Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alcohol License topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LaPorte County board recommends denying renewal for JD’s after concerns about prior server
Summary
The LaPorte County Alcoholic Beverage Board recommended denying the renewal for RR4641539 (Lickety Splits, doing business as JD’s in Westville) after staff and board members raised safety concerns tied to a former bartender’s past service to intoxicated patrons and the applicant’s decision to assume the prior corporation rather than transfer a new permit.
The LaPorte County Alcoholic Beverage Board on Sept. 4 voted to recommend denial of a renewal for RR4641539, an application filed for Lickety Splits doing business as JD’s in Westville. The board’s action, moved by Matt Sikorski and seconded by Rodney McCormick, was driven by concerns about the venue’s history and who remains associated with the business.
Board members and staff told applicant Selena Delaicio they were troubled by past incidents involving a bartender identified by staff as Jamie. “She served intoxicated people two times and which was resulted in deaths of people getting in accidents,” said Michelle Traver, the state excise representative, citing the establishment’s earlier enforcement history. Delaicio told the board Jamie “is not bartending” in her operation and that Jamie assists with orders; she said she purchased the corporation and assumed the existing EIN rather than forming a new corporate entity.
The board pressed Delaicio on the legal difference between assuming an existing corporation and completing a transfer, noting that by assuming the corporation she also inherits the permit’s enforcement history. Board members said they were not comfortable approving the renewal while questions remain about operational control and past incidents. One member said the county owes residents “due diligence” before approving a business with a problematic history.
After debate, Sikorski moved to recommend denial; the motion passed by voice vote. Staff explained the county’s recommendation will be forwarded to the state Alcohol and Tobacco Commission (ATC), which will decide whether to uphold or overturn the county recommendation. If the ATC upholds the denial, the applicant will have 15 days to file an appeal and may request a hearing in Indianapolis.
The board’s recommendation is procedural: the ATC makes the final licensing determination. The applicant was told the state would contact her and that she may present evidence at a subsequent hearing if the ATC proceeds. The board also noted that the applicant may pursue a formal transfer or other corrective steps if she wishes to demonstrate a break from prior management and staffing associated with past violations.
Next steps: the county will forward its recommendation to the ATC for final action; an appeal by the applicant is possible if the ATC upholds the denial.
