What happened at the Liquor Board on August 7, 2014.

Chairman Ward asked about the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two sides. Ms. Hughes explained that the Butchers Hill Association supports the transfer under the conditions of the agreement. Some of the conditions include restrictions on the hours of outdoor tables and outdoor alcohol service. The applicants decided to withdraw their request for live entertainment and off-premises catering. Because of the applicants’ confusion about their hearing time, the agreement submitted was unsigned, but Hurdle promised the Board that his clients have every intention of signing it. Hurdle also submitted a petition with signatures in favor of the transfer.

Beth Braun, president of the association, told the Board that the community looks forward to Cockey’s Butchers Hill opening in their neighborhood. She pointed out, however, that only 56 or 58 of the signatories to the petition that Hurdle submitted actually live in Butchers Hill. Ward responded, “that’s so often true. Our fellow commissioner pointed out [on June 26] that [the attorney for Cava Mezze] circulated a petition around the law firm.”

Violation of Rule 3.02: “Licensees shall cooperate with representatives of the Board, members of the police department, Health Department, Building Engineer’s office, Grand Jury and representatives of other governmental agencies whenever any such persons are on official business” (Re: May 15, 2014, DJ did not take heed of officers instruction and had to be warned with the possibility of being arrested)

Prevas then cross-examined Detective Greenhill. In response to his questions, Greenhill noted that he did just happen to drive by the establishment, that he was not called there. No one was arrested due to the fights, though a few people were detained and questioned briefly. He did not remember the names of all the officers who were present, off the top of his head. The fight was not going on when he arrived at the scene; it had already been broken up. The people inside the bar were not acting in a disorderly way. He testified that he was dressed in a police vest, with the word POLICE across it, and he displayed his police badge. He said that he was two to three feet away from the DJ when he asked him to turn the music off. Greenhill does not remember using foul language that night, and he testified that the basis for the closure was for the health and safety of the public, including passersby and patrons inside.

Prevas continued with his case, noting that he had subpoenaed Inspector Brooks to testify, but that she was not present. Executive Secretary Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth explained that Ms. Brooks is on leave and will not be back at work until probably October. Prevas then moved to dismiss the two charges. Chairman Ward granted the motion with respect to the Rule 3.12 violation, because Detective Greenhill’s testimony did not substantiate the charge that the police and inspector witnessed fights outside the club. Chairman Ward denied Prevas’ motion with respect to the second charge.

Prevas called the DJ from the night in question, Mr. Terrence Santos, to testify. He has worked at the establishment for 13 years. He did not observe any fights. Santos testified that no one told him to turn the music off until Detective Greenhill came inside. Santos said that Greenhill shouted “cut the goddamned music off!” and was not in uniform. Santos said that he did not realize that Greenhill was a police officer and did not see his badge or vest. Shortly thereafter, a uniformed police officer came into the establishment with a manager and told Santos to turn the music off; Santos says that he obeyed immediately. When asked whether he became upset with the police, Santos said, “I kinda sorta … yes.”

Mr. Raynard Dana Owens, the manager on the night in question, testified next. Detective Greenhill had thought that Raynard was Donald Owens, the licensee, but Raynard was present and Donald was not on the night in question. Reynard said that he knew Detective Greenhill from “several several several several visits” to the establishment. According to Owens, Greenhill told him, “I’m shutting you down.” Owens asked, “For what?” Greenhill replied, “my officers don’t have time to be coming out here to this place. There’s been two fights, and I just want you to shut down.” Owens then responded, “well, if you’re going to shut me down, can you call the Duty Chief. The Duty Officer [] normally is the person who assesses the situation and shuts the place down.” Greenhill said, “I have the authority to [shut the bar down] and the Duty Chief won’t do anything but call me to come down here and make that decision.” Owens explained that, one time, a police officer tried to shut down his bar, but the Duty Chief overruled the officer’s decision. At that point, Detective Greenhill asked Inspector Brooks to deal with Mr. Owens. Brooks advised Mr. Owens, that since it was 1:30am, he should just close the bar; his regular closing time is 1:45 or 2:00am anyway. Owens told the Board that Brooks told him that “this would not be a reported incident.” Commissioner Jones asked Detective Greenhill to respond to the last comment made by Mr. Owens, and Greenhill said that it might not have been a reported incident from Brooks, but “as far as any acts of violence that happen at bars, we (the police) have to report them.”

Prevas closed by pointing out that Rule 3.02 states that “licensees shall cooperate” and argued that a DJ is not within the ambit of the rule. Prevas noted that the DJ’s testimony was that he did cooperate and he should be found not guilty.

Commissioner Moore agreed with Judge Ward and said that if there had been evidence offered regarding the fights outside, there would have been a different (presumably harsher) result. She then addressed Detective Greenhill and the police officers present in the room, saying “witnesses that have evidence should look at the evidence. You got the video; oh gee whiz, look at it! See what you see, and then come testify about it.”

Jones agreed with the other two commissioners. He said, “even the tone with which Mr. Owens testified is agitated to me.” However, he disagreed with the fine; he thought it was too high for a first offense of this kind.

Prevas pointed out that, if this is the establishment’s first offense within three years, the highest fine that the Board can impose is $500, according to Article 2B. Ward retorted, “you’re lucky I didn’t close you down!” Executive Secretary Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth noted that it was actually not the first offense within three years; there was a previous violation of Rule 4.18 in 2012, so the $2,000 fine was lawful.

Preliminarily, Prevas pointed out that the charge read “patrons with drinks after 2am” when it really was patrons with drinks after 1am. Michael Lathroum, the manager who spoke with the officer testified and agreed with Gatto’s description of what happened. He apologized to the Board and said that it would not happen again. Latroum said that there were actually only two male customers, not five, who were waiting for three female bartenders to finish their shift.

Violation of Rule 3.12: “Licensees shall operate their establishments in such a manner as to avoid disturbing the peace, safety, health, quiet and general welfare of the community” (Re: October 22, 2013, Inspector observed band playing extremely loud music)

Mr. Samuel T. Daniels, former Executive Secretary of the Liquor Board, and consultant to the licensee, then cross-examined Ms. Martin. He asked her whether she employed a noise meter; she answered that she did not. He asked Martin whether there was a notice on the front of the building. She replied that there was a sign posting public notice for a BMZA (zoning) hearing on the owner’s application to hold live entertainment and dancing. Daniels asked whether Martin charged the licensee with noncooperation, and she responded that she did not.

Commissioner Jones asked a followup question about the sign posting notice for the hearing. Martin replied that it was her understanding that until the licensee has approval from zoning and the Liquor Board, they do not have permission to proceed with live entertainment. Posting the sign is merely evidence that the licensee has asked for permission, not that he has received it.

Mr. Daniels told the Board that the licensee has since received permission for live entertainment at a January 9, 2014 hearing. He noted that his client had already admitted responsibility for the October 2013 incident at the January 9 hearing and the Board did not charge the licensee with a violation at that time or penalize him for the violation. Ward noted, “I have no comment on anything the prior Board did, but I think you and I both know that’s got nothing to do with this.”

Mr. Daniels submitted a timeline of events to the Board:

• October 1, 2013 – licensee applied to zoning for a use permit to add live entertainment and dancing.
• October 7, 2013 – licensee sent a letter to David Tanner requesting a zoning hearing postponement in order to meet with the Charles Village Civic Association (CVCA)’s Land Use Committee, which met on November 5, 2013.
• October 22, 2013 – licensee posted the required notice sign for the zoning hearing on the building.
• November 5, 2013 – licenee met with CVCA and made a presentation regarding their plans. The licensee admitted to the October 22 incident, and admitted that they had been having live entertainment wrongfully before that point. Jointly, they finalized draft of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
• November 12, 2013 – BMZA hearing: the board approved the application.
• December 3, 2013 – licensee submitted an application for live entertainment to the Liquor Board.
• January 9, 2014 – Liquor Board hearing; the Board approved the live entertainment request.

As evidence of what happened at the Liquor Board hearing on January 9, Mr. Daniels submitted a printout of the case summary from Booze News. In response, Chairman Ward said, “what has happened in the previous Board… I’m not going to say is a matter of astonishment, but it is not relevant.” Ward reiterated that a license is a privilege, not a right, and that the Board has the authority to deny a license at any time, even without complaints from the community. What the previous Liquor Board thought about the application for a license in this case has nothing to do with the inspector carrying forth properly through a complaint that she received and finding that the licensee was not obeying the law. The only question that the Board should consider, said Ward, is: did the licensee obey the law or did he not? Daniels replied that he is not questioning the charge or the inspector; he pointed out, “I have had a profesisonal relationship with Inspector Martin.” Ward piped in, “you might as well tell everybody that you had a relationship with me on a softball team for many years. You played on my softball team. … And I can say you were a good player.”

Ms. Sharon Guida testified as a community leader in favor of the licensee. She requested leniency on his behalf. The licensee has met with the community organizations in the area and has signed a Memorandum of Understanding. The community groups have followed up to make sure that the licensee complies with the provision. Chairman Ward thanked Ms. Guida for coming down to the hearing to speak in support of the licensee and for taking the time to work out agreements with licensees. Guida thanked the Board and noted that they do not have a general policy of leniency with licensees, but she thinks it is appropriate in this case.

Chairman Ward emphasized again that licensees must respect and obey the Liquor Board inspectors. He said, “we want these businesses to succeed, because a successful business is a good neighbor. An unsuccessful business is a bad neighbor. Daniels told Ward that he has already communicated this to the licensee and his staff. Daniels said that, with the licensee, “you had ignorance; ignorance that no longer exists and will not manifest at this establishment again.” He asked, “given the weight of everything, that there be some degree of mitigation.” It is “an operation that has righted itself. My point was not about another Board. It was about a fundamental fairness. We now are having to deal with something that [the prior Board] did.”

She added, to Mr. Daniels, “I find the references to the prior Board… laughable is the word that comes to my mind. Disingenuous is probably accurate. This is the second time you’ve been in front of us, and it’s the second time that you’ve argued fault with the prior Board, but when you do that, I think of you as the prior Board, of at least part of it. … so I find that, when I hear it, it does not process well for me.”

The licensee, Christopher Nwaeze, testified that what Detective Greenhill said is what happened. The license was picked up two days after Greenhill’s inspection. It had been ready to be picked up, but Mr. Nwaeze had a family emergency and did not make it to the Board. The health permit was also renewed.

Ms. Bailey-Hedgepeth clarified further: the Board received a complaint in February 2014 that there were boxes and debris behind the establishment. Inspector Martin took photos of the trash and boxes, which were from other establishments. Since then, the licensee has put up a barrier to beautify the area, including a planter and a fence that mitigates the visual issues with the garbage.

Mr. Frank Shaulis commented that the debris was recycling, not garbage.

Commissioner Moore noted, “my understanding is that we’re dismissing not because there’s been abatement of the problem but rather because it was determined that the recycling or the trash, whatever, was not the responsibility of this licensee, and I think that’s really important that we make clear.”

Dr. Marvin Cheatham, the president of the Matthew A Hensen Neighborhood Association, then testified about the impact that liquor licenses have on his community. The Matthew A Hensen Neighborhood Association has existed since 1963, and its borders are: Presstman Street, N. Fulton Avenue, W. North Avenue, and Ruxton Avenue. He asked the Board to suggest to businesses that they develop a relationship with the community and its organizations. His group has attempted to reach out to the businesses within their boundaries.

In response, Chairman Ward noted that he has instructed the Executive Secretary to keep a confidential list of complaints about licensed establishments and to send inspectors out to those places. Ward said, “we don’t have enough inspectors to inspect 1,500 bars with any frequency. We rely on people like you to report problems.”

Ward then asked the licensees whether they understood English; neither of them seemed to understand his question. He asked them why they hid the $20 bill under the mat, and Mr. Kim explained in halting English that he was making change.