What happened at the Liquor Board on August 18, 2016.

Kodenski noted that, since the license is so old, it has decades-old restrictions on it. The license reads: “no go go girls, dancing, or live entertainment permitted. Franklin John Hartman barred from premises in any capacity.” Kodenski noted that Franklin John Hartman is dead, so his clients don’t have to worry about breaking that restriction.

Mr. Andrew Lasinski testified that he met with surrounding neighbors to talk about any concerns, including those closest to the property. He himself lives only four blocks away. Mr. Stanek also testified briefly about his alcohol management experience in Baltimore City.

Commissioner Greenfield asked whether the bar is currently in operation. Mr. Lasinski replied that Mr. Lear, the current licensee, is in poor health but is operating the business when he can. The applicants are planning improvements to the building, fixing up bathrooms, upgrading restaurant equipment, redo the bar and floor, improve the facade, replace the Formstone, etc.

Chairman Matricciani asked, “you’re not going to stop serving Natty Boh, are you?” Mr. Lasinski replied that he could “pour a beer out of [his] shoe and it’d taste the same. No offense.” Chairman Matricciani jokingly suggested that Mr. Lasinski might need to retake his alcohol awareness course.

Fogleman noted that the bar had held live entertainment for years, but no liquor board inspector had noticed that the Cat’s Eye did not have permission from the Liquor Board to have live entertainment there. He excused the oversight by saying that the inspectors “operate by triage.” If a place doesn’t get complaints, it might slip through the cracks. One unnamed inspector, however, presumably on a routine inspection, was kind enough, according to Fogleman, to let the owners know that they needed to apply for permission for live entertainment, which they didn’t know they needed. After the decision of the commissioners, Fogleman concluded that this shows that the inspectors are doing their jobs.

Commissioner Moore asked when David’s closed. Mr. Morgan replied that it was March or April of 2016. Moore replied that his initial 180 days during which his license remains unexpired will come to an end soon, and he is requesting an additional 180 days, to which he is “almost entitled to as a matter of law.” Commissioner Greenfield agreed that the licensee was entitled to the extension as a matter of law but counseled the licensee to find a new location as soon as possible, so as not to run out of time due to unforeseen delays.

Not in this particular case, but in plenty of other hardship extension requests before the Board, the licensees often don’t even bother giving a reason for the extension. Oftentimes, the “hardship” reason given was not the cause of the closing or stopping of business operations, either.

It is rather troublesome that the Board describes this process as an entitlement to the licensee, as long as they have applied in a timely way, because this entitlement is nowhere found in state law.

Chairman Matricciani read from a prepared statement that in each case listed, the Board, under previous administrations, had found violations of sexual solicitation. In the case of the Circus Bar, the Board issued a $1,000 fine and a three day suspension. For Chez Joey, the Board issued a $500 fine and a three day suspension. The Circuit Court issued an order on February 10 remanding the cases to the Board, because the commissioners had failed to make the required findings of fact. In the interim, there was a change in the composition of the board. Because these commissioners were not the ones who heard the original case, Chairman Matricciani instructed the Board’s appeals counsel, Ms. Alice Pinderhughes, to file a motion to ask the court how to proceed. This motion was not timely, however, so it was thrown out. Judge Geller, however, appended a footnote to his orders, saying that, since the Board could not make findings of fact about what they had not seen in person, they might function like an appellate court in this case and look through the record from the hearing. The commissioners each reviewed the transcripts and evidence presented.

Matricciani continued, saying that there was substantial testimony and evidence in the record. However, the recent Kougl case from the Court of Special Appeals held that, as the Adult Entertainment Rules and Regulations were written, a licensee can’t be held accountable for suffering, permitting, or allowing the commission of an illegal act on his premises if he didn’t know about it. There was no evidence presented in either of these cases to show that the licensees knew or should have known that their employees were soliciting patrons for prostitution in their adult entertainment establishments. Matricciani decided that the case should apply retroactively to these earlier violations; because of that change in the law, these charges were vacated.

Commissioners Moore and Greenfield agreed, reiterating and restating the arguments that the chairman had made.