Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville Local Licensing Authority <br />Meeting Date: October 29, 2001 <br /> <br />Chairperson Lipton stated that the intent of the Authority was to have the Show Cause Orders kept <br />separate but presented on the same evening to save time for everyone, however, it was not the <br />Authority's intent to dismiss either incident. <br /> <br />Attorney Carney stated that part of the negotiation required to reach the proposed agreement, was <br />to specifically have the initial incident in May dismissed so that the August incident would only <br />count as their first violation. <br /> <br />Chairperson Lipton stated that she approved continuance of the Show Cause Hearing for the May <br />incident to the same date scheduled for the Show Cause Hearing of the August incident for ease and <br />expediency. Lipton stated that if she had been aware that the incidents were to be combined and <br />handled as one, she would have insisted they be handled at separate hearings. <br /> <br />Member Jeffers stated that he was not as concerned about the licensee admitting to alleged <br />violations for the May incident as he was about having both incidents treated as a first offense. <br /> <br />Attorney Carney stated that he would be willing to strike the last sentence in paragraph 3 of the <br />proposed agreement. <br /> <br />Member Jeffers asked Mr. Barnett if the dismissal of the Show Cause Order for the May incident <br />played a major key in reached the proposed Stipulation and Agreement. Attorney Barnett stated that <br />he wondered ~vhy both matters were being lumped together and that, had he known the Authority's <br />position, he would have prosecuted the incidents separately. Barnett stated that perhaps there was a <br />misunderstanding, but that he thought he was supposed to consider both incidents when negotiating <br />the proposed Stipulation and Agreement, and that he placed more emphasis on the August violation. <br /> <br />Chairperson Lipton stated that the number of violations contained in a Show Cause Order is not the <br />number of offenses used to determine the penalties under the Authority's guidelines. Lipton stated <br />that each Show Cause Hearing represents one offense. <br /> <br />Member Jeffers stated that he disagreed, and that he did not want to be bound by that philosophy. <br />Jeffers stated that the penalty guidelines are open and subject to aggravating and mitigating <br />circumstances. Member Jeffers stated he was concerned about allowing a licensee to determine how <br />many offenses have been committed and therefore what penalty will apply. <br /> <br />Chairperson Lipton stated her opinion that the Show Cause Order for the May incident should not <br />be dismissed and that the licensee has factored in the first violation in the penalty, and therefore <br />should admit to the violation. <br /> <br />Attorney Carney stated it was not his intent deceive the Authority by having both Show Cause <br />Orders reviewed at the same time, but rather to resolve the matters in one Stipulation and <br />Agreement. <br /> <br />Member Koertje asked Attorney Carney why it is important to the licensee that this be considered <br />one offense and a first offense. Attorney Carney stated he does not want his client's to have two <br />violations on their record and that it was a significant part of the negotiations. Member Koertje <br />asked Attorney Carney why that mattered. <br /> <br /> 9 <br />~\FRED\VARRAN ~LIQUOR~2001 \MINUTES~M1N UTESI02901.DOC <br /> <br /> <br />