What happened at the Liquor Board on August 6, 2015.

Executive Secretary Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth stated that she had received an email earlier in the week from Mr. Kodenski about the pecuniary interest of the Baltimore City resident licensee. Mr. Lagergren will become a 1% stakeholder, in order to satisfy the requirements of the statute.

Chairman Neil asked Mr. Cobb whether he understood that, if he downgrades his license to beer and wine only, that he won’t be able to upgrade it later. Mr. Cobb said that he understood and agreed.

There were no statements from the community association in the file. Kodenski said that his client had made six calls and nobody had called him back, but there was no opposition in the file.

Mr. Gjerde said that the three applicants had spoken at a community meeting, and that everyone they met was in support of the transfer. They didn’t realize that they should also reach out to the Merchants’ Association, but they plan to try to set up a meeting. Mr. Gjerde has owned and operated restaurants in Baltimore for the last 24 years and has been a licensee at 7 different locations. Ms. Podles, his business partner, has been on three licenses. Neither has ever had an infraction or complaint. Patrons will have access to a parking lot nearby. Gjerde described his concept as “upscale casual.”

Fogleman said that the Stakiases will stay on the license and involved in the business as minority shareholders. The business is located near the University of Maryland and is well known for their breakfast and lunch.

Fogleman told the Board that the application was insufficient in a few ways, because the applicants did not have legal counsel when they completed it. The applicants then amended their applicants’ interview form and testified that they purchased the business for $150,000, with a down payment of $15,000 which came from personal savings; the deal will close August 15, 2015. They will pay $6,000 per month in rent. Fogleman had updated the form with this information, which the applicants initialed and submitted as an exhibit.

Under the 2014 reform bill, applications must be complete 14 days before the hearing; applicants cannot update or refine their applications at the hearing without a followup hearing.

Here is an image of the “floor plan” of this establishment, submitted as part of the application.

Commissioner Trotter asked if there were any letters of support from any community associations. Caroll responded that Ms. Pat Wills heads up the Brooklyn area association, and she had submitted a letter of support in her personal capacity.

The Baltimore City resident on the license has no pecuniary interest in the business.

Mr. Darren Henson, Delaphine’s son, testified that he operated the bar until March 2015, though the property was sold in November. To be specific, he estimated that his last date of operation was on or around March 1, 2015. The commissioners asked if the licensees could provide any receipts or documents that would show that they had been open until March. Mr. Henson responded that there had been some burst pipes in March that actually caused the business to shut down permanently and which destroyed all of their records. Chairman Neil gave Mr. Henson some examples of documents that he could get copies of, including retail sales tax records, receipts showing purchases from distributors, or employee records. Both Hensons insisted that they had no records at all and could not find any. Neil responded that they would need to find something and get rescheduled.

Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth suggested that the Board give a provisional approval, subject to the future submission of documents that show that the business was open. Neil said that he didn’t want to give approval without seeing the documents first.

Executive Secretary Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth noted that Ms. Shaw did not have a pecuniary interest in the business, which will need to be modified in the application. Carter said that she would take care of it.

Violation of Rule 4.18: Illegal Conduct – July 11, 2015 – At approximately 1:30 am Baltimore City Police responded to the establishment for reports of a shooting. Police conducted an investigation and determined that a physical altercation had occurred within the establishment. One of the individuals involved in the altercation left the establishment and retrieved a gun and started shooting in the direction of the bar. By this time the fight had spilled outside of the bar and an individual who was attempting to break up the physical altercation was shot in the left arm. After being struck by the bullet, the victim ran inside the establishment for protection.

Violation of Rule 3.02: Cooperation – July 11, 2015 – At approximately 1:30 am Baltimore City Police responded to the establishment for reports of a shooting. Police conducted an investigation and determined that a physical altercation had occurred within the establishment and as a result an individual was shot. After transporting the victim, police began to question some of the staff in regards to the fight. Officers could find no employee who observed the fight nor could police make contact with anyone who could contact the licensee to discuss the matter. Furthermore, upon initial contact the security personnel assigned to the door denied he was the security personnel. He later admitted being employed as security at the establishment and having been drinking alcoholic beverages while he was working.

Baltimore City Police Detectives Akinwande and Garrett then testified about what they saw. Akinwande said that he arrived after the scene had been secured by other officers and detectives. He went inside the bar to talk to the employees, and they were very uncooperative. He was trying to figure out who owned the bar, and the employees wouldn’t talk to him about it. One employee said that she had never met Ms. Jones before and that she gets paid in cash. The employees wouldn’t provide any employment records and made it difficult for Akinwande to get any useful information. Akinwande spoke to the other officers and detectives, who said, from their investigation, they believed that an altercation had occurred inside that spilled outside and became violent. Jones said that the bar was closed, but Akinwande said that he arrived at 1:30, which would have been a time when the bar was open (Jones testified that she usually starts to close around 1:30).

Detective Jonathan Garrett confirmed Akinwande’s testimony, that they were not the first responders and had arrived after the scene was under control. There were more than three people inside the bar; Garrett assumed they were employees and customers, but they were uncooperative, so it was difficult to tell. The detectives didn’t call Leandra Jones because none of her employees would give them her phone number. Akinwande added that the employees he talked to didn’t know who Leandra Jones was; when they were asked who their boss was, they gave Akinwande a nickname for another person, not Ms. Jones.

Ms. Jones said that just because something happened nearby doesn’t mean it has anything to do with her business. She has been open for a year and does not tolerate any violence. She said that she has a mature crowd and she doesn’t let trouble makers inside. She said that there was no manager on duty when the incident occurred.

Commissioner Jones asked the licensee whether her customers know how to get in touch with her. The licensee said that they all have her contact information. She said that her business is run casually, like a family operation, where “people help out.” The licensee is usually at the bar two to three times per week.