By Ashley Toland Editor

By Ashley Toland

Editor

On the morning of Jan. 24, 2006, at approximately 11:30 hours, seven subjects simultaneously robbed two convenience stores – the M & Q Food Mart (1861 Government St.) and the Shell Food Mart #122(10 N. University Blvd.) – of the right to own and operate a viable business within the city limits of Mobile for the period of six months.

This was the second attempt – the first was unsuccessful – on these two stores by these subjects, who have been identified as The Mobile City Council, who were aided and abetted by an unspecified number of Saint Paul’s Episcopal School students in each incident.

A history report

January 10, 2006

At approximately 11:20 hours, the city council unanimously voted to suspend the beer and wine licenses of these two stores for the period of one year after they were each caught selling alcohol to underage police cadets on three separate occasions.

Councilman Ben Brooks, the mastermind of the year-long theft, gently persuaded his partners in crime to join him in this action, even though most of them had only planned to rob the owners of their liquor licenses for the less offensive period of six months or of what Chief of Police Sam Cochran recommended, two months for the Shell Food Mart and three months for M&Q.

The victims each made statements at this meeting.

The owner of M&Q Food Mart, Mahmod Qusgas, a Brazilian immigrant who speaks 3.5 languages (unfortunately for the victim in this case, the .5 is English) tried to communicate that he had fired all three clerks who had sold beer to the cadets. And after his third offense, installed a very expensive register that would electronically aid the clerks in checking IDs, which he hoped would solve the problem.

The attorney for Herndon Oil Company, which owns the Shell Food Mart explained how they had, up until this point, had a sterling record and had even been a part of the ABC Board’s Responsible Vendor program. They, too, had terminated the clerks who committed the crimes and instituted a zero tolerance policy.

After the meeting, two of the less willing subjects, Fred Richardson and Clinton Johnson, were caught and interrogated on why they chose to hijack these businesses for the period of 12 months and asked exactly what they expected from these owners.

After some discussion, these two abandoned the rest of the apple dumpling gang and called for a public safety meeting to reconsider this recommendation and possibly reduce it back down to the 3-month suspension.

January 13,2006

At approximately 15:00 hours, the public safety committee of Councilpersons Richardson, William Carroll and Connie Hudson, along with Council President Reggie Copeland and Johnson debated the decision to suspend the license for a year. The chief spoke and gave his reasoning for the two- and three-month recommendations, both victims had their turn again, as well as the principal of Saint Paul’s.

After some debate, including discussion by Reggie Copeland who said he thought it should be the clerks who should be held responsible, not the owners, the committee amended their recommendation to suspend their licenses for three months, although Councilwoman Hudson voted against that, saying she would accept a minimum of six.

January 24, 2006

The final incident/robbery occurred at last Tuesday’s council meeting. Brooks stuck to his 12-month recommendation, although he said he would capitulate to six, stating that if he didn’t, they could wind up with no suspension at all.

Johnson, Richardson, Carroll and Gregory would have gone for three months, and they all voted for it. But Copeland, who had just said at the public safety meeting that the clerks were “the heart of the problem,” obviously had a dramatic change of heart on who was “the heart of the problem.” Perhaps pressured by the presence of all those St. Paul’s kids and news cameras, he voted against the three-month suspensions, causing the amended measure to fail. Then he suggested a six-month suspension, which they all eventually voted for as a compromise.

The final Toland report

After the meeting, both victims said they would appeal. If they lose, the Shell Food Mart will take a little hit, but they’re part of a conglomerate and will be able to survive. Poor, sweet, precious, immigrant Mahmod though will be put out of business.

Some of the councilors said they would have been more lenient if the owners had taken the steps they did after the first offense – like if Mahmod had put in the expensive register after the first arrest. But what small business owner do you know who chooses to take the most extreme and costly measure after just one problem arises?

Look no one wants kids to be able to buy alcohol, but these owners both took steps to rectify the problems they were having. Harsh six-month and yearlong suspensions should be reserved for owners who show little or blatant disregard for putting an end to underage drinking. This was not the case with either of these vendors.

I agree a message needs to be sent but like Councilman Johnson said, “I’m not going to send a message, just for the sake of sending a message. It needs to be reviewed on a case by case basis.” Amen, Rev. Johnson.

And a harsh message certainly needs to be sent out. I agree. But the crime and punishment pie needs to be equitably divided and served up to all of the guilty parties.

A portion needs to go to the older brothers, sisters and cousins who are buying it for these teens, as well as the adults they are paying $20 to go in and do the same thing.

And yes, a sliver should go to these two particular stores. Obviously something was going wrong if they sold alcohol to minors three times, but in these cases, three months would have been a big enough piece. A big, old, fat, heaping hunk needs to go to stores, and especially the clerks, who could not care less if they sell alcohol to minors and who demonstrate that they are not going to do anything to stop the practice.

But I think the biggest slice (perhaps half) needs to go to the parents of these very kids who were trying to shove the whole pie down sweet, precious Mahmod’s throat.

Yes sir, a big slice needs to be doled out to all the daddies who are taking their 16-year-old boys up to the hunting camps on the weekends and sippin’ on the Maker’s Mark with them. And yes ma’am, pieces should go to the mommas who are ordering up glasses of Chardonnay and martinis at lunch in front of their daughters. And then an entire pie should go to the parents who are letting their kids join HIGH SCHOOL fraternities and sororities, whose alum will proudly tell you drinking is a definite part of it. (Note of Irony: Saint Paul’s is one of the handful of schools in town whose kids are members of these drinking clubs.)

There are plenty of responsible parties here, but I guess it makes everyone sleep better at night to place all the blame on these evil, store owners. People can pat themselves on the back for saving the kids by effectively putting stores out of business. Well, congratu-frickin-lations. A man’s livelihood has been stolen to take a small bite, a nibble at best, out of the problem and make everyone feel like they’ve really done something.

If these parents, kids, principals, teachers and councilmen really want to solve the problem, they need to start handing out the forks to all the guilty parties. Not just to the guy who is seated farthest away from them at the table.

Ashley Toland is Lagniappe editor. Contact her at ashleytoland@lagniappemobile.com.

Archives