Tiverton council upholds prior denial of Patrick Burns’ Class A liquor license application after remand from state regulator

The Tiverton Town Council voted 5–2 on Aug. 25 to uphold its earlier decision not to return Patrick Burns’ Class A (package store) liquor license application to the town lottery, following a remand from the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation (DBR).

The vote came at the end of an extended hearing in which the council, town solicitor and Burns reviewed a DBR order that required the council to provide Burns an opportunity to address criminal-history concerns before deciding whether to place his application back into the lottery. Town Solicitor (identified in the record as the solicitor) advised the council the remand required the body to “articulate reasons why the applicant was not allowed to go into the lottery” or to allow the applicant to speak before the lottery is drawn.

Burns, who identified himself as a Tiverton resident and said he planned to operate Sekonnet Liquors at 651 Main Road, told the council most entries on his criminal record were misdemeanors more than a decade old and that he had completed court-ordered programs and paid fines. “My record include includes misdemeanors, only, and these charges are not are part of my past, and these charges do not disqualify me from owning or operating a liquor store,” Burns told the council, and said he was pursuing expungements in Rhode Island and New Hampshire. He also described nearly 20 years of banking experience and community service.

Council members questioned recent entries in the record. Councilors and the town solicitor noted a 2023 police matter that was resolved by dismissal of the criminal DUI charge and a civil disposition for refusal to submit to a chemical test; the solicitor and police representative explained the criminal charge was dismissed and the remaining matter was a civil traffic infraction handled at the traffic tribunal. The council was told the DBR had relied on Rhode Island law governing how licensing authorities consider criminal records (cited in the hearing as statute 28-5.1-14) and that the state hearing officer expected the local board to put its reasons on the record.

After Burns’ remarks and a round of council questions, Councilor Burke moved to “uphold our previous decision to not allow Mister Burns’ application to move forward,” citing the applicant’s history and the application’s location. The motion was seconded and, after brief additional discussion, the council conducted a roll-call vote. The motion carried 5–2; the council did not name individual vote records during the roll call on the public audio that forms the meeting record.

With the council’s decision to keep Burns out of the lottery, the earlier lottery result stands and the previously selected applicant retains the conditional award of the license subject to satisfying other legal and administrative requirements. The solicitor told the council the DBR remand and the council’s new vote together complete the process required by the state agency, and that the town’s license status “reverts to the status quo.”

The council’s action was procedural and administrative: members were careful to frame the vote as a determination about the applicant’s fitness under the town’s licensing process and DBR guidance rather than as a criminal sentencing matter. The solicitor repeatedly told members they must place the factual basis for their vote on the record if they relied on rehabilitation, recency of convictions, or other factors. Burns said he respected the council’s decision and that he intended to continue his efforts on the legal/expungement side.

The council’s determination does not on its face prohibit Burns from pursuing further legal remedies available under the state statutes or DBR procedures; the DBR decision that prompted the remand remains part of the administrative record.