What happened at the Liquor Board on April 10, 2014.

Commissioner Jones asked, in the resale of the license, will the current owner (Mr. Principio) be a part of that corporate entity that will purchase the license? Mr. Kodenski said that he was not sure and that he could not promise that Mr. Principio would not be involved. Commissioner Jones responded that he would like to see that stipulation as another restriction on the license (that Principio could not be a part of the business when the license is transferred). Mr. Kodenski said, in response, that anything that Mr. Principio would have to do would be subject to a public hearing.

Commissioner Smith, who had taken on the role of Chairperson, since Chairman Fogleman had stepped out, asked about the uniqueness of the services of the bar. (Article 2B section 10-202(a)(3) requires the Board to consider, among other things, “the potential commonality or uniqueness of the services and products to be offered by the applicant’s business.”) Mr. Moreno at first testified that his services and products would not be unique, but, after further prompting by Commissioner Smith and Mr. Kodenski, he testified that he would be serving Hispanic food, such as pupusas, tacos, and enchiladas.

Commissioner Jones inquired about the capacity of the business; Mr. Moreno replied that the capacity was 86 people and that he would have two employees. Commissioner Jones asked whether there would be sufficient parking, and Mr. Moreno replied that there was a parking lot across the street.

Throughout the hearing, Mr. Moreno appeared to have a difficult time understanding many of the commissioners’ questions; noting this, Commissioner Smith told him to make sure to read the Liquor Board’s Rules and Regulations translated into Spanish.

Commissioner Smith asked, “when is the last time that you were in operation?” Ms. Bollack replied, “March 2012.” Commissioner Smith asked whether there was a transfer of ownership pending at some point between the closure and today, and Ms. Bollack said that there was a transfer of ownership pending in March 2013. Commissioner Smith double-checked with Ms. Bollack that the bar had not been open even one day between March 2012 and the date of the hearing; Ms. Bollack replied that the bar had not been open at all.

Commissioner Smith then pronounced that based on Ms. Bollack’s testimony, her license is dead as a matter of law. “There’s no license to grant a hardship extension to.” She added that if Ms. Bollack was not satisfied with the Board’s decision, she can request reconsideration from the Board or appeal to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

Commissioner Smith replied, the Rules of Civil Procedure allow for a judge to alter his decision in sentencing, and the Board mirrors that process. However, she agreed that the Board should have given the community and the police department an opportunity to be involved in handing off the business. She also noted that, with the passage of the Liquor Board Reform bill, all future actions that the Board takes must be on the record.

Ms. Hughes then went through the license restrictions that the applicants had agreed to: that alcohol may only be served or sold 11am-11pm Monday through Thursday and 11am-1am Friday-Sunday. The licensee will install and maintain video surveillance cameras which can view and record all areas where alcohol beverages are sold and consumed. The data from the cameras should be of sufficient image resolution for police to use, and the data must be able to be transferred to portable media and indexed by date and time. Data must be preserved for seven days and stored in secure manner. The applicants have agreed actively to discourage illegal activity and to report illegal activity in and around the building. The applicants will meet with the Southeastern District council and with police officers to address any issues. The applicants will also provide security personnel as needed and shall not operate under name “Bill’s Cafe.”

Mr. Kodenski added, on his clients’ behalf, that this family has owned several Subway restaurants in the area and that they are “going to try to add a food component” to the business at 6701 Holabird Avenue. The hours of operation of the business have been restricted under the agreement with the community group, and they will try to hire from the community if possible. Kodenski said that the place is “not going to be a gourmet restaurant, but it’s not going to be a Subway either.” He added that, since Amazon.com is planning to build a facility in southeast Baltimore, this transfer of ownership will “provide a place for people to be able to come.”

Ms. Hughes added that the community is hopeful that these applicants will operate as positive members of the community and will remain in contact with the police department and the police council.

The 2013 Legislative Audit did not mention the Liquor Board’s apparently common practice of privately reconsidering and reversing public decisions. This is probably because the auditors did not know that these private reconsiderations were taking place, given the near-total lack of documentation of the meetings. Finding 17 of the Audit, however, did state: “BLLC had adopted alternatives to the Board hearing process to address licensee violations and infractions. These alternatives were essentially carrying out functions of the Board but were not officially approved by the Board. Furthermore, unlike Board hearings, these alternative processes were not open to the public. The legality of their use is questionable since they were not addressed in State law pertaining to BLLC.” This finding referred to the Board’s former practice of holding private “conferences” with the Executive Secretary, which were not public, but it certainly also would apply to private reconsiderations.

The Commissioners pointed out that the application section requiring the terms of the real property was incomplete; the applicant added in the term of $7500/month rent at the hearing.

The licensees explained that he had put up signs saying that no one under 21 would be served. The employee who served Cadet McCoy is no longer working with Cocky Lou’s, and the licensees have instructed all employees to check IDs.

Baltimore Police Detective LC Greenhill read from his report that Police Cadet Gregory McCoy, under the age of 21, had purchased a 40oz Colt 45 beer.

The commissioners noted that the community association had filed a protest of renewal a few years ago, but that the petition had been withdrawn.

The licensee, through his interpreter, said that the employees are more alert, working more carefully, and taking every precaution to make sure they don’t commit another violation.

The licensee was present at the hearing, unrepresented, with the manager who was on duty at the time, Mr. Ho Jin Choo. Mr. Choo said that, at the time, he was by himself in the store, and that he normally checks IDs every time he makes a sale.

Baltimore Police Detective LC Greenhill read from his report that Baltimore Police Cadet Jones had ordered shot of Malibu rum. At no time did the server ask for ID.

Mr. Harby argued that, since Detective Greenhill wasn’t present at the time, he didn’t know that Ms. Cruz did not ask for ID. Detective Greenhill replied that Cadet Philip Jones had told him what happened.

Mr. Harby asked Detective Greenhill whether he had any firsthand knowledge that the liquid in the glass was alcohol. Detective Greenhill said no.

Cadet Jones, under further questioning from Mr. Harby, testified that he doesn’t remember how much the drink cost but that it was under $20. He doesn’t remember exactly when he purchased the drink, but it was very late at night, possibly around 11:30pm. Cadet Jones communicated with the bartender in English, and he believes that she understood him when he asked for Malibu rum.

The police officers took a photo of Cadet Jones with the alcoholic beverage, but they did not have the photo present with them for the hearing.

Mr. Harby then informed the board that the bartender in question does have alcohol awareness certification and that the licensee has placed more signage at the bar to discourage underage drinkers. The licensee is “civic-minded” and conducts fundraisers for politicians like (City Council President) Jack Young and (City Councilman) Brandon Scott.

Chairman Fogleman found the licensee guilty of selling alcohol to a minor. There was a first offense for underage sale of alcohol on April 16, 2011, so this was a second offense within three years. The fine for a second offense is $1500.