|
|
 |
| |
|
April 30, 2002
Alcoholic Beverages Division - Board Room
Ankeny, Iowa
|
| |
|
|
| Members Present in the Board Room: |
Bob Cramer
Shirley Daggett
Daryl Henze
Gayle Collins
Dick Stoffer |
|
Guests Present: |
John Neff
Jeneane Beck, KUNI Radio
Sheila Douglas, Iowa Wholesalers Beer Distributors Association
Jerry Fleagle, Iowa Grocery Industry Association
Bill Petroski, Des Moines Register
Rachel Conradt, WHO Radio
|
|
| |
|
|
| Staff Present: |
Lynn Walding
Jim Kuhlman
Judy Seib
Marty Deaton |
Linda Cox
Dick King
Shelly Winscott
|
| |
|
|
| Legal Counsel Present: |
John Lundquist, Assistant Attorney General
|
|
Call to Order
Chairperson Cramer called the meeting to order at 10:12 AM with a quorum present.
Minutes of Previous Meeting (Available upon request)
Chairperson Cramer asked for discussion of the April 9, 2002 Minutes. There was no discussion.
| |
Motion: |
Commissioner Daryl Henze moved the Minutes of April 9, 2002 stand approved as submitted. Commissioner Gayle Collins seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. |
Presentation of Awards
Shelly Winscott and Dick King were presented with 5-year certificates. Both Shelly and Dick previously worked for the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division. Shelly left the division to work in her own business and at the Principal Financial Group before returning to ABD. She currently works in Order Entry. Dick started working for the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division in 1981 serving as transportation and warehouse manager for many years. He left ABD when the state contracted the warehouse and has since returned to work as the maintenance engineer.
White Paper
Lynn Walding stated the White Paper represents the culmination of six commission meetings and four public forums held on the topic of binge drinking on college campuses. The topic was first discussed at a meeting in Ankeny with forums held at the regent’s institutions in Ames, Iowa City and Cedar Falls as well as in Spirit Lake. Public comment was taken from health officials, college officials, community leaders, business owners, bar and restaurant owners, parents and students. The commission began the endeavor trying to gauge whether there was a problem at the university communities. Based on information gathered at the public forums, the commission set about trying to determine what recommendations and action could be taken and whether government intervention was necessary. With the guidance of the Commission, the division put together six recommendations. A summary of the recommendations was distributed.
Recommendation 1 - Common sense and public opinion support enactment of a state law prohibiting all-you-can-drink liquor promotions that encourage over comsumption, underage drinking, public intoxication and drunk driving.
The commission looked at all types of liquor promotions; however, the prohibition of all-you-can-drink liquor promotions had the strongest public support. In addition to support at the public meetings, numerous letters were sent to the newspapers in favor of the prohibition. Many people support a local ordinance and Appendix Number 5 of the White Paper is Iowa City’s effort to regulate all-you- can-drink liquor promotions. As soon as Iowa City enacted the ordinance, the problem shifted to one of the suburbs. According to Lynn Walding, that trend will likely continue unless there are statewide restrictions against liquor buffets. The purpose of a state statute is to regulate all Iowa communities with one state statute rather than a hodge-podge of local ordinances.
Commissioner Collins did not agree with Recommendation Number 1. She took exception to the words “common sense” and to enacting a law prohibiting all-you-can-drink promotions. Commissioner Collins pointed out there is a law against serving someone who is intoxicated; a law against underage drinking; and laws that address public intoxication and drunken driving. She advocates enforcing the existing laws, rather than creating another law that may or may not be enforced.
Commissioner Cramer commented all-you-can-drink specials send a message to the youth of the state that these specials are an acceptable way of conducting one’s self.
Another issue, according to Commissioner Stoffer, is the law varies by municipality. Enactment of a law would provide statewide control.
Mr. Walding said the bar owners at the Iowa City public forum were not opposed to restricting all-you-can-drink specials; they want a level playing field. If one retailer offers specials, the others follow suit to be competitive. This law would provide the level playing field.
Commissioner Daggett commented it sends a bad message when businesses are allowed to promote illegal activity.
Mr. Walding talked about the concept of social norm marketing. The perception of what people drink is different from what they actually consume to the extent that people think other people drink more and it affects their behavior. It sends a message that this is a form of entertainment offered in Iowa.
Commissioner Henze’s biggest reason for favoring Recommendation Number 1 is to provide consistency across the state. Commissioner Henze commented Urbandale city council members are considering an ordinance against the liquor buffets because they are concerned that if Clive and West Des Moines enact ordinances, the problem will move to Urbandale.
| |
Motion: |
Commissioner Stoffer moved to approve Recommendation Number 1 as presented. Commissioner Henze seconded the motion. Roll call vote:
Stoffer aye,
Collins nay,
Henze aye,
Daggett aye,
Cramer aye.
The motion passed 4 to 1.
|
Mr. Walding commented public opinion does support this recommendation; however, it is not unanimous. The Commission’s vote is very representative of the constituency it represents.
Recommendation 2 - A legislative study committee should be appointed to review restricting other alcohol promotions within reason and to gauge the impact and political viability of such proposals.
The division looked extensively at what other states have done. As noted in Appendix 2, there are many efforts by other states to restrict other forms of promotions; however, they don’t necessarily ban them. The commission was not of the opinion that other forms of promotions should be outlawed or banned in Iowa; rather there should be reasonable restrictions. The White Paper draft also sets out the commission’s recommendations for the legislative study committee review process beginning with review of existing laws and then evaluating what alternatives are available to Iowa.
Commissioner Collins asked to have the word “other” removed from Recommendation Number 2 because if the legislature does not adopt Recommendation Number 1, all-you-can-drink specials would not be addressed.
John Neff, a concerned citizen from Iowa City, told commissioners that only about a dozen of the 62 bars in Iowa City use promotions. A large number of the arrests for underage drinking occur at the bars using promotions according to data Mr. Neff provided. The indication is that those bars target minors.
| |
Motion: |
Commissioner Stoffer moved to approve Recommendation Number 2 as submitted. Commissioner Daggett seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote:
Stoffer aye,
Collins aye,
Henze aye,
Daggett aye,
Cramer aye.
The motion was approved unanimously.
|
Recommendation 3 - A single state agency should be charged with fostering partnerships among the various entities that administer college alcohol education programs and working towards developing a comprehensive approach to reducing the incidence of high risk drinking on Iowa’s college campuses.
The public forums provided the first opportunity for many groups to get together to debate these issues and to see if there was consensus among the public. Recommendation Number 3 recommends using a state agency to partner with the groups and bring them together. It is made clear in the draft White Paper that the commission does not suggest supplanting or replacing those groups with one oversight authority, rather that the agency act as a lightning rod to produce public debate.
Ms. Seib stated the Governor’s Traffic Safety Bureau collects traffic accident data while other agencies and the colleges collect other data. All the data should go to one central collection point so goals could be formed toward solving the problem. Commissioner Cramer commented a distorted picture is presented due to the lack of a centralized agency collecting accurate statistical data. Information can be quickly and easily transmitted electronically and then consolidated for dissemination.
The University of Iowa interviewed students within a few weeks after they were arrested for public intoxication and found where they were drinking according to John Neff. Mr. Neff said it would be helpful to know where drunk drivers and juveniles are drinking.
Mr. Walding stated the division has applied for and received a federal grant through the Governor’s National Safety Board to help change police officers accident report forms. Officers will be asked to inquire where the person obtained the alcohol allowing the division to go after the bar that served the intoxicated patron. The division has no control over any jurisdiction other than entities that hold liquor licenses.
Commissioner Henze commented that while the White Paper talks about college campuses and college students, the problem is more widespread than just college campuses. Mr. Walding responded the White Paper is really about public intoxication and underage consumption and many of the recommendations would have application beyond college campuses.
Commissioner Cramer suggested the words “high school and junior high school” be added to the recommendation because educational programs are addressed in the paper. Educational programs need to be implemented at a young age. Mr. Walding responded the words “high school and junior high school” appear in the text of the paper and the development of Recommendation Number 3 may lead to development of programs for an earlier age.
Commissioner Henze suggested removing the word “college” so the recommendation would read, “that administer alcohol education programs.” Mr. Walding responded the word “college” was included because there is some federal and nonprofit funding available for those college programs. Logically, it follows that it should expand to the high school and junior high school areas.
Commissioner Henze commented there would be a tendency for people to read the list of recommendations, not the entire White Paper. Commissioner Henze recommended the following verbiage “…administer alcohol education programs and working towards a comprehensive approach to reduce the incidences of high risk drinking.”
Rather than take out the word “college”, Commissioner Cramer would prefer listing the high schools and the junior highs to send a clear message that this is a big problem starting at a younger age than most of the public perceives. Mr. Walding responded the word “college” was used because the overall White Paper is about high-risk drinking on college campuses. The public forums reinforced that there is a problem at the junior high and high school level.
Mr. Neff stated that the division basically regulates drinking in bars. Most high school age and underage drinkers are getting their alcoholic beverages some place other than bars.
Commissioner Daggett suggested adding “...as well as educational programs at the primary and secondary educational levels” which prompted Commissioner Collins to ask about the inclusion of technical schools. “...college and other alcohol education programs” was suggested by Commissioner Henze.
Commissioner Daggett inquired whether the grants were tied to college use. Mr. Walding responded the grant received by the division from the US Department of Education is for college. Federal law regulates the colleges whereas state law regulates primary and secondary schools. Ms. Seib suggested the Iowa Department of Education be included as a partner and encouraged to include alcohol education in their curriculum development.
The commission is trying to foster partnerships that will cover everything according to Commissioner Cramer. The purpose of the White Paper is binge drinking on college campuses; however, in the course of gathering information, the commission learned that many students arrive on college campuses with an established drinking problem. He wants to make sure legislators understand the terminology and the scope of the problem.
Commissioner Collins commented that by taking out the word “college”, anyone who administers an alcohol education program could join in the partnership. Commissioner Henze suggested deleting the last three words “Iowa’s college campuses.”
Mr. Walding pointed out that officials from all three of the regency institutions attended the public forums whereas no one representing the primary and secondary schools attended. The original focus was on college high-risk drinking which is a definable problem. People work daily at the college level to solve the drinking problem and these are the partnerships the commission is targeting. Mr. Walding fears nothing will get done if the focus is too broad. Once the program is established the commission can expand to the secondary level and then to the primary level.
Commissioner Cramer noted that Recommendation Number 5 covers the high schools and the junior highs. If high-risk drinking can be curtailed at the college level, it will flow downward if the penalties for minors are enforced. The commission is trying to do the correct thing to convey the message that this is a problem at all age levels that winds up on the college campuses and elsewhere.
| |
Motion: |
Commissioner Stoffer moved to approve Recommendation Number 3 as written. Commissioner Collins seconded the motion. Roll call vote:
Stoffer aye,
Collins aye,
Henze aye,
Daggett aye,
Cramer aye.
The motion was approved by unanimous vote.
|
Recommendation 4 - A portion of the fees reverted to local communities from liquor licenses and profits should be earmarked and dedicated for local and statewide enforcement of existing alcohol beverage laws.
It is frustrating that funds are not available to enforce existing laws. Members of the commission are divided over whether new laws are needed or whether existing laws should work. This recommendation recognizes that not enough money is used toward enforcement of existing laws. The White Paper sets out different types of on-going enforcement activities that can be utilized if there is proper funding and notes how to attack different components of alcohol abuse.
Daryl Henze said remove the word “existing”.
Recommendation Number 5 was drafted based on what Commissioner Collins has said repeatedly that there are laws on the book that would address the problem if the laws were enforced. Mr. Walding agrees with Commissioner Collins that public intoxication is illegal and high-risk drinking as defined is public intoxication. The tool is there for local and state law enforcement to address the problem; however, local law enforcement is pressed with other law enforcement duties. Additionally, budgetary problems contribute to lack of alcohol enforcement. Earmarking funds for alcohol enforcement would help alleviate budgetary problems.
| |
Motion: |
Commissioner Stoffer moved to accept Recommendation Number 4 as submitted. Commissioner Daggett seconded the motion. Roll call vote:
Stoffer aye,
Collins aye,
Henze aye,
Daggett aye,
Cramer aye.
The motion carried by unanimous vote.
|
Recommendation 5 - All parties involved and responsible for underage alcohol sales and consumption should be held accountable, and the penalties for minors should be increased to a level that would deter underage consumption.
This recommendation deals with responsibility for underage alcohol sales consumption. Too often bar owners have become the brunt of the problem and are penalized with higher penalties rather than sharing the blame with the minors who actually tried to make the purchase of alcohol. An earlier draft stated, “held equally accountable”; however, the commission does not believe equal penalties are necessary. The penalty for a minor could be the loss of a driver’s license. Legislators debated revocation of license permits for tobacco offenses in a previous session and the bill died in subcommittee. Whatever penalties are decided upon, the legislature needs to recognize there are three responsible parties - the minor, the clerk and the retailer and all should be held equally responsible.
Jerry Fleagle, Iowa Grocery Industry Association, encouraged passage of recommendation number 5. He conveyed that retailers feel that minors are not held accountable for underage alcohol and tobacco sales. Penalties for minors are very minimal and they should be stiffer. If minors know the penalty is going to be stiff, they are less likely to try to purchase alcohol and tobacco. Mr. Fleagle noted there is nothing more valued by a teenager than a drivers license because the drivers license gives the kids freedom.
Commissioner Henze pointed out “equal” was used in an earlier draft which didn’t make sense; however, the term “held accountable” should be changed to “held more accountable” because minors are currently held accountable with a $50 fine. Commissioner Henze also remarked that the recommendation doesn’t clarify which party the commission wants to “hold accountable” because it says “all parties”. Mr. Walding replied the recommendation should probably read, “all parties involved and responsible for underage alcohol sales and consumption should be held accountable and subject to meaningful sanctions” prompting Commissioner Collins to inquire what is the interpretation of “meaningful”.
Mr. Walding realizes there is the risk of people focusing just on the bullets; however, if one looks at the text of the paper there are suggested restructured penalties that specifically address minors. Commissioner Daggett suggested changing the recommendation to read, “held accountable to the restructured penalties” to which Mr. Walding suggested adding “subject to meaningful consequences.” Commissioner Stoffer suggested continuing with “as set forth in the White Paper.”
Chairman Cramer declared the commission is trying to convey a message that the commissioners are willing to penalize minors who attempt to purchase or provide alcoholic beverages to minors. Penalties to minors are minimal compared to penalties for retailers. The penalties for minors should be restructured so the minors suffer a consequence as great as the consequences suffered by clerks and retailers. In order to make penalties more equitable, the commission needs to make a recommendation that has a penance high enough to get the minor’s attention. Chairman Cramer remarked the sentiment was strongly expressed that the commission was in favor of the loss of the minor’s driver’s license as a penalty. He asked commissioners favoring recommendation of penalizing the minor with the loss of driver’s license for a show of hands. Commissioner Collins replied a judge should make that decision.
Mr. Walding remarked that he would like a unanimous vote on recommendation number 5 and he perceived that Commissioner Collins would not support language including loss of driver’s license. Speakers at the public forums addressed the issue that penalties need to be fair; however, they did not address specific penalties.
Commissioner Daggett suggested, “should be held accountable and subject to loss of drivers license” and Commissioner Henze offered, “all parties, including the minor.” Commissioner Stoffer disagreed with the terminology stating the commission should refer to “restructuring the penalties for minors to have more consequences than currently exist.” The legislature should determine the consequences according to Commissioner Stoffer.
In response to a question by Commissioner Daggett, John Lundquist relayed that the local prosecutor, usually the county attorney, files the charges. The sanctions are defined statutorily; however, the judge has some discretion in imposing the sanctions. It is helpful to have the tools available for the local prosecutor and the judge to manage a particular problem; however, Mr. Lundquist advised, “one size fits all” is not the most effective tool either.
Mr. Lundquist explained the DOT has the authority to independently revoke a driver’s license if a person refuses to take a blood alcohol test and other scenarios. There is a multitude of ways in which sanctions can be imposed; however, criminal sanctions are usually imposed at the local level. Commissioner Cramer responded that is only an after the fact situation mitigated by certain circumstances. The commission is trying to use the loss of a driver’s license as a deterrent to a minor’s participation in this activity.
Mr. Walding suggested the following language, “all parties involved and responsible for underage alcohol sales and consumption should be held accountable, including penalties be restructured for minors to increase the existing penalties”. Commissioner Henze stated the commission wants the minors to be held more accountable and that penalties should be increased; however, the commission should not determine those penalties. Stiffer fines would give judges more leverage according to Commissioner Daggett.
Chairman Cramer stated if the commission won’t name a penalty, the only way to achieve parity is to state the minors penalties must coincide with the equivalency of the bar owner or the restaurant owner. If the recommended penalties are vague, then latitude should be given.
Mr. Walding offered the following, “and the penalties for minors should be increased” to which Mr. Cramer asked increased to what. The legislators still have to make the decision and no one seems to be able to come up with a higher level than the loss of a drivers license.
Commissioner Daggett suggested imposing a stiffer fine for minors that is comparable to the retailer’s fines.
Mr. Walding suggested, “and the penalties for minors should be increased to a level that would deter underage consumption.”
| |
Motion: |
Commissioner Henze moved to adopt the newly redrafted Recommendation Number 5 - All parties involved and are responsible for underage alcohol sales and consumption should be held accountable, and the penalties for minors should be increased to a level that deter underage consumption. Commissioner Collins seconded the motion. Roll call vote:
Stoffer aye,
Collins aye,
Henze aye,
Daggett aye,
Cramer aye.
Motion carried by unanimous vote.
|
Recommendation 6 - The state should adopt .08 BAC intoxication level.
This past session the legislature debated the issue of .08 BAC but let it die in the final hours of the session. The White Paper notes that while there is some fiscal consideration about the loss of federal funding and grants that is not the purpose for the recommendation. The purpose is to save lives and deter drunk driving. All communities would be well served by a strong message that drinking and driving poses an unnecessary and unreasonable risk to the public.
There was no discussion.
| |
Motion: |
Commissioner Henze moved to adopt Recommendation Number 6 as submitted. Commissioner Stoffer seconded the motion. Roll call vote:
Stoffer aye,
Collins aye,
Henze aye,
Daggett aye,
Cramer aye.
Motion carried by unanimous vote.
|
Mr. Walding pointed out that the Des Moines Register reported last Sunday in its opinion section that it will be doing an article in upcoming issues on drinking on college campuses.
Chairman Cramer recommended that the White Paper and the bullet points be posted on the web site so anyone interested in the subject can download the file. Mr. Walding responded that a press release was issued telling the media that it would be available on the web site by noon. Commissioner Daggett, on behalf of the commission, commended Judy Seib on the excellent job she did in writing the White Paper. There being no further recommendations, the commission’s role on high-risk drinking on college campuses came to an end.
It also brought to a close Commissioner Daryl Henze’s second term with the commission. Mr. Walding and the commission thanked Commissioner Henze for this time and work serving the division.
Other Business
Commissioner Collins commented the word “moral” has been removed from much of the state’s language. She questioned why the word still exists in the division’s language. Mr. Walding responded that “good moral character” is a requirement for a liquor license and the division can deny a liquor license if a person is not of good moral character. Commissioner Collins asked that the use of the word “moral” in the commissioner’s charge be included for discussion at the next meeting.
Commissioner Henze asked about the difference between the division and the Urbandale City Council regarding a particular license. Mr. Walding responded the division meets with the Urbandale City Council next month to discuss the license and to go over division policies. When someone does not understand the process, the division meets with the city council, mayor and the police chief to explain. Because council’s change, the educational process is ongoing.
Mr. Lundstrom commented he has worked with a couple of communities with trouble spots and once they knew what they needed to look for and how to present the case, they were successful in getting trouble bars closed. Many times there are legitimate reasons for closing these establishments but the local police and the city council doesn’t understand what they need to present to the division to make it stand in a court of law. If revocation is sought, the division wants it to stand.
Listing Presentation
At the last meeting, commissioners commented they had never been invited to attend a listing presentation or a taste testing. Mr. Walding invited Harry Ray of Hawkeye Wine & Spirits to conduct a listing presentation and a taste tasting at the commission meeting. In addition to informing the commission about his product, Mr. Ray gave a history of the listing procedure over the past years. Following the presentation, commissioners were invited to taste the product.
Meetings
The next meeting will be held in the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division Board Room on July 2, 2002 at 10:00 AM.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 AM.
GAYLE COLLINS, Secretary
|
|
