[Speaker 2] (0:10 - 0:54) Board meeting. Tonight we just have, well first let's have our young citizens here who are in the back lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. If we all can rise, please. Nice job you guys, thank you. Alright everyone, Peter is going to make a motion to enter into our first public hearing. [Speaker 3] (0:54 - 1:30) I'd make a motion that the Swamp's Got Select Board acting as the town's licensing board will hold a show-cause public hearing. Can we just turn down the volume a little bit on this? Is this on? That's a good point. We'll hold a show-cause hearing to hear the following charges regarding all alcohol, section 15, package store licenses issued to the premises located at 371 Paradise Road, Swamp's Got Mass serving alcohol to a minor on November 16, 2021 as part of the routine Swamp's Got Police alcohol compliance check at being 6 p.m. I move to open the public hearing. [Speaker 2] (1:31 - 1:31) Is there a second? [Speaker 3] (1:31 - 1:32) Second. [Speaker 2] (1:32 - 1:33) All in favor? [Speaker 1] (1:33 - 1:52) Aye. Thank you. John McAnany on behalf of the town. We are here tonight on the core show-cause hearings. This is the first one involving Benning Square Liquors. I would request that anybody who intends to testify in this matter to please rise. [Speaker 12] (1:53 - 2:17) I call, I'd like to ask Ted Delano to take the, I guess, the witness stand over here. [Speaker 2] (2:18 - 2:20) Such as it is? Yes. [Speaker 1] (2:33 - 2:59) So as indicated in the notice, this is a show-cause hearing following an alleged violation that took place as part of a compliance check that was conducted by the Swamp's Police Department on November 16th of 2021. First and only witness on behalf of the town will be Detective Ted Delano. So, Detective, could you just state your name and occupation, please? [Speaker 5] (2:59 - 3:02) My name is Detective Ted Delano from the Swamp's Police Department. [Speaker 1] (3:02 - 3:04) How long have you been a detective? [Speaker 5] (3:06 - 3:36) Detective, 21 years on the police department, 31 years. Okay. What are your duties as a detective with Swamp's PD? We do criminal follow-ups for different events that happen within the community. I also investigate family offenses and part of the overall responsibilities are overseeing the designee from the Board of Selectmen in regards to liquor license enforcement. [Speaker 1] (3:37 - 4:37) Okay. And did you conduct or oversee a compliance check on November 16th of 2021? I did. Did any other officers from Swamp's Police Department participate? Detective Sergeant Locke and Detective Doyle. And have you conducted compliance checks on behalf of the town of Swamp's Police Department in the past? I have. For how many years approximately have you been doing those? I would say roughly 14 years. You're familiar with the ABCC guidance concerning compliance checks? I am. Okay. With respect to the compliance check that you did on November 16th, how many establishments did you visit in town on that evening? I believe we visited 13. Okay. And how many were found to be in violation? Four. And can you describe the procedures that you followed with respect to the compliance check beginning at, you know, before you went out into the field on that evening? [Speaker 5] (4:38 - 5:13) Each year by law, within the first week of January, usually first or second week in January, we have to post and stamp it in at town hall that we do compliance checks. With that posting, we have to notify the press, which we do, and we send it out on Facebook. And the past year, Angelica Noble has mailed those compliance check notifications. It's posted at the town hall as well and in the lobby of the police station. [Speaker 1] (5:14 - 5:37) And that's one of the requirements of the ABCC's guidelines with respect to compliance checks? It is. Okay. And then with respect to the check that was performed in November, did you identify an underage person to work with the Swampskate Police Department in this matter? I did. Okay. And can you describe just generally what the person looked like? [Speaker 5] (5:38 - 6:02) At the time, he was 16 years of age. He had a full length or a maybe shoulder length of hair. I believe he had minimal facial hair. He was wearing blue jeans and a sweatshirt. [Speaker 1] (6:02 - 6:20) Did he look roughly his age of 16 in your view? He did. Okay. And so when, so when you, before you went out into the field, what do you do in terms of your involvement with the, with the underage individual who you were working with? [Speaker 5] (6:20 - 6:57) With the individual, the minor would come to the police station, would meet his parents. We would go over a release, which would be signed by the parent and the child. And then we would instruct him after taking a picture of him, we would instruct him what exactly we want him to do for us in regards to the compliance check. We would secure any personal belongings, any cash, his cell phone. He would have no ID on him at all. And we would give him currency to purchase the alcohol as well. [Speaker 1] (6:58 - 7:03) Do you also give him a breathalyzer test before he goes out in the field? [Speaker 5] (7:03 - 7:14) Yes. Sergeant Locke gave the minor a portable breathalyzer test before the, we went out on a compliance check and after at the completion of it. [Speaker 1] (7:15 - 7:36) Okay. And is it correct that they, it registered zero, essentially that there was no alcohol in the system before and after? Correct. Okay. So when you went to the, the first establishment here, been in Square Liquors, what happened? Can you describe the process, the procedures and protocols that you follow? [Speaker 5] (7:37 - 8:29) We speak to the minor. The minor was in the car that I was operating in, operating Detective Sergeant Locke and Detective Doyle were in another car. And we'd make sure that we have eyes on the individual at all times. At every establishment that they, the minor would go into, we ask the minor to purchase a Bud Light can at every establishment. And we have a field minimum age compliance check field report that Detective Doyle completed in regards to the time entered, the time exited, um, if alcohol was purchased, uh, there's a series of steps in regards to the completion of the form. [Speaker 1] (8:29 - 8:44) Okay. And in this particular instance with respect to Vin and Liquors, he, um, and you, you observed him into the premises. He ordered, um, what'd you say it was a, he ordered a beer. [Speaker 5] (8:44 - 8:49) Is that correct? He got a Bud Light can and went to the register with it. Okay. [Speaker 1] (8:49 - 8:52) Um, and he was not carded. [Speaker 5] (8:52 - 8:53) Correct. [Speaker 1] (8:53 - 8:58) And then he left the premises and then what happens then? [Speaker 5] (9:00 - 9:19) Once we secure the receipt from him, um, we ask him to describe the person that had sold the alcohol in to him. And in this case, we went back in and identified the person that sold the alcohol beverage, um, and eventually had some conversation with the owner of the establishment. [Speaker 1] (9:19 - 9:25) And is that a conversation that you had with the owner? Yes. Okay. And what was the, can you describe the nature of that conversation? [Speaker 5] (9:26 - 9:42) Uh, the family has been in town for a long time. Um, I've known the family for many, many years. Um, I had found them that we had performed a compliance check, um, and the alcohol was served to a minor and that we would be in touch the following day. Okay. [Speaker 1] (9:43 - 9:45) Was there any dispute that the event took place? [Speaker 5] (9:46 - 9:47) At that time? No. [Speaker 1] (9:47 - 9:59) Okay. And you, you indicated that there was a, uh, field report that was prepared by, um, detective Doyle. Is that correct? Correct. Um, thank you. [Speaker 3] (10:02 - 10:25) Do you mind if I ask a question? Do you mind if we just, um, have parties introduce themselves? We don't know who's here for this matter and who's not here for this matter. So it would help if we could just, let me say this on behalf of the current licensee who's here on behalf of life's current licensee. [Speaker 8] (10:31 - 10:31) Great. [Speaker 3] (10:31 - 11:33) And do they have microphones? And can I just ask a second question, which is, are we, can I just ask generally speaking, are the facts in dispute here or are you, or if the facts aren't in dispute, is there a way in which we can not go through this because we can hear from them and hear what they have to say and skip this? If the facts aren't in dispute, or do you believe we have to establish the full record for each because they, can I, can I ask it differently? If there, if there is the openness to an agreement and a resolution that would negate the ability for an appeal, right? And so is there, has there been a conversation with, okay, am I asking this? Has there been a conversation about that? And is that prospect real? In which case we, it negates the need to be doing all this. I have had a conversation. Sure. [Speaker 1] (11:34 - 12:07) So I have had a conversation with the attorney out there. I don't believe that there's any dispute with recent place. Ultimately it's obviously the board's call with respect to whatever penalty would be, if any. So there has not been any conversations with respect to a penalty other than the chair concerning what the nature of a compliance check is and the options that generally would apply under these circumstances. Peter, he's answering your question. No, I got it. [Speaker 3] (12:08 - 12:09) Okay. [Speaker 2] (12:10 - 12:31) So here's the thing. I mean, if we stipulate, we have, for the board, the board has to vote on a consequence if there is one. So that can't happen through stipulation without a public meeting. And we won't know what we're stipulating to because we can't get facts unless we have a public meeting, which means we have to do this whole thing. [Speaker 3] (12:31 - 12:32) But we can settle. [Speaker 2] (12:33 - 12:34) We can stipulate to facts. [Speaker 3] (12:35 - 12:38) But we can settle without having a public hearing, meaning that we could. [Speaker 2] (12:38 - 12:38) No. [Speaker 3] (12:39 - 12:41) No. But we're in a public hearing right now. [Speaker 2] (12:42 - 12:44) That's what I'm saying. So we're a board, right? [Speaker 1] (12:44 - 12:52) We have to be. So the board will have to determine. The counties can certainly agree or stipulate that a violation took place. Ultimately, the board's going to determine what it was. [Speaker 3] (12:54 - 12:55) I understand. [Speaker 2] (12:55 - 13:26) So we can stipulate. We can stipulate to the facts and then the board can deliberate based on those facts. But we can't make an informed decision on a consequence without hearing facts. So whether we do it this way or you guys had agreed to some written statement of facts, I don't see another way of doing it. Because we can't stipulate outside of a public meeting because we're one body. [Speaker 3] (13:27 - 13:36) No, I understand. But we can right now be talking about what would be a mutually agreed to resolution in public hearing. We can talk to them about that. [Speaker 2] (13:37 - 13:38) After we hear the facts. [Speaker 3] (13:39 - 13:42) But we don't actually need the facts if we reach settlement is what I'm saying. [Speaker 1] (13:42 - 13:55) There would be a stipulation as to the facts, correct? If the license holder is willing to stipulate that the violation took place. That's literally all I'm trying to get to. We can certainly move to the next phase, yes. [Speaker 2] (13:55 - 13:57) Yeah, that doesn't avoid this hearing. [Speaker 3] (13:58 - 14:01) Are you willing to stipulate to the facts that the violation happened? [Speaker 8] (14:02 - 14:09) We are willing to stipulate to the facts with the condition that we are allowed to make a statement to the board regarding the circumstances and the history. [Speaker 2] (14:13 - 14:19) I think this is just going to take longer. So what I think... [Speaker 7] (14:19 - 14:21) It saves the detective from going through the whole... [Speaker 2] (14:23 - 14:49) I mean, one thing we can do is... As counsel, you can decide what's best if you want to do it through a question, if you want to make the statement on his behalf, or if you just want to say a summary. And then if they want to stipulate to the general facts and then kind of state their... I forget what you said, I'm sorry. You wanted to what? Have an opportunity... [Speaker 8] (14:49 - 14:55) We'd like to tell the board about our practices, our protocol, our history in the town, which I would keep quite brief. [Speaker 2] (14:55 - 14:59) Okay. What do you think? [Speaker 1] (15:00 - 15:08) In light of the stipulation that the violation took place, I have no further questions for Detective Delano. I do have a couple of exhibits that I would request. [Speaker 2] (15:09 - 15:10) Yes, you should have those. [Speaker 1] (15:10 - 15:22) But I don't see any further reason to question Detective Delano in light of the stipulation. Do you have three documents that I want to give the board for consideration? [Speaker 2] (15:25 - 15:32) So, I'm sorry, the material facts that we need to be aware of and that you want to get on the record is that there was a... [Speaker 1] (15:32 - 15:48) There was an alcohol compliance check on November 16th, 2021, at which the license holder served is underage individual alcohol without checking for ID. [Speaker 2] (15:48 - 15:50) Okay. Yep. [Speaker 1] (15:51 - 15:52) Which isn't, obviously, a violation. Okay. [Speaker 2] (15:52 - 15:56) And do we need to get some verbal... Like, is that good? [Speaker 1] (15:56 - 16:02) I believe the Chief's party has agreed that that is the case, that there's no dispute with respect to the facts. [Speaker 8] (16:02 - 16:04) We will stipulate to those facts. [Speaker 1] (16:04 - 16:21) Okay, great. Thank you. I have three documents that I wanted to submit as an exhibit. One is a notice of violation that the police department issued to Vinn and Lukers. One is the compliance check field report that Detective Delano referenced, and one is the receipt from the purchase. [Speaker 2] (16:22 - 16:23) And do they... [Speaker 1] (16:23 - 16:25) Does counsel have a copy? I have copies for counsel, I do, yes. [Speaker 2] (16:25 - 16:59) Okay. Thank you. Okay, so with respect to the... And stop me, Attorney McEnany, if necessary. With respect to the first question, do we find that a violation occurred? The board, obviously, in light of the facts, agrees that a violation occurred. And then the next is what the appropriate penalty would be. But before we get there... [Speaker 1] (17:00 - 17:53) So, yeah, there's really three votes that the board would take. One is to find whether or not a violation occurred. The second is to adopt findings in support of the board's decision, which can be as simple as that the board adopts its findings of fact in support of its decision that the facts found in the notice of violation that was just submitted. The minimum age purchase law compliance check field report, which was also submitted, as well as the testimony of Detective Delano, and in this case, the admission of the license holder to the violation. Okay. And then the third vote that the board would take would be to vote on a penalty. And again, I know you and I, as well as John and some others, had conversations about this. So, with respect to... [Speaker 2] (17:53 - 17:56) Just hold on one second. And I just want you to know, thank you for your patience. [Speaker 1] (17:56 - 17:56) Sure. [Speaker 2] (17:56 - 18:02) This is just an intro, and we will hear from you after that. We won't skip over that. Don't worry. [Speaker 1] (18:03 - 18:03) Right. [Speaker 2] (18:03 - 18:03) Sorry. [Speaker 1] (18:03 - 19:14) Okay. And as we discussed, the purpose of a compliance check in accordance with the ABCC guidelines is educational in nature. It's designed really to educate license holders in town with respect to their responsibilities concerning service to individuals who appear or may appear to be underage. It's not really designed to impose any kind of significant penalties. The town's past practice with respect to these types of incidents, and I've handled several hearings in the past with Detective Delano, the general kind of range of penalties has been written reprimand for any establishments that have had prior violations, one day suspension. And so, that's generally kind of how the board has handled them in the past. Doesn't necessarily mean it's binding on this board by any stretch, but that's what the ABCC guidance is, that these are really designed to be educational in nature and not really punitive. [Speaker 2] (19:14 - 19:38) Mm-hmm. And in fact, there was a recent decision, or a decision where a municipality had suspended a business for five days, and that was appealed, and the ABCC overturned it, right? So, just as an example. [Speaker 1] (19:38 - 20:29) I know, like, for example, in one of the establishments, this is going back probably seven, eight years or so, I would guess at this point, one of the establishments that did receive a one-day suspension appealed that to the ABCC. The ABCC actually found in the licensee's favor and felt that a one-day suspension was inappropriate, even though in that instance they did have some prior, at least one prior violation. The town ended up, you know, essentially imposing a one-day suspension over the ABCC's objection, and ultimately the license holder appealed that to Superior Court. We won ultimately in Superior Court, but it was a rather lengthy undertaking for a one-day suspension. [Speaker 2] (20:29 - 20:39) Okay. Thank you. Anything else on sort of, like, legal overview of the penalties that you feel? [Speaker 1] (20:40 - 21:05) No, that's generally, like I said, it's the ABCC guidance is very clear that this is really designed to be educational. That's the purpose of a compliance check. In talking to Detective Delano, I don't believe that any of the establishments that are going to be coming before you tonight, including Vinn & Lickers, has any prior violations, or certainly if they have, they haven't been in any recent history. [Speaker 2] (21:06 - 21:08) Is that, you confirm that? That's true? [Speaker 1] (21:08 - 21:08) Correct. [Speaker 2] (21:09 - 21:19) Okay. Thank you. Okay, great. So why don't we hear from Vinn & Lickers, and then, oh, Attorney, sorry. I'm like in court all the time. [Speaker 9] (21:19 - 21:19) It's okay. [Speaker 2] (21:19 - 21:20) Chief Kerr. [Speaker 9] (21:20 - 21:26) Thanks. Just before, between two and three, if I can make a statement. [Speaker 16] (21:27 - 21:29) I think we're there. [Speaker 9] (21:29 - 22:49) Okay, then I'd like to make a statement if we could. You know, as you know, the interim police chief, Dave Kerr. So one of the things I was pleased when I arrived here was that this was the philosophy of the department, was to educate and to detect these problems that existed. So I was pleased to see that upon arrival. And one of the things that's going to be happening on March 10th is a training session that we've invited all of the licensees in the community to attend, because we want the businesses to be successful. We want them to prosper in the town, and we're not there to ensure anything other than that happens in a legal fashion. So I just wanted to reemphasize what may be the obvious, but let you know that I was pleased to locate that was here. We did one more thing that I'll provide to the board, is that we wrote a letter to, essentially the same letter, to all the people who successfully passed, saying congratulations to you. Yeah, I just wanted to make it part of the record, because I think it's important that, you know, we're trying to do, support them, and that, you know, they ought to be recognized. If we're quick to criticize, we should be quick to praise. [Speaker 2] (22:49 - 23:01) Right. No, that's great. Thank you. You can go right ahead. Just restate your name, if you would, please, and who you are. Thank you. [Speaker 8] (23:02 - 24:34) Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. Andrew Upton from Upton, Connell, and Devlin, 112 Water Street in Boston, for the licensee. Just a few minor points I want to make is that the owner, Angela Ansara, who is a longtime business owner and Swampscot native, is here to take responsibility for this violation. Vinin has a strong written compliance program. I have some copies and examples that I will submit for the record. They card everyone under 40. Any out-of-state ID must be verified by a manager. And in this case, it appears that one employee made a mistake. This employee signed all of the training materials. She knew exactly what she was supposed to do. She was a nice person who was working hard. In fact, she was a teacher in the local system, working part-time to make extra money, and ownership felt kind of bad about firing her. But they had to be consistent with their policies, and they used that as a deterrent to other employees. So Angela is here to say a few words. I would just like to say she's made some, we believe this was a one-off sort of unique circumstance, but nonwithstanding that, she has made some strong remedial efforts, retraining some of the staff, talking to all the managers, just to make sure that we're doing everything we can to prevent this from happening again. [Speaker 2] (24:35 - 24:36) Thank you. [Speaker 10] (24:39 - 25:50) Excuse me, I'm a little under the weather. I'm Angela Ansara, and I want to sincerely apologize to the board for this incident. It is absolutely unacceptable, and I'm a little embarrassed, to say the least. The manager on duty called me immediately upon this happening, and obviously, the person was fired immediately. We always work to make sure we are compliant with IDs. It's a consistent thing. I have just more enforced, we have a cell phone policy, but I've more enforced that there's no more cell phones allowed at the register at all. Can't have any distractions. So we have a one-strike policy. If it happens, that's it. So we do do as much as we can. We are attending that town meeting coming up next, the alcohol training next week, and we are trying to be up to the latest with what needs to be done, being a retail establishment. Thank you. [Speaker 2] (25:50 - 26:01) Great, thank you so much. And just to clarify, when you say we are attending, is it you and the manager, like, or just a couple people? [Speaker 10] (26:01 - 26:10) Yep. Just, but I have one of my younger managers attend. Okay. He will come back and he'll share the information. Okay, great. [Speaker 2] (26:12 - 26:20) Great, great, thanks. Am I missing a step other than the options? [Speaker 1] (26:21 - 26:41) Unless Attorney Upton had anything further to add, I think at this point, the next step would be to close the evidentiary portion of the hearing. And then to, the board would then deliberate. The first motion would be whether or not a violation took place. The second would be to adopt findings in support of that decision. And then the third would be the penalty phase. [Speaker 2] (26:42 - 26:46) Okay, so I don't have to move to close the evidentiary portion, right? Just say it? [Speaker 1] (26:46 - 26:47) I think you can just say it. [Speaker 2] (26:47 - 27:01) Okay, just wanted, you know, who knows. All right, so that will conclude the evidentiary portion of the hearing. And then is there a motion to find that a violation occurred on the date and at the establishment established? [Speaker 11] (27:02 - 27:03) So moved. [Speaker 2] (27:04 - 27:04) Second? [Speaker 11] (27:04 - 27:05) Second. [Speaker 2] (27:06 - 27:17) All in favor? Aye. All agree? Aye. Okay. And then I guess we just need to talk about, I'm personally fine with the one-day training. [Speaker 1] (27:17 - 27:32) So the other thing, Madam Chair, is that just to adopt specific findings with respect to the- I thought we did that. I thought you just said that the violation took place, so you just need to specifically say that you're relying, what the facts are that you're relying on. [Speaker 3] (27:32 - 28:22) So can I just, I'm just gonna ask one more time, because we have three more of these to do. I know. If we have an applicant taking responsibility and then we're gonna openly say, are you open to the fact that your mandatory attendance to the March 10th training is your, like, that is the remedy, right? Are you amenable to that? Do they agree to that? And they agree to that. Can't we just have the two attorneys sign something? It's not appealable, it's done, and we're not going through all this rigmarole. I'm just trying to get to, I think this board- Now is the answer, I think. I think this board agrees with the remedial impacts, like the remedy here is not to be punitive, right? I want to say something more about that in a second, but to go through this and have something that we're now creating a judgment, a decision that's appealable when we know no one's gonna do it because of rigmarole. [Speaker 2] (28:23 - 28:30) I just, this is- I'm just, I'm just, correct me if I'm wrong. There is no way around what we're doing. [Speaker 7] (28:31 - 28:32) We did discuss this. [Speaker 2] (28:32 - 28:45) Yes, without, we cannot stipulate and find a violation. You cannot find a, stipulate that there was a violation and a penalty. That's not possible, right? [Speaker 12] (28:46 - 28:47) Correct, you have to have it here. [Speaker 2] (28:47 - 28:47) Right. [Speaker 3] (28:48 - 28:55) So how about we don't find a violation and we just settle the thing without making a determination of a violation? I mean, what's the impact of doing that? [Speaker 2] (28:55 - 28:58) I mean, I'm just, again, I'm just trying to- I think that ship has sailed, we're here. [Speaker 3] (28:59 - 29:00) Well, but we have three more. [Speaker 2] (29:01 - 29:09) That's all, I'm just trying to- Okay, let's- There was a determination by the town to move forward with the hearing, and so we are here. [Speaker 3] (29:09 - 29:12) Awesome. The quote, Sharon Fitzgerald, awesome. [Speaker 2] (29:13 - 29:16) Okay, so in terms of the, you want findings of facts? [Speaker 1] (29:17 - 29:31) So, just- Yeah. In this case, obviously the- That's fine. Has admitted to the violation. There have been several exhibits submitted. The board would- Yes. Vote to adopt those in support of this. [Speaker 2] (29:31 - 29:50) Okay. Is there a motion to adopt the exhibits that Attorney McEnany entered into evidence, and also Attorney Upman with the policies from the Vinnin Square Lickers? [Speaker 17] (29:51 - 29:51) So moved. [Speaker 2] (29:52 - 30:04) Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. And is there a motion just to enter into the facts? Is that, is this fine? [Speaker 1] (30:04 - 30:06) No, that's, I think you did that at this point. [Speaker 2] (30:06 - 30:09) Okay. So we can rest on the documents. We're done. Okay. [Speaker 1] (30:09 - 30:13) Yes, exactly. The next question is just what's the appropriate penalty? [Speaker 2] (30:13 - 30:24) Okay. I think, Detective, I would be happy to hear from you. My sense is that one day training that the department is offering is sufficient. [Speaker 5] (30:24 - 30:29) I would agree. It's a good opportunity to have some hands-on training. [Speaker 2] (30:31 - 30:34) Okay, great. Any other comments or questions about that? [Speaker 3] (30:35 - 30:57) Okay, I just, this is a policy that made me think for the town. Can the town create a policy where we agree that going forward we deal with first-time offenders a certain way if there's an agreement? Like we can avoid the show cause if the recommendation would be not to do a show cause to the select board if the applicant agrees to dot, dot, dot. And that's how we can resolve these short of a show cause. [Speaker 1] (30:59 - 31:02) To not hold a hearing is what you're saying? [Speaker 3] (31:02 - 31:07) Well, we made a determination to do a show cause. We could have not had a show cause. [Speaker 1] (31:07 - 31:09) Sure. Ultimately, it's discretionary for the board. [Speaker 3] (31:10 - 31:22) So could we, if we had a policy in effect before we made the decision to have the show cause hearing, if we had a policy that said first-time offenders, first time, that's it. This is the remedy. And if you agree to the remedy, applicant, the board won't do a show cause. [Speaker 1] (31:22 - 31:40) We cannot. Yeah, I'd have to think about that specifically, whether that's an appropriate policy that would be legal. But I mean, you have the discretion as a board to not have it. You could have violations that take place. And ultimately, it's the board's call whether or not to have a hearing. [Speaker 3] (31:40 - 31:43) No, no, I hear you. But it's, so I'm just. [Speaker 2] (31:44 - 31:56) I just think if we're frustrated by the time this is, I think it's a policy discussion that we can have. But as right now, there's no option for that. And we also voted as a board to hold these hearings. [Speaker 3] (31:56 - 32:15) So we are spending time with town council and money, time for the applicant and their council, time for the police chief, time for the detective. We're all here a second night this week. Yes, we voted for the show cause. Totally agree. But if we're going to treat first-time offenders by saying go to a training that's already been scheduled. [Speaker 2] (32:16 - 32:33) But can we just, can we put that as an agenda item or something? I don't, I, can we not do that now? Cause it's just, these are just, we're here for the hearings. Can we discuss it at a future meeting? I'm good. So we're all set with this one? [Speaker 12] (32:34 - 32:35) Yes, I don't have anything further. [Speaker 3] (32:35 - 32:37) We haven't voted on discipline. [Speaker 2] (32:38 - 32:42) Okay. Well, I, is there a motion to, didn't we? [Speaker 11] (32:42 - 32:43) Okay. [Speaker 2] (32:43 - 32:45) Is there a motion? Go ahead. [Speaker 11] (32:45 - 32:52) Motion to approve the recommendation of detective Delano for the one day training session on March the 10th. [Speaker 2] (32:53 - 32:53) 2022. [Speaker 11] (32:53 - 32:54) 2022. [Speaker 2] (32:54 - 32:55) Is there a second? [Speaker 11] (32:56 - 32:56) Second. [Speaker 2] (32:57 - 32:58) All in favor. [Speaker 3] (32:58 - 32:58) Aye. [Speaker 2] (32:58 - 33:01) Aye. I'm gonna take that as an aye. [Speaker 3] (33:02 - 33:57) Aye. I just like to say I would welcome, I appreciate your store policy is to fire the clerk, but the irony is the clerk would be the one that best benefit from the training and the clerk's not there anymore. And so it's your policy, but I also think it would be frankly more productive if we actually, for first time offenders, said make sure that clerk is getting the training, right? As opposed to being punitive for that one person. Stuff happens. It happens. For a first time offender, I just feel as though firing them and then requiring this training is just a slight miss. It just feels like we're missing the opportunity to train the person that needed the training. I understand it may be a company thing for you, for sure. It's totally your decision, but I also want to make sure that we help you give that employee a chance to correct behavior because we don't want it to be punitive. [Speaker 2] (34:02 - 34:03) All set. [Speaker 8] (34:03 - 34:05) Thank you. Thank you very much. [Speaker 2] (34:05 - 34:10) Thank you so much. Thank you for coming and taking the time. Thank you. Thank you, Detective, even though you're not going anywhere. [Speaker 7] (34:16 - 35:02) I do want to just mention that we, Attorney McEnany and I did have significant conversations about how can we expedite this process? How can we turn this into more of a constructive meeting? We had talked about maybe a Friday morning meeting down at the police department, something that would be administratively faster and help us really just ensure that we had the important conversation about alcohol and our youth and just met the importance of that responsibility. Unfortunately, with the due process here, we have to comply with the legal due process and it was made clear to us that we have to go through this rigor. [Speaker 2] (35:03 - 35:43) I mean, it's a formality and we're doing the formality. We didn't create the law. And the other thing is, this is a first violation where we don't want to be punitive, but I think this is one way to... Accountability does deter future action and it also creates a paper trail, so to speak, if there's violations in the future. So it's an incremental thing. Hopefully not. That never applies, but if it does, then it's helpful. Okay, so we have to vote to enter. Okay, do you wanna make a motion? [Speaker 3] (35:43 - 36:07) Swampscott Select Board acting as town's licensing board will hold a show cause. I move to open the show cause hearing to hear the following charges regarding an all alcohol section 12 on-premises license issued to premises located at 450 Paradise Road, Swampscott Mass serving alcohol to minor on November 16th to do through 2021 as part of a routine Swampscott Police Department alcohol compliance check. It being after 6.30, we move to open the public hearing. Second. [Speaker 2] (36:07 - 36:16) All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay, great. So this is with respect to Bertucci's restaurant, right? Attorney McElhinney? [Speaker 1] (36:16 - 36:38) Yes, it is. I would just ask that everybody who's gonna testify in this matter, please stand right here. Do you swear that the testimony that you give in this matter before the Swampscott Select Board acting as the local licensing authority was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, nothing but the truth? [Speaker 2] (36:41 - 36:49) Can we just, sorry, can you just, do you have a microphone? Can you just identify yourselves by name and sort of roll? Sorry. Is this on? [Speaker 3] (36:51 - 36:55) It's automatically on. You don't need to, if you push it, it mutes it. Perfect. [Speaker 6] (36:56 - 36:56) All right, are we good? [Speaker 3] (36:57 - 36:57) Yeah. [Speaker 6] (36:57 - 37:11) Okay. My name is Elizabeth Pisano. I'm from Upton, Connell, and Devlin Council on behalf of Bertucci's. And then with me this evening is Frankie Richies. He is the area manager and the manager of record. Juan is also with me as well. Great, thank you. [Speaker 1] (37:12 - 37:31) Okay, thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. So I think perhaps in light of- Yes, I was just gonna ask. Maybe the first appropriate question to ask is whether or not the license holder disputes that the violation took place. We do not. Okay, so that kind of short circuits that aspect of it. [Speaker 2] (37:31 - 37:42) So- My one other question, some of the introductory information that was from the prior hearing, I think that applies to all of- Do we have to repeat that because it's a different hearing, technically? [Speaker 1] (37:42 - 37:48) I don't think we need to. You would, technically, but I don't think we need it in light of the admission that a violation took place. [Speaker 2] (37:49 - 37:52) So the only thing I would- I thought they didn't admit that just now. [Speaker 1] (37:53 - 37:54) They did. [Speaker 2] (37:54 - 37:58) I thought you said, do you acknowledge that in a violation to a patient, she said, we do not. [Speaker 6] (37:58 - 38:00) I thought you said, do you stipulate? [Speaker 2] (38:01 - 38:20) Oh, I'm sorry, I was- Oh, okay, great. So can we- So can we just- Can we vote on that, and then you read the facts, the summary of facts, they agree, and we vote to enter those? [Speaker 1] (38:21 - 38:22) I'm sorry, say that again? [Speaker 2] (38:23 - 38:26) Can we move now to agree that a violation occurred? [Speaker 1] (38:27 - 38:27) Sure. [Speaker 2] (38:27 - 38:39) And then you read a summary of the facts that they then agree to, and then we vote to approve that with whatever you introduce? I would- It just seems streamlined, that's all. [Speaker 1] (38:40 - 38:48) That's how you'd like to- Okay, you just- You direct me, it's fine. No, that's fine. It's up to you as the chair. It's your call. If that's how you want to do it, you can certainly do it that way. [Speaker 2] (38:48 - 38:58) So I think we just heard that they're- they stipulated that a violation occurred. So is there a motion to find that a violation occurred? [Speaker 6] (38:58 - 39:02) We would like to make a few comments if- Of course, all right. [Speaker 2] (39:02 - 39:02) We'll wait. [Speaker 1] (39:02 - 39:34) We'll wait, go ahead. Okay, so in light of the admission that the violation took place, the only other evidence that I would like to ask the board to consider are three pieces, three documents. One is a notice of violation that was issued by the Swanscot Police Department, two Bertucci's. The second is the Minimum Age Purchase Law Compliance Check Field Report, which details the considered facts concerning this matter. And the second- the third, I'm sorry, is the receipt from the purchase. [Speaker 2] (39:43 - 39:48) Thank you. We have these in our packages. [Speaker 6] (39:53 - 39:59) Okay. Thank you. [Speaker 2] (39:59 - 40:02) Do you need to see this? [Speaker 1] (40:04 - 40:12) I know. I have no further questions or evidence to submit. [Speaker 2] (40:12 - 40:49) Okay, so has everyone here been able to, including council and the parties and us, the board, been able to review the notice of violation for Bertucci's dated 11-17-21 the Minimum Purchase Law Compliance Field Check Report dated 11-16-21 and the receipt dated 11-16-21. Has everyone had a chance to review that? So do you want to make a statement now before we vote on anything? [Speaker 6] (40:49 - 42:23) Yes. So we just wanted to say that we do take full responsibility for what has happened and apologize to the board. Bertucci's has been in the town for 30 years now and this is their first time having a violation. They take this very seriously and have implemented new policies and procedures for all the staff. I won't go through every single detail but just some major points is they've retrained everybody and they speak with each staff member before both the lunch and dinner shift. They have them read the policy, the alcohol service policy and every employee signs it before the lunch and dinner shift. So every single time they have a new shift, they read it and they sign it. Another thing is their POS systems have been updated so that when it's on like an idle screen, it's a reminder of what the policy is, how to check IDs, what the age is and just constant reminders and when they go to enter a drink order, they must put in a date of birth. So if the date of birth doesn't line up and they're underage, they won't even be able to order a drink. So those are two really strong points to help them from preventing this from happening again. Another thing is they always send out frequent reminders via email to staff just as reminders and keep it top of their heads of exactly what they need to do to ensure proper alcohol service and checking IDs. And they have already committed to going to the March 10th training. So they will be in attendance for that. So there's no issue with them wanting to and attending that. [Speaker 2] (42:24 - 42:28) Great. Can I just clarify who, to Peter's point, who is they? [Speaker 6] (42:28 - 42:39) So both Frankie and Juan, the manager of record and the area manager, they'll both be attending. And they told me that they were attending even before we were here this evening. So great. [Speaker 2] (42:39 - 42:43) Thank you. Anything else? Because I feel like I interrupted you. [Speaker 6] (42:43 - 42:45) No, I'll let Frankie just say a couple of things. [Speaker 14] (42:48 - 43:11) Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. We sincerely apologize for the event that happened on that night in November. You know, Bertucci's has been a proud member of the Swampscot community for over 30 years. And we definitely take serving alcohol to the community as a privilege, not a right. So we sincerely apologize. We'll be in attendance on the meeting on the 10th. And thank you for the opportunity tonight. [Speaker 2] (43:11 - 43:15) Thank you. Okay, so is there... [Speaker 1] (43:17 - 43:20) No, I have nothing for the... [Speaker 2] (43:20 - 43:24) Yeah, okay, perfect. Is there a motion to find that a violation occurred? [Speaker 17] (43:24 - 43:25) So moved. [Speaker 2] (43:25 - 43:44) Second? All in favor? Aye. Okay, is there a motion to accept the documents submitted by Attorney McEnany with respect to Bertucci's and resting on the facts that are on the record and that are contained in these documents? [Speaker 11] (43:45 - 43:46) So moved. [Speaker 2] (43:46 - 43:48) Second? All in favor? [Speaker 11] (43:48 - 43:48) Aye. [Speaker 2] (43:48 - 43:55) Okay, and with respect to a consequence... Proposals, motions? [Speaker 3] (43:55 - 44:17) I would just like to ask, is the employee still employed with Bertucci's? This seems to be a theme. All right, I would, going forward, if the employee is employed, I would like to encourage that the employee be the one that's with a manager is the one that goes to the training because I want to support the employees and the employees learning. Do that, but it's not the case here, so... [Speaker 2] (44:17 - 44:22) I think if, yeah, if they end up not firing them, we could require them to go. [Speaker 11] (44:23 - 44:30) Yeah, I would just, I would motion, I would motion to approve training session for March 10th, 2022 as a remedy. [Speaker 2] (44:31 - 44:34) Okay, the managerial staff that are present. [Speaker 11] (44:34 - 44:34) Second. [Speaker 2] (44:35 - 44:36) All in favor? [Speaker 11] (44:36 - 44:36) Aye. [Speaker 2] (44:37 - 44:41) Aye, okay. So, oops, I didn't close the evidentiary portion of the hearing. [Speaker 12] (44:41 - 44:42) Sorry, it's very closed. [Speaker 2] (44:42 - 44:53) So now I'm doing it. And so that closes that public hearing. Thank you so much for coming. Thank you very much. Thank you. Glad we kind of kept it short for you. Thank you. [Speaker 16] (44:53 - 44:55) Have a good night. Thank you. Good night. Have a good night. [Speaker 12] (45:00 - 45:02) I think they're here, so... [Speaker 2] (45:06 - 45:10) Anyone have... Allie, bust out a tune. You got to prepare a song. [Speaker 6] (45:11 - 45:12) My final... [Speaker 2] (45:12 - 45:14) I was going to say, how could you leave without... [Speaker 7] (45:16 - 45:21) Do you have a song, Allie? If you've got a karaoke machine? [Speaker 3] (45:21 - 45:25) I have an idea. How about we spend 10 minutes talking about policy for alcohol licenses? [Speaker 2] (45:25 - 45:26) That's not on our agenda. [Speaker 3] (45:26 - 46:29) Well, we're talking about alcohol licenses. That seems to be on our agenda. I mean, you said you wanted not to use time, and this is now... We have nine minutes of dead air. So I would appreciate it if we could ask town council then to examine ways in which we can, for first-time offenders, create a non-adjudicatory process that makes us comfortable, if some facts are stipulated, makes us comfortable deciding not to do a show-cause hearing. And has them, instead of spending time and lots of money for some of these small businesses, lots of money to come here, to say they're sorry to us for something that happens a lot. It doesn't make it right. But I also don't want it to be... I know our penalty may not be punitive, but the whole action of being here tonight is a bit punitive if all we're going to do is educate. So I just ask that we further explore if there's something we can do, because I get we don't make the rules, but if there's a way in which to streamline things and not make businesses worry and not make businesses show up for a first-time offense, I just think that's a really good way to act with our neighbors. [Speaker 1] (46:29 - 46:52) Sure. Yeah, certainly look into it. Obviously, if the board is intending to have a show-cause hearing, this is the process. If the board wants to not have a show-cause hearing, then I guess certainly could do that. And there might be a way to administratively handle something through the police department so that it never comes to the board. [Speaker 2] (46:54 - 47:02) Except that... I don't know. I can imagine a first-time violation that's egregious and shouldn't go through that policy. [Speaker 3] (47:03 - 47:08) But we make a policy then. We deal with those mitigating factors. I'm envisioning a policy. [Speaker 2] (47:09 - 47:12) If we're talking time of staff and counsel... [Speaker 1] (47:12 - 47:30) And I have actually prepared, draft licensing board guidelines for the town of Swansket. I did it originally years ago. I don't believe the board ever adopted it. And I did send them again to Sean Saley recently. So I did send those to the board. [Speaker 3] (47:30 - 48:19) So I think as though I hear you about the time. But for example, if the police department... When we are determining about doing an adjudicatory hearing, if the police department, in the context of their analysis, came to us and say, this is a first-time offender, we don't recommend an adjudicatory proceeding because the applicant has agreed to do a mandatory training. Then if they, using their filters and say, well, there was a drunk driving accident as a result of that. But the person was underage, got drunk and got an accident. Maybe that's a mitigating factor. You'd say, this is not one that should avoid adjudicatory. Detective Delano comes and says, hey, in my experience, this is one that needs a hearing. But if we create a policy that allows the police department maybe to filter these and come to us with a more informed recommendation to us, we won't then generically just say yes to adjudicatory hearing. [Speaker 2] (48:19 - 48:40) I think that is, correct me if I'm wrong, I think that is what we're doing. They discussed it and the option was, we do nothing or we have a hearing, like, I don't know. It just seems like that was already, the informality was already made, which is why we're here, right? [Speaker 3] (48:40 - 48:56) No, it wasn't made that way. The way was, does the board want to, there are these violations, does the board want to do a hearing? The police department never chimed in. I've never heard from the police department saying have a hearing, don't have a hearing. I heard it come to us and say, these are violations. They want to know whether or not we want to have a hearing and we decided to have a hearing. [Speaker 2] (48:56 - 49:02) He was here on Zoom at the meeting, right? Am I misremembering this? We had meetings. [Speaker 5] (49:03 - 49:25) Yes. And historically, the only options on the police department end would be whether the violation is going to stay home or go into town. And I've always been instructed to ensure it stays at home and then they can appeal it to the ABCC. [Speaker 2] (49:25 - 49:43) So, right, if there was a violation and you guys just had an agreement that they would go, there's nothing in the file saying there's a violation because in order for there to be a stipulation, that has to come to the board, right? [Speaker 1] (49:43 - 49:55) Right, ultimately the board is the local licensing authority. So you could have, if the board had a policy that they didn't want certain things to come up before the board for a show cause hearing. [Speaker 2] (49:55 - 50:17) But with that, I wouldn't want to do that if it avoided a record so that if there was a violation that we wanted to have a show cause hearing for, that wouldn't be the first violation. And then we'd be stuck saying, actually, wait, there was this agreement we had three years ago where you did the same thing. It was the same employee. And they're like, yeah, but that's not on any record. [Speaker 1] (50:18 - 50:26) So it would certainly be able to be brought before the board as evidence from the, in this case, it was to the detective. [Speaker 2] (50:26 - 50:26) Testimony. [Speaker 1] (50:26 - 50:36) Yes, exactly. So, but yeah, there would be testimony from a police department to say, but if they appealed it, that's not a show with respect to this particular establishment. [Speaker 2] (50:37 - 50:39) From a legal perspective, it doesn't seem as clean, which I get. [Speaker 1] (50:40 - 50:40) Yeah. [Speaker 2] (50:47 - 50:51) But I'm happy to put it, to talk about it further or for the next three minutes. [Speaker 3] (50:51 - 51:04) Well, I would just like the board to be able to do billable hours then. If we're going to come do these things. How much do the attorneys make? Because I would also like to bill. I hear you. I'm just trying to streamline. This is just, you know. [Speaker 2] (51:04 - 51:07) It's just that this was already done. Like we did it. [Speaker 3] (51:08 - 51:08) I understand. [Speaker 2] (51:09 - 51:12) I had those meetings. Then we came and we brought those things. And now we're bringing them back. [Speaker 3] (51:12 - 51:48) I'm not trying to remedy tonight because we're already here making the sacrifice and bringing kids and missing things to be here, right? It's about not really about tonight. It's actually about because we have to wait until the clock goes around for all these different ones. It's about the future, which is if we want our police department enforcing. I think we want to do in a way that also doesn't bury us in enforcement hearings. I want them to enforce. But at the same time, I kind of don't want them to enforce if I have to spend two hearings, you know, and we got to spend three hours. And there's staff that's been out two nights in a row. We talked about quality of life, things of that nature. I just want to explore the possibility of finding a streamlined process. [Speaker 2] (51:49 - 52:02) That's fine. That's different than criticizing this one, which we arrived at through a lengthy discussion. I mean, this was put on the table for a while so we can talk about it. And again, I'm happy to put on the agenda, but I'm sorry, frustrated that you have to. [Speaker 3] (52:03 - 52:05) I'm not. I couldn't be happier to be here tonight. [Speaker 2] (52:06 - 52:07) That shows. [Speaker 3] (52:07 - 52:24) Aside from the half hour wait in between each hearings, I'm happy, but I just think it's we've been talking, Sean, for years about figuring out how to if we had to find a magic wand, the county administrator would be able to do this stuff. It's it's the ABCC. It's ludicrous how we the state has beer, has layered bureaucracy. [Speaker 7] (52:24 - 52:27) Candidate. I think this is something the police department alone can handle. [Speaker 3] (52:28 - 52:28) I totally agree. [Speaker 7] (52:28 - 53:27) I believe our police chief, I think our detective and frankly, our entire department does a great job helping people understand the consequences of, you know, you know, an abuse of alcohol. Like this is important. Alcohol, you know, is a real challenge for our youth. And I don't want to trivialize the importance of this conversation tonight. However, we don't need to have it. You know, on a weeknight, this could be handled right down at the police station in a context, you know, sensitive way. Our businesses are important to us. You know, they have struggled over the last couple of years during a pandemic. They are challenged and they need to know that this is important to us. But I fully trust that they can, you know, find ways to be vigilant. [Speaker 3] (53:29 - 53:31) All right. Can I make a motion? Seven o'clock. [Speaker 2] (53:31 - 53:31) Please do. [Speaker 3] (53:33 - 53:54) Move to open the public hearing. Acting for the select Somerset Select Board acting as the licensing board to hold a short cause public hearing to hear the following charges regarding an all alcohol section 15 package store license issued to the premises located at 205 Burrill Street, Swampscott Mass, serving alcohol to a minor on November 16th, 2021 as part of a routine Swampscott Police Department alcohol compliance check. [Speaker 2] (53:55 - 53:56) Is there a second? [Speaker 3] (53:56 - 53:56) Second. [Speaker 2] (53:57 - 54:03) All in favor. All right. Hi. What's your name? [Speaker 18] (54:06 - 54:06) Okay. [Speaker 2] (54:17 - 54:29) Thank you. You don't have to repeat that, but we do want to get you a microphone. No, you don't have to repeat it, but they'll bring it to you. Are you counsel for now? [Speaker 13] (54:29 - 54:30) No, I am by myself. [Speaker 2] (54:30 - 54:41) Okay, great. See, Peter, is that better? No, I'm not going there. Okay. So thank you. Do you have any? [Speaker 1] (54:42 - 55:26) I have no questions in light of the admission by the license holder. The only documents again that I'd like to submit in this matter are the same documents that I submitted in the other matters, which are the notice of violation that was issued to Jan's China Bistro by the police department following the incident, as well as the minimum age purchase law compliance check field report that was completed by Detective Doyle at the time when the incident occurred and the receipt from the purchase that was made. I think we're confusing. I'm sorry. By mistake. I thought that Jan's was the next one on the list. [Speaker 2] (55:28 - 55:29) I just recognized you. [Speaker 1] (55:29 - 55:54) I thought the license holder indicated that he was from Jan's China Bistro. So same thing. Same documents with respect to this matter. The notice of violation that was issued to Borough Street Liquors, a copy of the field report that was prepared by Detective Doyle and the receipt from the purchase that was made. [Speaker 2] (55:54 - 56:02) Great. OK, so great. Is there anything further? You do not have to. I just wanted to give you the opportunity before we. [Speaker 13] (56:03 - 56:18) No, we I admit it was my fault as Russian just want to get customers in and out and, you know, could have been more careful and will be more careful. Yeah. And we myself and another employee who was not there at that time will attend the training session next week. [Speaker 2] (56:18 - 56:22) OK, great. And are you going to be able to keep your business open during those hours? [Speaker 13] (56:22 - 56:32) Well, we open at 11. I'm going to ask Angelica to let us leave around 1045. So email. Yes. So and then so we can open the shop at 11 o'clock. [Speaker 2] (56:32 - 56:45) OK, we can leave that to the discretion of the department. OK, so in terms of. OK, so is there a motion to find that a violation occurred at 205 Borough Street, Borough Street Liquors on November 16th, 2022. [Speaker 17] (56:45 - 56:53) So move. I'm sorry. Twenty twenty one. November 16th, 2021. So move. [Speaker 2] (56:53 - 56:53) Thank you. [Speaker 17] (56:53 - 56:53) Second. [Speaker 2] (56:54 - 56:55) All in favor. [Speaker 17] (56:55 - 56:55) Aye. Aye. [Speaker 2] (56:56 - 57:27) Is there a motion to accept the facts that as stated on the record and as outlined on the documents and accepting these documents and the facts on the documents of evidence notice of violation for Borough Street Liquors dated 11 17 21 minimum age purchase law compliance check field report filed 11 16 20 dated. 11. I'm like an autopilot 16 21 and then receipt of Borough Street Liquors on 11 16 21. [Speaker 11] (57:27 - 57:29) So move. Second. [Speaker 2] (57:29 - 57:30) OK, all in favor. [Speaker 11] (57:30 - 57:31) Aye. [Speaker 2] (57:31 - 57:37) Aye. OK, and is there a motion? Anyone any discussion on the consequence? [Speaker 11] (57:40 - 57:53) No motion for appropriate remedy to be to be the training session for. For for Mr. for Mr. Vu to attend the training session on March 20. On March 10th, 2022. [Speaker 2] (57:53 - 57:54) Is there a second? [Speaker 11] (57:54 - 57:54) Second. [Speaker 2] (57:55 - 57:55) All in favor. [Speaker 11] (57:55 - 57:56) Aye. Aye. [Speaker 2] (57:56 - 58:00) Aye. Great, thank you. You are all set. [Speaker 1] (58:00 - 58:01) Thank you. [Speaker 2] (58:01 - 58:04) I know closing the evidentiary portion of this. [Speaker 1] (58:04 - 58:05) It's supposed. [Speaker 2] (58:06 - 58:11) OK, very good. Thank you so much. We are done. Thank you. [Speaker 1] (58:11 - 58:12) Thank you. [Speaker 3] (58:18 - 58:30) So can we take a week time? We have to wait till 730. So can we take? Can we go into recess and just instead of having everybody sit and watch us sit here for 25 minutes? I would say that would. Sorry, I moved to. [Speaker 2] (58:32 - 58:35) This hearing is over. So I can pause the. That's true. [Speaker 3] (58:35 - 58:45) That's correct. No, I think I'd pause it. So we're not sitting here, but I'd make a motion to recess until 730. Second. [Speaker 2] (58:46 - 58:46) All in favor. [Speaker 3] (58:46 - 58:49) Aye. Aye. So we let. [Speaker 16] (58:53 - 58:53) Now go. [Speaker 3] (58:54 - 58:55) Black, please. [Speaker 15] (1:25:39 - 1:25:57) I don't know if you watch that. No. [Speaker 2] (1:26:13 - 1:26:19) Yeah, I was going to say it earlier, but then I didn't know if it was a preference at that point. Are we live? [Speaker 6] (1:26:19 - 1:26:20) Sorry, we're all set. OK, Ellie. [Speaker 3] (1:26:21 - 1:26:21) Ellie, we good? [Speaker 6] (1:26:21 - 1:26:25) Well, I'm not. I'm not doing anything. Do you guys returning the video on Zoom too? [Speaker 16] (1:26:26 - 1:26:27) Oh, yeah, sorry. [Speaker 6] (1:26:29 - 1:26:29) Thank you. [Speaker 2] (1:26:31 - 1:26:34) OK, we are back. Peter, do you want to make a motion? [Speaker 3] (1:26:34 - 1:26:53) Make a motion to open the public hearing for the Swampscott Select Board acting as the town's licensing board to hold a show cause public hearing to hear the following charges regarding all alcohol. Section 12 on premises license issues of the premises located at 146 Humphrey Street. Swampscott mass serving alcohol to a minor on November 16th, 2021. As part of a routine Swampscott Police Department alcohol compliance check. [Speaker 2] (1:26:54 - 1:26:56) Is there a second? Second. All in favor. [Speaker 3] (1:26:56 - 1:26:56) Aye. [Speaker 2] (1:26:57 - 1:27:03) OK, good evening. Oh, can we just have everybody identify? I'm sorry. Thank you. Hi. [Speaker 4] (1:27:16 - 1:27:17) Great. [Speaker 2] (1:27:29 - 1:27:30) Thanks for being here. [Speaker 1] (1:27:32 - 1:28:01) OK, Madam Chair, members of the board. I have spoken to Attorney Schutzer and my understanding that his client will stipulate that the violation did in fact take place and that alcohol was sold to an underage individual on. The November 16th, 2021 and during a compliance check that was conducted by the Swampscott Police Department. In light of that, the only other documents I guess I just asked Attorney Schutzer to confirm that that's the case. [Speaker 4] (1:28:03 - 1:28:06) And I have three documents. [Speaker 1] (1:28:06 - 1:28:19) Again, same as in the other cases, the notice of violation, the alcohol, I'm sorry, the minimum age purchase for compliance check bill report and the receipt from the purchase. [Speaker 2] (1:28:20 - 1:28:33) Thank you, sorry. Thank you. OK, you obviously have seen these and received a copy. OK, great. OK, is there anything you don't feel like you have to say anything, but I would like to. [Speaker 4] (1:28:33 - 1:32:19) Yep. I've known Karen since 2000, probably seven, maybe even before that. And I remember hearing before Mr. Spelios when I presented this matter to the then Zoning Board of Appeals because at that time all special permits for all businesses required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. At that time, Karen had recently immigrated from China and shortly thereafter probably quicker than anyone I know. And I'm only telling you this because of my sheer amazement at how anyone could accomplish that. In a year this evening, there's a similarity. I just want to share that with you. And that's I see these children here and anyone who's ever been beyond the China Peace Bureau has always seen one of Karen's or her sister's children there. And that was the only way that they could conduct business because it was very hard. It was difficult to be a caregiver as well as a proprietor. On the evening in question, and this was actually brought to my attention when I was talking to Detective Delado, who knows an awful lot about what's going on. He said, you know, what happened was I think your client was assisting her daughter in a visual eating with the school at the time that we came in. I wasn't even aware of that. And she was trying to run around. She was also trying to bring food from the kitchen out to the patrons as well as busing the tables. I understand how difficult it is. And that appreciation of the difficulty is not an excuse. And it was never intended to be. But it really is a showing of the kind of people that you have in Swampspot, the kind of proprietors that you have that are trying their very best to do their very best. And it wasn't necessary. I understand that. I've witnessed three other hearings, but it's something I really want you to know. And it's something that I think the town should know. It's something that I'm very proud of. And I think we all are. For 15 years, we've operated that restaurant. This is the first occasion that we've had this issue. As a matter of fact, I think about 10 years ago, I got a call from Karen saying, you know, there was a sting and we were one of the only restaurants that weren't caught. And, you know, it was like she was so proud of that. And as I realized later on, even the best skilled and the most concerned proprietors and managers and busing people can make a mistake. And that's what happened. And we ask for your indulgence. We understand that there is a training seminar that's scheduled on March the 10th. Both Karen and Leanne Young are desirous to be in attendance. They both have received the TIP training and have gone through the course, obviously, to be managers and be able to serve. But it just never hurts to learn more and to be on their guard. One last thing. I'll just bring your attention. You know, one of the things they learned at the TIP training was the ability to have a visual observation of the customer. You know, they didn't want to start carding 70-year-old people. It was not necessary because they could clearly tell how old they were. And I think it was either between 30 and 35 was sort of the cutoff period. Judgments are made and judgments are oftentimes wrong. And I guess in the future, the judgment would be, we really shouldn't be carding everybody. And the worst they could say to us is, can't you see I'm over 21? And I guess that's not the worst. [Speaker 16] (1:32:19 - 1:32:21) Some of us would take it as a compliment. [Speaker 4] (1:32:21 - 1:33:17) Worst thing in the world. I think, yeah, a lot of people would take it as a compliment. So that's sort of what we have to say. And we wanted to just give you a little bit of background and let you know that we appreciate what's happened. And more than anything, I truly appreciate the attitude of the Swansboro Police Department. When I spoke to Mr. Delano, who I've known for years, it was the, you know, we're not here to hurt anybody. We're here to educate. And I think that is the clarion message that needs to get through that what our department is doing, because we're appreciative of that. And it is really no ill will at all. And just thank you for the opportunity. I'm not going to take up your full half an hour. I see that no one else has. And I promised both Tom as well as others that I wouldn't do it, even though I know Peter knows me to be quite loquacious. I didn't mean to be, but I just wanted this opportunity. Thank you. [Speaker 2] (1:33:18 - 1:33:20) Yeah, no, and it's great to know a little bit of your story. [Speaker 4] (1:33:21 - 1:33:24) I don't talk as much as you tell the administrator, but I try. [Speaker 16] (1:33:24 - 1:33:25) You're being modest. [Speaker 2] (1:33:28 - 1:33:33) Well, thank you so much. Attorney Mac, may I assume you have nothing else to add? [Speaker 1] (1:33:33 - 1:33:34) I have nothing further to add. [Speaker 2] (1:33:35 - 1:33:45) OK, so is there a motion to find that a violation occurred at Yan's China Bistro on November 16th, 2021? Yeah. [Speaker 11] (1:33:45 - 1:33:46) So moved. [Speaker 2] (1:33:46 - 1:33:46) Second. [Speaker 11] (1:33:47 - 1:33:47) Second. [Speaker 2] (1:33:47 - 1:34:18) All in favor. I OK, and is there a motion to enter the facts as stated on the record by the parties and as entered into evidence through the documents provided by Attorney McEnany, the notice of violation dated 11, 17, 21, the minimum age purchase law compliance check field report dated 11, 16, 21. I'm guessing if it's right as the other one. Yeah, and then the receipt dated 11, 16, 21. [Speaker 11] (1:34:19 - 1:34:20) So moved. Second. [Speaker 2] (1:34:21 - 1:34:22) All in favor. I. [Speaker 11] (1:34:23 - 1:34:38) OK, and yeah, I motion I motion that Karen and Lan Young representatives for Yan's China Bistro. The remedy should be attendance of the March 10th, 2022 training session. [Speaker 1] (1:34:42 - 1:34:44) 930 AM, I believe. [Speaker 2] (1:34:47 - 1:34:48) Second. OK, all in favor. [Speaker 3] (1:34:49 - 1:34:49) I. [Speaker 2] (1:34:50 - 1:34:52) OK, thank you. [Speaker 3] (1:34:52 - 1:34:53) Thanks so much. [Speaker 2] (1:34:53 - 1:35:05) Thanks for coming. Thank you. That closes the evidentiary portion of the hearing, which I've blown every single time. Do I need to? I have not been closing the public hearings. [Speaker 1] (1:35:06 - 1:35:10) No, it's fine. The board has voted and made a decision. [Speaker 2] (1:35:11 - 1:35:16) A natural close. OK, thank you, Attorney McEnany. [Speaker 1] (1:35:16 - 1:35:16) Thank you. [Speaker 2] (1:35:18 - 1:35:21) Anything we need to do with in terms of formalities. [Speaker 1] (1:35:21 - 1:35:56) So the next. The only formality would be is that the town will need to have decisions issued. Yeah, which you can sign as the chair. I have already taken the liberty of preparing draft decisions which are not complete, obviously, because it was going to depend on what would happen this evening. But I did forward those to Ali for. Filling in the blanks and if Ali is unable to get to it before she departs tomorrow, Angelica is going to be handling that and I'll be happy to assist. [Speaker 2] (1:35:58 - 1:36:09) Great. OK, and then does she enter the like where do these go and how are they marked or they're not? [Speaker 1] (1:36:11 - 1:36:27) They can go in, you know, just as part of the meeting minutes for this evening. I don't believe that you would really need any kind of separate filing mechanism for them. They don't need to be attached to the decision or anything like that. They're just part of the record. OK, same as if there was any other open meeting. [Speaker 2] (1:36:28 - 1:36:33) So they're just in order here and then she purrs. This is not evidence. It's just. [Speaker 1] (1:36:34 - 1:36:38) No, I mean, example, I don't know what that is. [Speaker 2] (1:36:38 - 1:36:40) I think we received a copy anyway. [Speaker 7] (1:36:40 - 1:36:44) OK, so letter recognizing all the compliant businesses. [Speaker 1] (1:36:46 - 1:36:52) I see no, and I know the chief obviously spoke about that, but yeah, yeah, there was no. I don't believe that was you wouldn't know. [Speaker 2] (1:36:53 - 1:37:11) He just spoke to it. Yep, OK, that's great. So Ali, I'll give you these. And you can leave them on your desk, whatever you're going to do. Detective Delano, thank you so much for being here. Angela, thank you so much for being here. I hope you get to sleep. [Speaker 7] (1:37:12 - 1:37:12) Thank you both. [Speaker 2] (1:37:13 - 1:37:21) You will. You will follow my routine. You'll be all set and. And Tony McNamee. [Speaker 17] (1:37:21 - 1:37:23) All right. [Speaker 2] (1:37:24 - 1:37:28) Yeah, you too. Is there a motion to adjourn? [Speaker 8] (1:37:28 - 1:37:29) So move to second. [Speaker 2] (1:37:30 - 1:37:31) All in favor. [Speaker 8] (1:37:31 - 1:37:31) Aye. [Speaker 2] (1:37:32 - 1:37:34) OK, thank you. Thank you, Ali. [Speaker 16] (1:37:35 - 1:37:36) Thank you.