You MUST NOT tell the Aldermen about this

Most of you probably remember Nolen’s Place, the restaurant where Brother’s currently is.  Many of you may even remember some 411 drama related to Nolen’s Place from back in 2017.  At that time, only one side of the story was told.   Now you will learn the other side of the story.

We recently received a rundown of what happened to Nolen’s Place.  What you will find below was given to me last week from the owner.  He is a former police officer and dedicated his whole life to helping those in need.  He retired as a detective out of Hollywood and after settling in the Nashville area, he opened a restaurant in town.  Described in his report is the last few months before he decided the headaches weren’t worth running a business in town anymore.

• Mayor and Kali came to Nolen’s Place with a copy of our 2016 yearly sales report.Mayor advised me that we were out of compliance (of the 65% food sales requirement) and asked me if there was any way I could find better numbers.  He stated that he didn’t want to shut us down.
  • Mayor repeated his request for numbers that would put us in compliance.  I responded that I ran the numbers from our POS system but agreed to run them again.  Same result.
  • Mayor continued to show concern and made comments to the effect that we had to find something to put us in compliance.  Keith and I agreed to go through the numbers again and meet the following day at his office to discuss.
    • Mayor made a very strong point that he did not want the Aldermen to know that we were discussing this or that we were meeting the next day.
    • Mayor repeated his admonition and commented that the worst thing that could happen was if the Aldermen became aware that we were trying to fix this problem.
    • This conversation made me uncomfortable and I made the comment that the numbers were the numbers and that they don’t lie.
• After the mayor and Kali left, I called the landlord, Bill Tisano, and advised him of what had just happened.I felt that I not only needed his advice, but that he had a right to know if the business was in trouble.  I told Bill how I was uncomfortable with my conversations with the Mayor in regards to finding additional numbers, but did not tell him about the mayor’s admonition for us not to tell the Aldermen what we were doing.
• Approximately 1 1/2 to 2 hours later, while at home, I received a call from the Mayor on my cell phone.  The Mayor immediately chastised me for calling and telling the Aldermen about our earlier meeting, stating that this was “the worst thing that you could have done.”  He stated that this was going to make things harder.  We agreed again to meet the following morning at his office.
• After this conversation,I called Bill Tisano who advised me that he had called Alderman Brian Snyder and that they had discussed our visit with the mayor, but he didn’t go into any details other than we were out of compliance.
• Later that evening,I gathered other numbers to share with the mayor the following morning.  The numbers that I gathered were basically the considerable charity contributions that we had made in 2016 along with food that was comped, military discounts and gift cards.  I discussed it with my partner, Keith, and we both agreed that unless there was something we were not aware of, these stats would have no bearing on the sales we had previously submitted.
• The following morning,Keith and I met the Mayor at his office and were directed into a conference room where we met with the mayor and another town official.
  1. The Mayor again admonished us that we shouldn’t have told anyone what we were doing.  Keith and I had already had discussions regarding the Mayor’s comments and agreed that we were not sure what was behind his comments but both felt very uncomfortable about the Mayor insinuating that we change the numbers.  Keith and I agreed that we would stick to the numbers we had submitted.  For us to change them, we would have to be confident that any changes would be legitimate.
     • The Mayor never did give us any definitive direction or explanation of the intentions behind his comments.
  2. The next issue that was discussed were the additional numbers that we were directed to attempt to find.  We stated that we did not think that these numbers were pertinent to having an effect on the sales numbers but were more related to income tax issues.  The Mayor and the town official agreed and the discussions were directed towards the Mayor’s directive on how we MUST ACT and what we MUST SAY if we were going to be able to retain our beer permit. 
  3. The Mayor stated that we should conduct ourselves at the Beer Board meeting by only discussing our regret in not meeting the 65% section of the law and our desire to follow the direction of the board and our goals to meet that number.  We were directed not to bring up the wording or actual meaning of the law.The Mayor told us not to stray from his directions and that he would not let any one from the public speak on our behalf.
     • When we responded that we were concerned about being blind sided and might be asked about the law (ie did we understand the law), the Mayor got upset and said that if we bring up the law itself at the meeting, it would not go in our favor. 
     • At that point, the mayor put his paper down and stated in a very stern voice that if we didn’t do this HIS WAY, then we might as well stop this meeting now and we would not get our permit renewed.
  4. At this point, Keith asked the Mayor to explain the reasons why we were in jeopardy of losing our permit.  The Mayor responded that we did not meet the 65% and that Keith was not on the permit.  Keith then stated that he did turn in his paperwork and that there was possibly a clerical error on their part.
     • The mayor responded that there was a good chance that this could have happened because he was aware that the office had a female employee that had been out sick for a long period of time and they were also going through changeovers with staff.
  5. At the end of the meeting, the Mayor once again made it clear that it was very important that we do not let the Alderman know that he was working with us to retain our beer permit.
  6. Up to and during this meeting, the Mayor repeatedly told Keith and I that he was not going to take our permit away and that we were going to be allowed to continue operating (selling beer) until we met with the board to get our permit renewed.  The caveat to this promise was that it would only happen if we strictly followed his directives, and that if we deviated from his directives, our permit would be revoked and a renewal denied. 
• Meeting in Kali’s office
  1. Keith and I went to Kali’s office to inquire about the missing paperwork from the prior year’s beer permits.  She stated that she looked again but did not find anything.
  2. At this point, the Mayor walked into Kali’s office and immediately scolded us again for letting the Alderman know about our meetings with the Mayor.  He told us that it was now going to be more difficult to handle the situation.
  3. Keith again brought up the missing paperwork and defended his position that he indeed turned in the permit application and fees for 2016.  Keith explained to the Mayor and Kali his recollection of the procedure he followed to turn in the required paperwork.  He was able to explain the process, including where he went in the building to complete the process.  He was able to do this even though it was his first and only time in the Town Hall.  Keith accurately descried the FIRST FLOOR OFFICE and a description of who he gave the paperwork to.  After listening to Keith’s recollection of the incident, the Mayor agreed that during that period of time, the clerk had been off due to illness and that the efficiency in the office was inconsistent.
  4. Next, the topic of getting the beer law changed (specifically lowering the 65% threshold) was addressed.  The Mayor explained that he supported us in keeping our beer license and that he would also support a lowering of the sales threshold to 60%.  He advised us that to do so, we would have to obtain the support of one of the five board members to sponsor a change in the law (the Mayor is the Chairman of that board).
  5. Having heard this from the Mayor, Keith asked the Mayor if he would sponsor the law change.  The Mayor’s immediate response was that he couldn’t support us in public because it would upset certain people.  The Mayor reiterated that we would have to obtain the support of one of the Alderman to sponsor us and added that we would not get the necessary support from the community to change the law.  We disagreed and left the office.
• After this meeting with the Mayor and Kali, and having been told that we do not, or would not, get the support of the community in changing the law, we decided to post a petition on the Facebook website “Nolensville 411” to gauge the community support regarding the issues at hand.
  • Note: The post of this petition was the only action taken by Keith or I.  No subsequent comments that were posted over the following days can be attributed to Keith or myself.  There were several posts by followers of the 411 website, but other than posting the petition, we had no further posts or contacts with individuals who posted opinions.
• What followed the next several days were comments posted by two Alderman who basically held court on the issues pending in our future appearance in front of the Nolensville Beer Board to retain our beer permit.  These comments were both personal and improper, particularly considering that we had already been told by the Mayor that the public would not be allowed to speak at our hearing and that we had been given specific instructions by the Mayor regarding what we were allowed and not allowed to say at the hearing if we wanted any chance of keeping our beer permit.
  • One specific topic of special interest is the posts made by Alderman Brian Snyder in respect to both Keith and I refusing to meet with him to discuss the issues at hand in person.  Alderman Snyder, on more than one occasion, posted that we were unwilling to meet.  The truth of the matter is that I personally reached out to three different individuals and requested that they please contact Alderman Snyder and let him know that we were willing and anxious to meet at his earliest convenience. Those individuals were:
    • DJ Jensen (Administrator of the Nolensville 411 website)
    • Richard Sullivan (an acquaintance of Snyder)
    • Mayor Jimmy Alexander
  • The behavior of the Mayor and specific alderman were in direct opposition to the guidelines that regulate the actions of public officials.The Mayor’s personal admonition, given behind closed doors to Keith and I, was obviously intended to influence and intimidate us by severely restricting our ability to represent ourselves at the Beer Board hearing.
    • Both Alderman Snyder and Vice Mayor Jason Patrick publicly aired their views on Nolensville 411 related to our upcoming hearing.  At this point, our case had not yet been adjudicated.  Actions such as these are prejudicial in nature and are presented without the ability to directly respond in our own defense.
• On the Monday morning following the post of the petition on the Nolensville 411, I was approached at my place of business by the Chief of Police who told me that upon entering his office earlier that morning, the Mayor was irate about Nolen’s Place and was demanding every police report involving the restaurant.  The Chief stated that Don Schwartz and Benny were on their way to Nolen’s Place to revoke our Beer Permit.  He further advised that he was sent there to keep the peace.  I’m still unsure what the Mayor was afraid of.  Don Schwartz asked for and was directed to the Beer Permit posted on the wall behind the bar.  Schwartz removed the permit displayed in a document frame owned by the restaurant and left the restaurant.
  • Note: As of this date, Sep 19, 2019, no one associated with Nolen’s Place (owners, staff, etc) have ever received any official correspondence in regards to any action taken against them in this matter.
  • We received no official written notification of being in violation of the Beer Ordinance, although required by the statute.
  • We received no official written notification of the Beer Board hearing, also required by statute.
  • We received no official notification revoking the beer permit, nor any documentation such as receipt for the property (beer permit and my frame) removed by Don Schwartz under the order of the Mayor.
• These actions of non-compliance or sloppy procedure supports the claims of Keith who swears he turned in the paperwork to document our change of ownership.  Keith has a very vivid recollection of turning the required paperwork including the fact that the person responsible for accepting the document was off sick, possibly causing the paperwork to be lost.  Mayor Alexander has admitted that proper procedures were lacking during the employee’s frequent absence.

 

 

Nolensville Beer Ordinance