I.                   CALL TO ORDER

II.                SALUTE TO THE FLAG

III.             PUBLIC HEARING –SHOW CAUSE HEARING

(Council sitting as Licensing Commissioners)

A.    DL Enterprises, Inc. DBA East Bay Tavern, 305 Lyon Avenue (02914), Denise Laidlaw. 

Chief Parella is called to the podium.

Assistant Solicitor Craven establishes the basic facts of the case and asks Chief Parella to describe the events which took place in July.

Chief Parella lists the counts and describes the incidents. 

Assistant Solicitor Craven asks the Chief to summarize the history of the issues at the establishment.  The Chief reads from his memo which was provided and contains a 5 year snap shot. Assistant Solicitor Craven asks Chief Parella to supply information regarding arrests from all City bars from 2014 the Chief supplies this information 16 total arrests with 8 of those from East Bay Tavern.  The Chief also supplies arrest information from bars for the year 2015 this information is thru 7/28/15 and there are 11 arrests with 7 of those from East Bay Tavern.

All items are entered into the records and labeled exhibit A and so on. 

Assistant Solicitor Craven asks the Chief what he feels has been at issue with this establishment.

Chief Parella states that for this type of clientele there needed to be uniformed security, no back packs allowed, patting down upon entering and searching bags prior to entering the facility. 

At this point Assistant Solicitor Craven asks the Chief to show the video from the incident. 

Detective Spermuli is called to the podium and provides information on what the Council will be viewing.

There is an objection from opposing counsel that since there is no sound it is just speculation on what people might be saying. 

It is noted that Mr. Taigue gave access to the surveillance video and that Mr. Taigue was not present at the time.  There were two bartenders inside and they appeared to be cleaning the establishment and appeared to have no knowledge of what was transpiring outside.  The Police had no knowledge of the incident until they received a call from Mariam Hospital.

There are felony charges and injuries and one female who was struck by the vehicle several times has cuts, bruises and an eye socket fracture.  The other female who was knocked unconscious had a fracture to the nose, road rash and displacement of a tooth.  Of those struck by the vehicle one received 166 staples to the head and 2 stitches, the male has a fracture to the leg and is under the care of an orthopedic surgeon, cuts, lacerations and road rash.  The other 2 females had superficial injuries.

Attorney William Maaia came to the podium stating that he and Ms.Vandervelt will cover points of clarification.  Regarding show cause hearings 3-5-23B as stated in the notice, a revocation for so harsh and rare events constitute a severe infraction or a smaller series which rise to harm at such as levels as to cause harm to citizens.  They cite that the incidents took place in the parking lot and they only had one other incident which went before DBR and they cannot hold the establishment responsible for the others incidences noted and listed as they were not adjudicated prior. There are no witness statements on these and they should not issue a revocation.  DBR has outlined situations where there was a history of problems.  There are no neighbors in the immediate area of this establishment.  There are no life threatening injuries.

Assistant Mayor Cunha states that the opposing attorney has testified to there being no life threatening injuries.  Assistant Mayor Cunha asks Detective Spermuli if he would consider the injuries life threatening.  The Detective states he would consider the car accident life threatening.

Assistant Solicitor Craven provides closing comments stating that it is his duty at this time to recite what the law allows for the City Council’s actions in their role as the Board of Licenses.  There are two areas that the Board should focus in on the first is the State’s basis for revocation and the case law which was cited by opposing counsel.  Revocation cases fall into two categories egregious and those cases which involve revocation where there was progressive discipline. The Board should not revoke if there was no progressive discipline unless the behavior was egregious examples of a disturbance and a shooting on one night were supplied.  Assistant Solicitor cites several case laws, Club Gaza, Parks Market Co. vs McConaty involving 4 incidences of underage sales within 3 years.  He also states that regarding the Chief’s memo 35 other incidences are cited as rules of evidence and he classifies these as prior bad acts not evidence of a crime being committed but rather similarities showing behavior and propensity and it is the City’s position that this track record shows that propensity.  Assistant Solicitor Craven discusses t an immediate revocation which obtained and upheld by Superior Court when an establishment had 4 incidences of underage sales in 3 years.  Despite what anyone would like to feel and the human reactions the owner wasn't there and the place closed 10 minutes earlier but as cited in Schiller Inc. vs Pastore in a decision of the RI Supreme Court and Viatili vs Smith also the RI Supreme Court a liquor license holder is responsible within and without on the premises and the fact that the incident happened outside the establishment is not a defense nor that the license holder was not aware or tried to provide supervision, in this case did not.  When the license holder becomes licensed they accept such conditions and by being licensed the law mandates such and the Board has the right to revoke or anything short of that.

Assistant Solicitor Craven cited two items:

1.   The license holder failed to responsibly control the conduct of patrons in and out of the establishment on July 15, 2015 resulting in serious bodily injuries.

2.   The license holder has had several incidences in the past including a prior stabbing 18 months ago inside the bar and despite the use of discipline failed to control the premises and patrons.

3.   East Providence Police on July 28, 2015 found the license holder serving alcohol despite the revocation which had just been issued by the Board of Licenses and of which DBR had not yet ruled a stay.

Assistant Solicitor Craven continued that as such he would suggest to this Board that a revocation of the license holder’s Class B License is in order. 

Mayor Rose asks City Council members if they have any questions or statements.   

Assistant Mayor Cunha states that there is a track record which speaks for itself and that management is lacking and this has been happening for some time and it is just shy of death resulting.

A motion to revoke the Class B Alcoholic Beverage License is made by Assistant Mayor Cunha, seconded by Councilman Britto and on a roll call vote it is unanimous 4-0 with Councilman Conley absent. 

IV.             ADJOURNMENT

A motion to adjourn at 5:54PM is made by Assistant Mayor Cunha, seconded by Councilman Britto and on a roll call vote it is unanimous 4-0 with Councilman Conley absent. 

Approved By Council:  September 1, 2015

Attest:  ___________________

                    City Clerk