Laserfiche WebLink
Mayer: <br /> <br />Griffiths: <br /> <br />Mayer: <br /> <br />Davidson: <br /> <br />Howard: <br /> <br />(Griffiths proceeded to read <br />paragraph fourteen through twenty of <br />the draft decision.) I would <br />suggest that upon consideration of <br />this draft that, if you believe that <br />the draft accurately reflects your <br />opinion and decision, findings and <br />conclusions then the action to be <br />taken would be to approve the draft <br />with any amendments you feel are <br />appropriate and authorize the <br />presiding officer, Tom Davidson, to <br />sign the findings, conclusions, and <br />decision on behalf of the Authority. <br />On the other hand, if upon <br />reflection, you feel that this is <br />not the proper action to be taken in <br />this case, the alternative would be <br />to approve, to consider a motion to <br />approve the application for renewal <br />and authorize the presiding officer <br />to sign the approved application. <br /> <br />A point of order. Have we <br />reconvened the meeting of the Liquor <br />Authority yet? <br /> <br />Yes .... , but .... <br /> <br />Okay. <br /> <br />Kevin. <br /> <br />I have two items, I didn't see on <br />your list of items. First is on <br />item number twenty. It is true that <br />among instances described in <br />Paragraph Sixteen was evidence of a <br />visibly intoxicated patron at the <br />Track Inn having a blood alcohol <br />content of .256. What was of <br />particular concern to me, at least, <br />was the statement by a Track Inn <br />employee that he would have served, <br />continued serving that patron <br />additional alcohol. In addition, I <br />would add another paragraph, <br />Paragraph Twenty-One which states a <br />concern that I had of several <br />instances of evidence given by the <br />witnesses for the Track Inn, which <br />were in conflict with one another. <br /> <br /> <br />