What happened at the Liquor Board on March 9, 2017.

This bill was introduced by Senator Joan Carter Conway (43rd district) at the request of the Liquor Board, without any notice to the community. The first time that the agency sent out its letter of support for the bill was at 10pm the night before the bill’s scheduled hearing in the Senate.

Commissioner Greenfield noted that, in the inspectors’ comments in an October report, that there was trash behind the store. Greenfield said that trash would be a significant issue that the licensee will have to address at his new location.

Commissioner Moore asked whether the Glover Street location is open and operating. Mavi replied that he did not know. Kodenski also did not know when or if the current owners stopped operating, though there was an inspector’s report in the file saying that the business was open in November 2015.

Inspector Mark Fosler interviewed a neighbor of the Glover Street business in October 2016, who said that the business had not been open since January or February 2016 and there had been people doing renovations. The general appearance, according to Fosler, was that the business had been closed for some time. Fosler asked the licensee to present taxes paid, receipts or invoices from wholesalers. The Chairman said that the information before them, then, was inaccurate. Fosler agreed. Commissioner Moore said that the Board cannot transfer a license that is expired.

Deputy Executive Secretary Tom Akras testified briefly that there was an open question of whether the license was valid, so the commissioners decided to postpone their decision until they could get some more information.

Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke testified in favor of the hardship extension request, noting that half of City Hall and all of her family insisted that she be present at the hearing to support the hardship extension request. She said that permits are coming out slowly from the City, since she is waiting for permits for the Book Thing’s rebuilding. Moore and Clarke both commiserated about their trunks full of books that need to be dropped off at the Book Thing.

The licensees’ attorney, Mr. Richard Karceski, objected to Gatto’s testimony about the poker machines, because the charge against his clients was related to the bets on the football games, not the illegal payoff from the poker machines.

Marie Oakes testified that she had previously told Chuck, a patron at the bar, that he was not allowed to do football pools at her bar. On the day that the police executed the search warrant, Ms. Oakes was not at the bar, but the bartender told Oakes afterward that Chuck had asked the bartender to put the money from the pool in her purse. Instead, she put the money in the register.

Commissioner Moore questioned the licensees further about Chuck and the bar. Oakes testified that she doesn’t know Chuck well, but he is in the bar two or three times per week. She added that the neighborhood around the bar has degenerated. Ms. Anderson lives upstairs and Ms. Oakes is at the bar most days. They testified that they told Chuck that he is not welcome at the bar anymore.

Mr. Karceski argued, in conclusion, that his clients could not be held responsible for the violation, because they did not “allow” the illegal activity to happen. Ms. Oakes and Ms. Anderson testified that they told Chuck before the Vice Unit investigation that he could not run betting pools and he did it anyway. Chairman Matricciani rejected this argument, stating that the Court of Appeals has recently held that the Liquor Board can hold licensees responsible for violations even when there is no evidence that they knew about the illegal activity. Commissioner Moore added that it is sufficient to hold them accountable, in her opinion, that the licensees were neglecting the management of their establishment. Karceski argued that in the Court of Appeals case, it was “a woman on a pole,” whereas in his clients’ case, the illegal situation was bets taken on a football game (the implication being that the illegal activity was out in the open in the former case but was hidden in his clients’ case). Matricciani disagreed, saying that the illegal activity was actually solitication for prostitution in the Court of Appeals case, which is not entirely different from solicitation for gambling. Moore agreed with Matricciani, underlining the point that “a woman on a pole” is legal, unlike the football pool.

After two following cases, this case was re-called after Mr. Karceski asked for a reconsideration of the suspension of the license, since the two upcoming days are very busy for his clients. He asked that the suspension take place during the week, perhaps Monday and Tuesday. The Chairman indicated that it would be acceptable to him to change the suspension dates. Commissioner Moore disagreed; she pointed out that the licensees had avoided responsibility on the illegal payouts from the poker machines and they got a pretty light penalty. The penalty isn’t imposed as a convenience, she said. The licensees were brought back in and Ms. Anderson testified that they have scheduled meetings at their bar over the next two days. Commissioner Greenfield suggested that the suspension be lengthened to three days and scheduled for the following week. The other commissioners agreed.

Violation of Rule 4.20(c)(ii): Class BD7 Licensees: Open and Operating Tavern at all Times – January 19, 2017 – At approximately 10:00 PM, the Baltimore Sheriff’s Office, and the BLLC conducted random, joint investigations of establishments to determine if licensees would sell alcoholic beverages to minors. Upon the conclusion of the underage purchase investigation, the BLLC conducted a routine inspection of the establishment. BLLC inspectors observed that the tavern portion of the establishment was filled with stock and personal items, the coolers were not plugged in and operating, and the public were barred from use of the restroom. As the package goods area was open and operating, BLLC officials violated the establishment for not having a non-functioning tavern.

Five years ago, the licensees were held responsible for the same violation for having the tavern portion of the business closed. Seven years ago, the licensees were held responsible for a sale to minors violation.

There is a history of violations, but they were several years ago.