Count 1, the recommended penalty is $1,000.00, with a $500.00 suspension provided that there is no violation within a year from the date of the service of the Decision and Order. Kelly: Move to approve Count 1. Raymond: Second. Board Member Kelly moved to accept the recommendation by the Department for penalty in Case No. 2024-009, that for COUNT 1, the Licensee is assessed a fine in the amount of ONE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000.00), with FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($500.00) to be suspended for one (1) year from the date of service of the Decision and Order, on the condition that there are no similar violations of Rule 5-4(B) within that period and that FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($500.00) is to be paid within 30 days upon reciept of the Decision and Order, payable to the Department of Liquor Control; Seconded by Board Member Raymond. Fuke: Any discussion on that penalty? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed, "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Motion is unanimously carried. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 46 OF 56 The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: So, on the first one just for your information, having the employee consume liquor while on duty, the penalty is $1,000.00 with $500.00 suspended. On Count 2, engaging in practices that promoted excessive consumption of liquor, and that as I understand based on what the staff has indicated, putting the bottle on the table, no control you don't know how much these guys are drinking, so that's a violation. Staff is recommending a $1,000.00 penalty on that. Theidkittichayaku I : Okay. Raymond: So moved. Hughes: Second. Board Member Raymond moved to accept the recommendation by the Department for penalty in Case No. 2024-009, that for COUNT 2, the Licensee is assessed a fine in the amount of ONE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000.00), for violation of Section 281-78.5(a) and (c) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended, for engaging in practices that promoted excessive consumption of liquor; is to be paid within 30 days upon reciept of the Decision and Order, payable to the Department of Liquor Control; Seconded by Board Member Hughes. Fuke: It's been moved and seconded that the penalty be assessed a fine of a $1,000.00 for that, any discussion? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed say "No." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: Count 3 was dismissed, Count 4, it relates to selling the whole bottle you know, rather than individual to customers and that's a violation, so the recommended penalty is $1,000.00. Is there a discussion, or suggestion or a motion by the Board members? Kelly: Move to approve Count 4. Raymond: Second. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 47 OF 56 Board Member Kelly moved to accept the recommendation by the Department for penalty in Case No. 2024-009, that for COUNT 4, the Licensee is assessed a fine in the amount of ONE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000.00), in violation of Rule 3-1(C), for operating out of class by selling to its customers entire 750ML bottles of Johnnie Walker Scotch Gold Label Reserve that the customers served to themselves; is to be paid within 30 days upon reciept of the Decision and Order, payable to the Department of Liquor Control; Seconded by Board Member Raymond. Fuke: So, it's been moved and seconded that the penalty for that be $1,000.00, any discussion on that penalty? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor of the $1,000.00 fine say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: On Count 5, relating to consuming liquor outside of the approved consumption area, the recommended penalty if $500.00. Before I do that, I have a question Brandon, can you explain again more specifically what was the nature of that violation? Gonzalez: So, they had a female customer and they had the increased area for the sidewalk and then the few stalls into like the Keauhou Shopping Center parking lot, right? And so, the investigator saw the female customer with the beer walk out of that increased area of the area that we approved for drinking and into the regular parking lot and drank the beer in the parking lot, and she was talking with a male friend over there. To get there, she had to walk past the check -in area where there were staffers sitting there and they didn't stop her from leaving with the beer, so that is what had happened. Theidkittichayakul: We did hire the security guard. Fuke: Any questions or discussion on that? The recommended penalty again is $500.00, may I have a motion? Hughes: So moved. Raymond: Second. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 48 OF 56 Board Member Hughes moved to accept the recommendation by the Department for penalty in Case No. 2024-009, that for COUNT 5, the Licensee is assessed a fine in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($500.00), in violation of Rule 3-1(U) for failing to prevent its customer, Rachel EDWARDS, from consuming liquor outside of the approved consumption area; is to be paid within 30 days upon reciept of the Decision and Order, payable to the Department of Liquor Control; Seconded by Board Member Raymond. Fuke: Okay, it's moved and seconded that the penalty of $500.00 be imposed, any discussion? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: All those in favor say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: "Nay?" There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: Count 6, the recommended penalty is $500.00 for failure to prepare the drinks in a manner that permitted, basically that was jello shots, is that correct? Gonzalez: Yes, so this one is one of those where our recommendation is a $500.00 fine because it was not prepared in the open where the customers could observe the preparation and then they could be assured of proper health and safety and that the ingredients were the same. So, this is one of those situations where you guys might make a different motion for a different penalty than the $500.00 that is recommended. Fuke: Okay, having heard that, Board members any suggestions or a motion? Hughes: I'll make a motion that we reduce it to $250.00. Fuke: It's been moved, is there a second? Kelly: Second. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 49 OF 56 Board Member Hughes moved to accept the recommendation by the Department for penalty in Case No. 2024-009, that for COUNT 6, the Licensee is assessed a fine in the amount of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($250.00), in violation of Rule 5-5(A) for failure to prepare drinks in a manner that permitted any interested customer to view the preparation operation; is to be paid within 30 days upon reciept of the Decision and Order, payable to the Department of Liquor Control; Seconded by Board Member Kelly. Fuke: It's moved and seconded that the penalty be reduced from $500.00 to $250.00, any discussion? There was no discussion by Board Members. Fuke: If not, all those in favor please say "Aye." The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed say "No?" There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: So that was reduced from $500.00 to $250.00. Count 7 was dismissed, on Count 8, that's Count 8, 9, and 10, basically relates to what happened like outdoors you know the disorderly conduct by a patron. The recommended penalty on Count 8 is $1,000.00, Count 9 is $2,000.00, and Count 10 is $2,000.00. Hughes: You know on these counts, I realize it's a violation of the liquor laws but being that it was a patron of the establishment and yes, the establishment should've had control of the situation and they didn't. I don't know to me that's some pretty hefty fines already and I'm not saying to dismiss them, I'm just saying that maybe the other Board members would look at a reduced amount, and also I'm thinking these guys are gonna need some kind of a payment plan with this kind of money. Fuke: Any additional comments? Raymond: Personally, I think that a payment plan is important but reducing the recommendation like this especially when it comes to assault, and I get it, you know it's unfortunate that you weren't the ones and you're guest behaved this way but we also have to look at the safety of the people who do their jobs, yeah. And so for me, reducing something that is like an assault that is against the law in general, not only looking at our liquor laws and holding people who have licenses toward upholding this, I cannot see lessening this because it's an actual assault on people, yeah that's just where I stand. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 50 OF 56 Kelly: I support the decision too, I would go by the recommendation of the Department. It is severe, unfortunately it was a patron of yours but you still have to control your patrons. All actions under your care is actually your responsibility, unfortunately it's hefty but I think we got to go by the recommendations of the Department. Fuke: If there's no other comments, I'm just gonna share, because there are like seven violations, and then the bottom line that they are going to have to come up with if all of the recommended penalties go through would be now $8,250.00. And I just feel like, it's kind of like a first-time situation and that when you do a first time situation, you know there's gonna be some mishaps. And so, maybe it's a learning experience, and I think that the applicant has shown some measure of remorse, and I don't know I just think that cumulatively when you look at having to come up with you know like $8,250.00, but it's a payment plan, otherwise it can be substantial for any operation because I think when you look at the violations, the potential for situations where the cops are going to come would be for when you have concerts like that. So, if you have a violation like that, the question we're going to have to ask ourselves is like, well are we going to charge them $8,000.00 or $10,000.00? You know, but maybe it might be different because they're only going to have one violation, and so there's a max in terms of how much we can assess. But bottom line is in this situation here, cumulatively it's quite a hefty tab, so that's where kind of like I'm coming from. I think that being able to control your patrons is really important, of course you always have the Police Department too, so they were called in. So, the question is and maybe we don't have the answer to that, maybe we'll never know, is like whether any of these charges kind of resulted into something more that the police that has to be judicially educated and adjudicated, but we don't know right now. So, that's kind of the quandary that I face right now I'm feeling is just that the total count is high, you know the bottom line count for something that was first time, you showed remorse and I don't know, that's why I'm looking at like where in this overall scheme of things you know can we consider some amount of reduction? You know, so have you had situations where I guess of the staff, like have you had situations where you've had more violent kind of situations happening, not necessarily to the staff but just generally as a result of an establishment? You get fights and all that stuff, so we hear about stories like that, so what are the penalties in those situations? Kelly: Well, I was gonna say that a lot of these fights and stuff like that at one establishment is done in the parking lot, it's not on premises. They take it outside, and if it's on premises then you know the customer is liable, but if the guys are in the parking lot and stuff duking it out, it's out of their jurisdiction. Takase: Maybe let me offer this to try and help the Board. You know, like in most other situations we offer a penalty but we also suspend a portion of it for good behavior. The reason the penalties were high in this case is because our liquor investigators were there and they were basically completely ignored. I kind of trust the licensee that she's not going to do this again and it won't happen again, so you know maybe it's a one-time event so if it would help the Board come to a decision, I can see reducing or suspending a portion of those penalties. So, the message is still sent but you can provide her some relief through that method. Theidkittichayakul: It's really emotional after that night, I couldn't sleep because I know what's coming. Gonzalez: It's emotional for the investigators too, they are walking into situations where they're outnumbered, it's crowded, the lighting isn't the best, this was a chaotic situation, and we're lucky that it wasn't more serious and it was just a water gun and it wasn't something else MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 51 OF 56 that was done to them by somebody attending the event, right? And that's what they deal with, and that's why they got to work with the licensees, it's a team effort to make sure this type of situation doesn't arise. Raymond: Maybe if we come up with a payment plan that'll be longer than June 2025, or I mean I get it, it is hefty but where else can you really reduce when a rule is a rule and then the highest amounts are dealing with people and their lives as far as getting hurt? I like a payment plan. Gonzalez: So the Director has also given the option besides the payment plan to address the severity by suspending a portion, you guys would still address the fact but out of pocket for the licensee, the amount would be less which might address some of the other concerns that were expressed by the Board. You have multiple options at your disposal to consider. Hughes: I think with the penalties that we've issued through Count 6, 1 think the Director's recommendation of suspension as part of Counts 8, 9, and 10, would make sense, I mean first-time offender and they're not going to do it again, and if they do then they have to pay the difference. Raymond: So, suspending what again, Mike? Hughes: So like in, I'll just throw this out, so Count 8 we say they pay $750.00 with $250.00 suspended, Count 9, $1,500.00 with $500.00 suspension, Count 10, $1,500.00 with $500.00 suspension. The reason I keep Counts 9 and 10 higher is it was direct to our investigators, which like Brandon said there out there on the frontline doing the best they can, and that's my recommendation. Gonzalez: And so, the maximum fine that could be imposed is actually $5,000.00, if you doing the numbers, keep that in your head too, giving you an idea of the discount, $5,000.00 per Hughes: I'm sort of keeping all of the other counts. Gonzalez: Under Count 10, the maximum fine that could be imposed instead of $2,000.00 could be $5,000.00, and then in Count 9 it could be $5,000.00, and then in Count 8 it could be $57000.00. So, the Department's recommendation was at $2,000.00, and then yours for Count 9 and 10 was at $1,500.00, and then suspending a portion of that. Hughes: I guess, again I know they violated the rules but to come up with $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 even with a payment plan, restaurant business, that's a tough one. Mellon -Lacey: I would recommend you state this as a motion so the Board could discuss this. Hughes: Well, I'm throwing it out to see what the other Board members would come back with. Fuke: It's a discussion phase right now. Mellon -Lacey: Okay. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 52 OF 56 Kelly: Yes, it's only on these last three counts, the others were voted on already, right? Gonzalez: Yes. Fuke: I kind of feel like you know the threat against the liquor inspector is the most egregious of them all, you know and yet I'm kind of like looking at the bottom line in my mind, like maybe just to send the message out that you know we have to kind of maintain the recommended penalty because we just want to let all the licensees know that we take this very seriously. You know on that component, I'm little bit torn because of like just the overall bottom line that what you have to pay, and so whether they could be kind of reconsideration on what the penalty for the other components are, other violations while maintaining a relatively high, if not maybe going along with the staff recommendation on Count 10. Raymond: Could we pull back the other counts that we accepted, like take that back and then suspend those but keep the last three what was recommended because that was staff, I mean is that too much? Fuke: So, are you saying to reconsider what we had imposed on the other counts? Raymond: If we want to suspend some amount of money, and the counts we already approved but keeping Counts 8, 9, and 10, to the amounts that were recommended by staff, just as a thought? Hughes: So Dawn, if you were to do something like that, you'd say Counts 1 through 7, we would pull those back to no fine? Raymond: No, we would reconsider, we would have to make a motion to reconsider the counts, each specific count, yes. Fuke: So, Count 1 was already reduced from $1,000.00 to $500.00, Count 6 it was reduced from $500.00 to $250.00, okay. So, it's Counts 2, 4, and 5, is like all the recommended penalties which amounts to $2,500.00, $1,000.00, $1,000.00, and $500.00. So, if you want to reduce it by 50%, then maybe you can reconsider to have Counts 2, 4, and 5, reconsidered. And once the reconsideration is up, then we reimpose a penalty of $500.00, $500.00, and $250. Kelly: But each of those counts, could be as high as $5,000.00? Right, correct? Fuke: No, it's Counts 8, 9, and 10. Kelly: No, but every one, Counts 1 though 6 is all maximum is $5,000.00, it's already been reduced by the Department. Raymond: Oh okay. Kelly: So, I think we should keep those intact and then vote on whatever you guys would want to change on Counts 8 through 10, because a lot of it has been deferred, like $5,000.00 to $1,000.00 to $500.00, 1 mean it's already been reduced so we should consider Counts 8, 9, and 10 only. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 53 OF 56 Raymond: Okay. Kelly: That's why I'm concerned, we can do a little more discussion on that. Raymond: No, that is clear, yes. I thought the $5,000.00 was only Counts 8, 9, and 10. Gonzalez: Sorry for that. Raymond: No, no sorry. Fuke: Thanks for the clarification. Hughes: Sid, what if we go with my suggestion and a six-month suspension of their liquor license? Fuke: I don't know about that. Kelly: We just go with the fines. Fuke: I would kind of like suggest maybe Counts 8 and 9, you know go from $1,000.00 to $500.00, and Count 9, $2,000.00 to $1,000.00, and we keep Count 10 as $2,000.00 because that's the one for the hindrance to the investigators. Gonzalez: Counts 9 and 10, he shot both of them in the face with the gun. Takase: What if you just keep the fines for Counts 8, 9, and 10 as recommended, $1,000.00, $2,000.00, $2,000.00, and for all the other fines for Counts 1 to 4, 5, and 6, you just suspend all of those. So, you impose the fines but you'll just suspend the collection of all of those, so you'll still collect $5,000.00 in the end, which I think is what you guys are looking at, but you've imposed it on the most significant. Fuke: So, when you say suspended and basically there's no fine that's going to be collected Gonzalez: Collected for Counts 1, 27 47 5, and 6. Takase: If there's no further violations. Mellon -Lacey: For a year of suspension? Gonzalez: Yes, with the standard caveat of the no violations of similar ones within a year. Fuke: Somebody want to make a motion to that affect? Hughes: Yes, I'll make a motion that we suspend Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, and then Count 8, $1,000.00, Count 9, $2,000.00, Count 10, $2,000.00 paid within 30 days. Fuke: And with the caveat that the suspended items would be provided that there is no similar violations within the year. So, is there a second to that? Kelly: Second. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 54 OF 56 Board Member Hughes in Case No. 2024-009, moved to suspend Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6; For Count 8, the Licensee is assessed a fine in the amount of ONE THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1,000.00), in violation of Rule 6-1(C)(1) 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 timely prevent or suppress any violent, quarrelsome, disorderly, lewd, or unlawful conduct of any person on the premises; For Count 9, the Licensee is assessed a fine in the amount of TWO THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,000.00), in violation of Section 281-79 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended, for obstructing Liquor Commission operations by a customer of KRISLADA, LLC dba ROYAL THAI CAFE, when that customer threatened with the use of violence, force, or physical interference or obstacle, or hindered, obstructed, or prevented a Department of Liquor Control investigator (FRENDO) from entering into and/or remain in the premises; And for Count 10, the Licensee is assessed a fine in the amount of TWO THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,000.00), in violation of Section 281-79 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended, for obstructing Liquor Commission operations by a customer of KRISLADA, LLC dba ROYAL THAI CAFE, when that customer threatened with the use of violence, force, or physical interference or obstacle, or hindered, obstructed, or prevented a Department of Liquor Control investigator (TALERICO) from entering into and/or remain in the premises. To be paid within 30 days upon reciept of the Decision and Order, payable to the Department of Liquor Control; Seconded by Board Member Kelly. Fuke: Any further discussion? There was no further discussion by Board Members. Fuke: Thank you very much, all those in favor? The Board Members voted "Aye." Fuke: Opposed "Nay." There was no opposition by Board Members. Fuke: Motion is unanimously carried. The motion was carried unanimously Fuke: So, bottom line Krislada, the total amount you would have to come up with would be $5,000.00. And then, the remaining if there's further violations within the year, then you gonna have to pay the balance, and good luck. MINUTES - LIQUOR ADJUDICATION BOARD MEETING - THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 - KONA PAGE 55 OF 56 H IV. Unfinished Business (12:18 PM) V. New Business (12:18 PM) 1. Report to Commission of the National Liquor Law Enforcement Association (NLLEA) 2024 Annual Meeting. Fuke: On the report, we already have that on record so thank you very much, it was an excellent report. 2. Election of Chair and Vice Chair for 2025 (12:19 PM) HIM piq�xi� !��Ivripil 111111111101i-llw MM Fuke: Any other nominees? There was no further nominations by Board Members. VI. Announcements (12:19 PME 111, 11114![4 111! , -•� =6 r , ffST] ; =St- � � J§q' 1 111 10 11111 i - A 41501M111111111� I IFIMT- liffliPlill [W070 rl-� Vil. Adjournment The meeting was adJourned at 12204tof Ge"fald Takase Director The December 19,, 2024,, Liquor Adjudication Board meeting minutes were approved as circulated, via email on April 21., 2025,, by the Liquor Adjudication Board of the County of Hawai"i on August 21., 2025. M