Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville Local Licensing Authority <br />Meeting Date: August 28, 2000 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />Deputy City Clerk Bolte asked the Local Licensing Authority for direction on police reports <br />received concerning alcohol related incidents in which summons' are not issued to the licensed <br />establishment. She continued that it was her understanding that reports such as these were not <br />forwarded since no violation was alleged resulting in police citation. She asked the Authority to <br />state their preference in these matters. <br /> <br />Member Evans stated it was his understanding that all alcohol related reports were to be <br />presented to the Authority. Lipton concurred. <br /> <br />Sergeant Riggins stated that he understood all such reports should be presented to the Authority <br />for review regardless of any police action. He continued that reports presented, both positive <br />and negative, allow the Authority to more fairly assess the conduct of a licensee should any <br />violation occur. <br /> <br />Member Kimmett and Chairperson Myers stated agreement that all alcohol related reports should <br />be forwarded, positive or negative, whether or not citations were issued. <br /> <br />Deputy City Clerk Bolte then asked the Authority for direction concerning liquor training <br />verification of license holders. Bolte explained that while some establishments send employees <br />to local training sessions, other larger establishments perform their own in-house training and <br />testing. For employees attending local sessions, certificates of course completion are issued <br />making verification traceable but no such document trail exists for in-house trained employees. <br /> <br />Bolte also stated that, to her knowledge, there is no method of enforcement in place to ensure <br />liquor training of staff for licensed establishments. She asked the Authority for guidance. <br /> <br />Vice Chairperson Lipton asked Bolte if the large chains that conduct in-house training provide <br />any proof of completion to the Authority Secretary. Bolte stated that the license holder does not <br />provide such notification. <br /> <br />Chairperson Myers stated that many Authority members were not aware that this training <br />requirement was contained in the Rules of Procedure until they reviewed the Rules earlier this <br /> <br />year. <br /> <br />Chairperson Myers continued that the onus of proof should be on the applicant at the time of <br />renewal to provide the Authority proof of compliance, perhaps in the form of a signed statement. <br />He stated his opinion that acceptance of in-house training should be handled on a case by case <br />basis and subject to Authority approval. <br /> <br />Deputy City Clerk Bolte stated that obtaining training material from corporate owned <br />establishments has failed in the past. She continued that many of these companies consider the <br />information proprietary. <br /> <br />Member Kimmett asked how the police department training was received at Henry's Bar & Grill. <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />