I.                   CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Briden calls the meeting to order at 8:21PM

II.                SALUTE TO THE FLAG

III.             PUBLIC HEARING

(Council sitting as Licensing Commissioners)

A.    DL Enterprises dba East Bay Tavern

Denise Laidlaw, 150 Bloodgood Avenue, Pawtucket (02861)

Solicitor Chapman provides an introduction regarding the decision from DBR. The matter is remanded to Council to hold a hearing on imposition of any permanent public safety measures within 15 days of the DBR decision.  Solicitor Chapman submits the Docket as Exhibit A, the May 15^th Letter as Exhibit B and the Decision by DBR as Exhibit C.  He then asks Chief Tavares to come to the podium for a recommendation to the Council. 

Chief Tavares states there are still remaining concerns relative to the establishment and he recommends the entertainment license be revoked.

Attorney William C. Maaia, 349 Warren Avenue is representing the establishment.   He states that he would like to confer with the City’s Solicitor because he is confused regarding the procedure relative to the decision of DBR and the entertainment license being incorporated in this decision already.

Upon discussion, Assistant Mayor Rose makes a motion to take the Chiefs recommendation, adding that he has already heard everything he needs to hear, this motion is seconded by Councilwoman Rossi

Following further discussion, Assistant Mayor Rose withdraws the motion and allows the establishment to be heard as requested by Attorney Maaia. 

Attorney Maaia states the third paragraph of the decision from DBR, in his interpretation, is that the Chief’s recommendation cannot be addressed as this decision was appealed and a stay was granted with temporary safety measures imposed. Following this, a decision comes down which is very narrow and the issues proposed by the Chief regarding live entertainment and/or not having detail officers refers to the Chief’s letter outlining the temporary safety conditions.

Solicitor Chapman responds this is an attempt to confuse the Council, the decision is very clear that the recommendation is for Council is to hold a hearing on what safety conditions are to be permanent and necessary.

Mayor Briden asks if the notice for this hearing included a revocation of an entertainment license.

Solicitor Chapman states it is the Council’s prerogative to decide if this is a safety issue or not.

Mayor Briden states he is concerned of due process and adequate notice and an understanding on behalf of Mr. Maaia to represent his client, the concern of due process on procedural grounds.

Solicitor Chapman stated the City is following to the letter what the decision has said. 

Attorney Maaia states he is not trying to confuse the matter he is trying to hone in on what the matter is before the Board.  There was no notice for a Show Cause to take away a license on whether or not these safeguards are to be permanent or taken away.

Attorney Maaia introduced the March 21st letter from the Chief as Exhibit D.

Mayor Briden states that he is having a difficult time with the letter of notice sent coupled with the revocation of the entertainment license.

Councilwoman Rossi states this is a clear safety issue, the entertainment license creates the atmosphere.

Solicitor Chapman states he agrees that the decision was to impose safety measures if the Council deemed necessary and permanent public safety conditions and if they feel that removing the entertainment license will take care of this then that is their prerogative.

Attorney Maaia states that it is a quantum leap because the entertainment license was never up for revocation and the establishment is entitled to a show cause hearing.

Assistant Mayor Rose makes a motion to revoke the entertainment license, the motion is seconded by Councilwoman Rossi

Under discussion, Mayor Briden asks the Solicitor if they should seek a clarification on this before going forward.  The first hearing officer incorporated the entertainment license in this, if the second hearing officer wanted to be more succinct would they have included it in their decision but instead remanded it back to the Council?

Attorney Maaia stated if the Council wants to say that it is wrapped in with the regular liquor license this decision doesn't address revoking it. The silence of it means it is not a matter to address tonight.

Mayor Briden stated that the Chief’s recommendation may be right but he is concerned that on procedural grounds, when notice is received by the establishment, the notice must be adequate and meaningful.

Assistant Mayor Rose states the Law Department has ruled that their motion on this matter tonight is ok to proceed therefore he is requesting his motion stand. 

Attorney Maaia requests a copy of the proceedings and states that he will appeal to DBR.

on a roll call vote of the motion to revoke the entertainment license it passes 3-1 with Mayor Briden voting Nay for the reasons he previously stated. 

IV.             ADJOURNMENT

A motion to adjourn at 8:45PM is made by Assistant Mayor Rose, seconded by Councilwoman Rossi and on a roll call vote it is unanimous. 

Approved By Council:  June 17, 2014

Attest:  _______________

                 City Clerk