What happened at the Liquor Board on January 16, 2014.

Chairman Fogleman looked through the file and pointed out a historical note in the file from 1968 that the store had been looted during the famous riots in that year. He also saw notes from one underage drinking violation from over four years ago.

Baltimore City Inspector Jeff Ray testified regarding the posting of the sign giving notice of the public hearing. He also testified that he had been to this establishment regularly for his normal inspection duties and that several times he has turned in reports that occasionally the tavern/bar section of the establishment is closed when the package goods section was open. Liquor Board Rule 5.03(b) says, “The bar/lounge area must be operative for business at all times the premises is open to the public.” Chairman Fogleman asked Mr. Ray whether he had issued violation notices for these instances, and Mr. Ray replied that he wrote up reports on the violations and turned the reports in to his supervisor. None of these reports showing rule violations was in the file at the Liquor Board offices when checked by CLC staff on January 17, 2014. Commissioner Jones asked the applicant and Mr. Ray to speak privately after the hearing to ensure that the applicant understands the rules surrounding BD-7 licenses, as she did not appear to understand what Mr. Ray was saying or the rule that her store was in violation of.

Chairman Fogleman also noted that the applicant interview form in the file was incomplete, because Ms. Chong did not fully fill out her employment history, including the required dates. The Chairman asked Ms. Chong to amend her application to make sure it was complete. Mr. Maslan agreed to help his client to complete the application.

It is unclear from Inspector Ray’s testimony where the problem was in following up with this persistent problem at this licensed establishment. He told the Chairman that he submitted reports detailing the violation of the Rules and Regulations to his supervisor, but there were no such documents in the file at the Liquor Board offices. Therefore, it’s unclear whether this failure was one of policies and procedures or lack of followthrough from Mr. Ray’s supervisor. Obviously, however, there was a failure of communication and followthrough somewhere in the process.

Mr. Len Bush, who introduced himself as Len the Plumber, was there to protest the outdoor table service and live entertainment but to support the application to transfer ownership. Mr. Bush’s offices are across the street from the proposed establishment.

Mr. Goden has met with people from the community. He submitted a business plan and a petition with 41 signatures in favor of the project. The proposed hours are 6AM to 12AM, Monday through Saturday. He plans to hire six or seven employees, from the community wherever possible. He also has a security plan, including cameras and outside lighting.

The “city resident” for this application is Mr. Goden’s father, who was not present at the hearing.

Mr. Goden has no experience in alcohol management. The Board asked Mr. Goden whether he was familiar with the Board’s Rules and Regulations, and Mr. Goden replied, “some of it.” Chairman Fogleman replied that the Board takes violations of the rules, such as underage drinking, very seriously.

Commissioner Jones asked Mr. Goden who will be managing the restaurant, and Mr. Goden replied that he is currently reviewing applications for a manager position.

Chairman Fogleman then went through letters in the file from community members. Most of the letters were in opposition to the live entertainment and outdoor table service aspects of the application, which had been withdrawn.

The licensee, Mr. Sorto, was not present at the hearing, because he had a family emergency in El Salvador. He sent his cousin in his place, who has no explained connection with the licensed business.

Chairman Fogleman noted that the Board wants to make sure that the Esperanza Corporation is in good standing. Mr. Kodenski had no information on the corporate entity; neither did the licensee’s cousin. A quick search of the State Department of Assessments and Taxation’s website showed that Esperanza Corporation has not filed a Maryland Form 1 tax return since 2010 and its corporate charter has been forfeited since October 2011.

The file for this license at the Liquor Board offices contained several letters dating from 2010-2012 from the Board to the licensee, asking him to explain his corporate charter’s lack of good standing. See the letter from Deputy Executive Secretary dated February 15, 2012 and the two show cause orders from the Board, scheduled for hearings on December 18, 2010 and June 28, 2012. The corporate charter remained forfeited, and the Board somehow issued new licenses each year to the licensee.