Source: http://communitylaw.org/booze-news/summer2013
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:15:27+00:00

Document:
This past summer, Community Law Center began a new initiative: following up on the now infamous March 2013 Liquor Board Audit. We set out via a blog on our website, Booze News: Distilled in Room 215, to find out how Liquor Board proceedings were or were not in compliance with state law, and how the audit did or did not improve Liquor Board operations. Throughout the summer, we followed Liquor Board hearings closely and reported what we observed.
The blog was such a success that we have decided to continue it. But first, we wanted to take a look at what did happen over the summer and give a general update on what we have seen so far, what we haven’t, and what it means.
1. Chairman Fogelman has publicly announced that from now on there will be no mystery about the vote count, and that all votes will be assumed to be unanimous unless a dissenting vote is specifically announced.
2. Community Law Center received indication that the Liquor Board will grant postponements of hearings when requested in order for a community association to secure legal representation (community associations have had to fight hard for these in the past, while licensees were routinely granted postponements).
3. The Liquor Board has begun to follow state law by requiring licensees to fully and accurately complete license applications before such applications are approved.
4. The Commissioners are now verifying the following portions of applications during Liquor Board hearings: 1) corporate standing of LLC (by asking the applicants if the corporation is in good standing – this should be checked with the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxations before the hearing), and 2) how the applicant knows the three citizen signatories on the application.
5. At the suggestion of Community Law Center, the Commissioners have begun verifying citizen signatories’ voter registration with the Board of Elections.
6. The Commissioners now state at public hearings that all approvals are contingent upon the Board receiving all proper documentation.
7. The Liquor Board has begun pulling hearings from the docket if the application is incomplete.
And, in a nice recognition of the blog’s impact, we also won a “Best of Baltimore 2013” award from Baltimore Magazine and “Best of Baltimore 2013” from City Paper! We have also been nominated for a Baltimore Innovation Week 2013 award.
Note: As all information was not available for all cases, the total numbers are not consistent across categories.
Hearings ranged in length from 2 minutes to 3 hours and 43 minutes, with a median of 12 minutes and a mean of 20 minutes.
(Fells Point (3 licenses), Hollins Market (2 licenses), Arlington, Brooklyn, Canton, Carrollton Ridge, Downtown, Federal Hill, Franklin Square, Hampden, Inner Harbor, Little Italy, Locust Point, Madison-Eastend, Rosebank, Sandtown-Winchester, Upper Fells Point, Washington Village/Pigtown.
Does the associated corporate entity exist and is it in good standing (according to the website of the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT))?
Does at least one of the applicants reside in Baltimore City?
Does the application contain 3 signatures from Baltimore City property owners who are registered to vote and who have known the applicant(s) for at least 2 years?
4 times: Md Code Article 2B § 10-504(d).
1 time: Board of Liquor License Commissioners for Baltimore City Rules 4.18 and 3.02.
Three Citizen Signatures (issue arose 8 times) – Addressed in Audit Finding 3, stating that “BLLC lacked documentation that certain State law and BLLC licensing requirements were met.” Md Code Art. 2B § 10-104(d) requires that three citizens who are Baltimore City residents and property owners attest to the validity of the application.
Residency (issue arose 5 times): Addressed in Audit Finding 3, stating that “BLLC lacked documentation that certain State law and BLLC licensing requirements were met.” Md Code Art. 2B § 10-103(4)(i) requires that at least one liquor license applicant on each application reside in Baltimore City.
Expired Transfer (issue arose three times): Audit finding 6 is that “BLLC did not always ensure that license transfers were completed within 180 days of receiving Board approval” and reports that of 10 licenses tested, 4 transfers did not occur within the 180-day period required by state law. Independent counsel advised the Liquor Board “that this law was directory and not mandatory,” but the auditors recommended that the Liquor Board obtain an Attorney General Opinion on this matter, which the Liquor Board committed to doing.
Conferences (issue arose twice): Audit Finding 17 states that “BLLC used alternatives to the Board hearing process to address violations and infractions and the Board had not formally approved these alternatives.
Zoning (issue arose once): Audit Finding 3 states that “detailed testing of the licensing process disclosed that BLLC lacked documentation that certain State law and BLLC licensing requirements were met” and recommends that “all licensee files include documentation of compliance with zoning laws that has been reviewed and verified by BLLC personnel.” Maryland law (Article 2B § 9-103) provides that “[n]o license….shall be issued in violation of any zoning rule or regulation.” The audit found that in 2 out of 10 transfer files tested, there was no zoning approval documented on the application.
Reconsideration (issue arose once): In Audit Finding 18, the auditors state that “BLLC lacked written policies and procedures for the disciplinary process.” Specifically, the auditors found that the Board did not have any formal process for decision modifications or appeals after public hearings, and “[d]ue to a lack of documentation, [they] could not readily determine the number of post-hearing modifications made by the Board…however, [their] review of case files found evidence that this does occur.” State law provides that the proper forum for appealing a Liquor Board decision following a public hearing is in Baltimore City Circuit Court. State law does not make any mention of “reconsiderations,” in which the Board reverses a decision it announced at a public hearing.

References: § 10
 Art. 2
 § 10
 Art. 2
 § 10
 § 9