What happened at the Liquor Board on July 9, 2015.

Chairman Neil asked Executive Secretary Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth whether the Liquor Board staff recommends approval of the transfer; she replied that they do.

Fogleman proffered that the Millers have been successful business owners in the past. He entered several exhibits into evidence, including a menu and letters of support from Kevin Lynch of South Baltimore and the Fells Point Residents Association (FPRA).

BLLC Staff Recommendation: For each of the hearings held on July 9, Chairman Benjamin Neil asked Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth whether the Liquor Board staff recommended approval of each application. There does not seem to be anything in Article 2B to expressly prohibit this practice. However, relying on the recommendation of Liquor Board staff runs the risk of the commissioners abdicating their responsibilities to consider the facts of each case and to apply the relevant caselaw and statutes to each situation. The job of Liquor Board staff is to evaluate whether an application is complete, not whether the application should be approved by the Board. Completeness of an application is a trigger for a public hearing; it is not a sufficient condition for approving that application. In order to decide whether an application should be approved, the commissioners must speak with the applicants and their attorneys and must have read carefully through each application, applying the criteria in the appropriate section of Article 2B to the case before them. Liquor Board staff cannot do this; it is the job of the commissioners, and it cannot be delegated.

The filled-out application is inconsistent: the form asks, “is there anyone else who has a financial interest in this license or the business to be conducted under it?” and the applicant checked “no,” though the application states later that she co-owns the business with Brian Strumke (50-50).

Community Associations: Mr. Shaulis proffered, for his client, that there is no community association that covers his client’s address. A brief search on Cityview shows five community associations that cover this area, at least two of whom are very active: Brewer’s Hill Community Association, Southeastern Improvement Association, Southeast Community Development Corporation, Southeast Presidents Council, and Southeastern District Police Community Relations Council.

Mr. Kodenski said that his clients, the applicants, have been running the business for three months. This practice is in violation of Liquor Board Rule 3.01, which states that “[e]very licensee shall be the actual owner and operator of the business conducted on the licensed premises.” Also, the transferor was not present at the hearing, which is in violation of Administrative Rule #2, promulgated by the previous Chairman, Thomas Ward. It’s unclear what Kodenski and Bailey-Hedgepeth meant by the application being complete “subject to the checklist,” since all applications must be complete (and documents posted online) 14 days before a hearing, under Article 2B section 10-202(a)(4)(v)(2).

The signatures for the three character witnesses appear to be written and signed in the same handwriting.

The transferor of this license was not present, in violation of Administrative Ruling #2.

The signatures for the three character witnesses appear to be written and signed in the same handwriting.

See “Lawyers as Witnesses” and “BLLC Staff Recommendation,” both in the discussion above under the Abbey Burger Bistro hearing. Mr. Fogleman signed as a character witness on behalf of his client.

Article 2B section 9-101(c) requires that the applicants for a license on behalf of a limited liability corporation (LLC) be “authorized persons.” There is no indication in the application that the Baltimore City resident applicant in this case is an “authorized person,” which is defined in the Maryland Code of Corporations and Associations section 4A-101(c). He owns no stock and is not mentioned in any corporate documents.