Newport Mayor Who Operated Hotel Without Liquor License Votes to Withdraw Matter

Newport Mayor Who Operated Hotel Without Liquor License Votes to Withdraw Matter

The hotel managed by new Newport Mayor Charlie Holder - that was operating without a liquor license since December  - came before the Board of License Commissioners again Wednesday night.

Holder, the Chair of the Board, did not recuse himself from the matter, and voted to have it withdrawn. 

As GoLocal was first to report in January, Holder is Head of Operations at Gardiner House, one of the city’s newest hotels situated on Lee’s Wharf off of Thames Street. 

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

“Bloody Bull, LLC, d/b/a Gardiner House” was ordered before the license board in January for a show cause hearing - for “operating without a valid class BT liquor license” - and the matter was continued. 

Last month, the city solicitor said despite lacking a license, the hotel could operate and serve liquor - in good faith - until it obtained the necessary approval from the Rhode Island Division of Taxation.

At that meeting, Holder recused himself from the agenda item.

This week, he did not. 

 

Latest Action

On Wednesday, the issue of the hotel’s liquor license was again before the board. 

“[The] second item on the agenda, Mr. Chair, is action item number 6373/25 -  show cause hearing for Bloody Bull LLC,” said City Councilman Xaykham Khamsyvoravong, who was filling in for Vice Chair. 

“Second,” said City Councilwoman Janine Napolitano.

At that time, City Solicitor Christopher Behan spoke up. 

“That can be withdrawn,” Behan told the board of the agenda item. 

“Have all the requirements from the state been satisfied?” asked Khamsyvoravong

Behan replied that they had. 

“Motion to withdraw,” said City Councilman David Carlin.

“Second,” said Holder. 

The board then voted in the affirmative to withdraw the item - including Holder - with no objections. 

When reached on Thursday regarding the matter, Holder said he would have to "check" if there was any issue with him not recusing himself. 

"I didn’t have to [recuse] myself as the matter was being dismissed…there wasn’t a vote on it," said Holder. 

"From what I had understood, I didn’t have to, because the matter had already been resolved. The only reason it was on the docket was because it had been continued from the previous meeting," he added. "So even though it had been resolved, it still had to be on there."

Holder said he would have to look into whether his vote was a conflict of interest - or not. 

"To be honest, I’d probably have to check on that," he said. 

This story was first published 2/13/25 6:56 PM