Call to Order
Vice-Chairperson Daryl Henze called the meeting to order at 2:13 pm
with a quorum present.
Minutes of Previous Meeting
Mr. Henze asked for discussion of the July 10, 2001 Minutes. There
was no discussion.
| |
Motion: |
Dick Stoffer moved the Minutes of July 10,
2001 stand approved as submitted. Shirley Daggett seconded the
motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. |
Sales Report
Sales were over $111 million last year setting a new record since
the elimination of the state store days. Dollar sales are up 2.3%
for the first two months of the fiscal year according to Jim Kuhlman.
Bottles, gallons and cases are running slightly under 1% increase
for the year indicating a slow down. Mr. Kuhlman expects sales to
be down for September due to one less sale day this year as compared
to the same period last year. In addition, this year there was only
one day contributing to the Labor Day holiday sales as compared to
two days last year.
Product Buyout Information
The dollar profit year-to-date is down somewhat from last year due
to less items being offered by suppliers. The division has a policy
stating that items offered for temporary price reduction (TPR) must
be discounted at least 10¢ per bottle to cover administrative
costs involved. At the end of the month, staff determines which TPR
items will be purchased under the Product Buyout Plan. Jim Kuhlman
reported the division tries to limit the product buyout purchases
to a 30 – 45 day supply.
Financial Report
The net income for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001 was $1.1 million
more than the previous fiscal year. Beer tax receipts were down approximately
1%. The division transfers $9,000,000 for substance abuse treatment
to the Department of Health who in turn transfers the money to the
local city and county levels to fund substance abuse programs. In
addition, the division transfers approximately $700,000 from Sunday
Sales fees directly earmarked for substance abuse treatment. Mr. Kuhlman
reported the division transferred $37,500,000 to the General Fund
which was $1.5 million more than last year and represents $2.5 million
more than was projected at the beginning of the year. Although the
budget was cut over 6% last year, the division still contributed more
revenue than in previous years. The division is projected to transfer
$38,000,000 to the General Fund for FY02.
Mr. Kuhlman explained the liquor sales chart and the tax collection
charts. Iowans drink approximately 66 million gallons of beer each
year compared to 2.8 million gallons of spirits and approximately
2.5 million gallons of wine.
Holiday Show
The annual holiday show will be held September 23 and 24th at the
Sheraton Four Points Hotel on Merle Hay Road. During the first session
on Sunday evening from 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm, there will be tastings,
music and appetizers and retailers will be able to view and order
product. Monday morning from 9:00 am to 12 noon suppliers will sell
products. Currently, only about 100 products are considered a holiday
package whereas there used to be approximately 300 – 400 holiday
items.
Industry Meeting
Commission members were invited to attend the holiday show as well
as a meeting with industry members, Class E license holders and staff
to critique Iowa’s system and provide feedback. The meeting will
begin at 1:30 pm in the Bennigan Room at the Sheraton Four Points.
Items on the agenda will include the split case operation, TPR buyouts,
the holiday show, the Jones contract, pricing, listing and delisting,
the implementation of a regular quarterly pricing publication and
comments and suggestions about Iowa’s system.
Binge Drinking on College Campuses – Student Forum
Lynn Walding explained that this is the third meeting in a series
of discussions on college campuses regarding youth access to alcohol,
public intoxication and binge drinking on college campuses and the
problems resulting in the communities as a result of these actions.
The Commission needs to develop a plan for recommendation to the Governor’s
Office and the legislature regarding the issue prior to December.
Mike Jackson, Student, Resident Assistant and Computer Consultant
at UNI
Mr. Jackson stated:
- Binge drinking occurs more in the freshman and sophomore years
because students are experiencing freedom away from parents for
the first time and alcohol is the forbidden fruit.
- Drinking is a social thing and raising prices will not keep
students from drinking more. If students can’t afford to
drink at the bars, they will drink more at home before they go.
- It is extremely easy for underage drinkers to obtain alcoholic
beverages from older brothers or friends; however, students can
purchase from convenience stores, etc. with fake identifications
obtained from the Internet.
- People selling the IDs over the Internet are making money and
they will quickly find a way to change the new licenses.
- Often bouncers in bars check only the date of birth but do not
compare the picture on the ID with the person presenting the identification.
- Drink specials bring more people to the bars; however, his experience
is that once he’d gotten sick from binge drinking he was
unlikely to do it again regardless of price.
- Drinking would not be as big a deal if students could legally
drink at the age of 18.
- Students who drink in dorms instead of in the bar, play drinking
games that can make binge drinking worse. At the bars, the guys
try to meet girls and socialize, whereas in the dorms the guys
show off to each other by drinking as much as they can.
- Most people don’t think about the amount of alcohol they
are consuming.
- Most people have a designated driver who either does not drink
or has only 2 beers during the evening.
Mr. Walding asked what Mr. Jackson saw as a solution to avoiding
the problems. Mr. Jackson’s solution was lowering the legal
age to consume and placing more restrictions on the bouncers who
let people in.
Nathan Rivera, Student and Resident Assistant in Ryder Hall at
UNI
Mr. Rivera believes:
- A war against binge drinking will be a feeble battle because
students don’t care – they just want to party and have
fun.
- People should be held personally accountable for when, how much
and how often the person drinks.
- Trying to regulate drink specials is government intrusion on
private enterprise.
- Bar owners who say they want regulations have ulterior motives.
Regulations would mandate the bar owners charge an extremely higher
price for the same amount of alcohol which would drive their profit
margins up. Even if the owners took a cut in bar traffic, the
higher prices would result in higher profits.
- Limiting access to bars and limiting drink specials would increase
drinking in the residence halls resulting in increased vandalism
in dorms. In addition, there would be increased incidences of
drinking and driving because people would drink prior to going
to the bars so they wouldn’t have to spend as much money
at the bar.
- Part of the problem is parenting and their interaction with
their children. Kids learn by modeling after their peers.
- Underage accessibility is extremely easy and offenders seldom
get caught.
- Peer pressure is high and has probably increased over the years
but it depends on the will of the person whether the person succumbs
to peer pressure.
- Drinking is legal in the residence halls for students of legal
drinking age; however, there are some substance free houses.
- Underage drinking in the residence halls is a problem with very
little consequence to the offender. Mr. Rivera spends more time
writing the report and documenting the situation than the individual
spends in a 2-hour drink-wise class or writing a paper.
In response to a question by Mr. Walding, Mr. Rivera stated the
following was a correct interpretation of Mr. Rivera’s remarks:
If the division tries to regulate the licensed establishments to
stop drink specials and keep people under 21 off the premises, the
drinking will take place in the dormitories. The dorms need to be
off limits for drinking and those rules need to be enforced.
Susan Tillman – Student in Public Policy Class at UNI
Ms. Tillman stated:
- There is not as much pressure for people who live off campus
to drink if they don’t want to as there is for people who
live on campus.
- It is easy for students who live off-campus to obtain alcohol.
In most cases, college kids are getting their alcohol from neighbors
or using their fake IDs at bars where they don’t look at
the IDs carefully or where employees are also intoxicated. Another
way students get alcohol is to have a legal age person with a
bracelet purchase the drinks.
- It would not be feasible or logical to lower the drinking age
because it would make drinking more socially acceptable for younger
children, 10 and 12 years old.
- The focus should be on enforcing the current laws. Officials
in Cedar Falls, for the most part, tell the drinkers to go home
unless they are vandalizing property or something more serious.
- The Commission needs to look at how the bars are run.
- A person would be deterred from buying too many drinks if the
person had to pay the regular price for each drink purchased.
Ms. Tillman believes drink specials encourage people to drink
more in a specified amount of time.
In response to a question, Ms. Tillman stated, in most cases, the
younger people drink more beer because it is cheaper. Often there
are 2-for-1drink specials that usually contain less alcohol; however,
most of the time the students go for the pitchers of beer.
Michelle Swanson – Faculty Member at UNI, College Hill Neighborhood
Resident and Former Board Member of the College Hill Neighborhood
Association
Ms. Swanson stated the University is taking a proactive stance on
the recommendations, suggestions and ideas from the American Campus
and Alcohol Conference she and other faculty representatives attended
last fall in Washington, D.C.
One problem is the abundant and inexpensive consumption of alcohol.
Ms. Swanson would like to see ordinances in Cedar Falls banning advertising
on drink specials similar to those recently enacted in Iowa City.
She asked the Commission to take a serious look at banning binge drinking
specials and ads statewide. Mr. Walding stated the Iowa City ordinance
does not ban advertising and he does not think it is legal to prohibit
liquor advertising. Mr. Lundquist said the First Amendment provides
protection to commercial establishments and it would be hard to justify
such a requirement; however, he has not researched the issue in any
depth. In Iowa City, they do restrict drink specials. Rather than
attacking advertising, it would be better for an organization to prohibit
the act instead. Mr. Walding said Iowa City is a good prototype to
see how this works and whether it does change the consumption patterns
in Iowa City. The Commission is focusing on youth access and irresponsible
consumption and habits.
As a neighborhood member living near the campus, Ms. Swanson said,
social disturbances, vandalism, indecent exposure and public urination
are problems experienced in the neighborhood. Some problems are the
result of off campus parties and some occur after the bars close and
the patrons return home in a distressed state. She would like to believe
those problems would decrease if there were restrictions on alcohol
intake.
Mr. Walding commented there are existing laws on the books that need
to be enforced. It is illegal to be publicly intoxicated and to serve
an intoxicated patron. Some of the money the Alcoholic Beverages Division
produces is reverted back to the local governments and they are encouraged
to use some of that money for alcohol enforcement. Ms. Swanson said
that when she was on the board of the College Hill Neighborhood Association
it was very frustrating to point out ordinance violations and have
the city respond that the part-time ordinance person was months to
years behind. She believes that well written ordinances are worth
nothing if they are not enforced.
In response to a question about current punishments serving as a deterrent,
Ms. Swanson replied that the punishments don’t seem to be making
a difference. Mr. Walding commented that bar owners believe minors
who are consuming should be cited, fined and their driving privileges
revoked.
Ms. Swanson said there are many students who do obey the laws, who
chose not to consume alcoholic beverages until they are 21 and who
chose to live in substance abuse houses.
Parent who wished to remain anonymous
The speaker is the mother of two daughters, ages almost 21 and 23,
who have been drinking most weekends in the local bars since they
graduated from high school and began attending the University. Both
girls found it very easy to get alcohol.
The speaker’s concern is enforcement of the drinking age and
existing laws. In eight years of collective drinking, one of the speaker’s
daughters got her first citation two weeks ago for having an open
container on the street. The parent believes the girls drink as often
and as much as they do because they can afford to. She is especially
concerned about the drinks that draw young women to the bars because
that draws the men into the bars.
The speaker believes in shared responsibility. Young people need to
be accountable as well as the bar owners who don’t appear to
see the responsibility they bear for the young people. The speaker
would like to see promotions and advertising banned or eliminated.
The speaker does not believe the drinking age should be lowered to
18 because individuals are not fully mature at the age of 18. In addition,
the problem would be shifted downward creating greater problems with
14 and 15 year old youths.
Ms. Collins commented that when the City of Des Moines banned alcohol
in the parks of Des Moines, the kids just moved somewhere else. The
speaker views kids moving around in large groups, partying and stopping
at various places as more dangerous than partying in dorm rooms. She
views the dorms and apartments as a safe place and she is not sure
what more the University can do except in the form of advocacy. The
speaker believes an environmental change is needed.
Julie Thompson – University of Northern Iowa Substance Abuse
Services Coordinator
Ms. Thompson commented on the proliferation of drinks available by
the pitcher and the quantity available in the price specials. Ads
printed in the school newspaper for cheap drink specials are the largest
ads, the only ones printed in color, and are placed in the most prominent
position including routinely taking the entire back cover. Tony’s
recently purchased an establishment near campus and tore down the
existing building with the exception of one wall. On that wall, which
is a half city block long, a mural was painted promoting cheap drink
specials with a panel for each day’s promotions.
There is a member of the city council who is very supportive who happens
to own several drinking establishments on the hill but unfortunately
has to abstain from all voting that relates to this issue because
of a conflict of interest. Ms. Thompson hopes the city council will
become more proactive on the issue, but she hopes the state will pass
legislation that will eliminate each city having to go through the
long process to address the issue.
There is a climate on campus that encourages underage and excessive
consumption. Ms. Thompson works with parents association to heighten
their awareness about these issues. Working toward legislation that
restricts cheap drink specials is one piece of a very comprehensive
effort to provide alternatives to partying atmospheres.
Ms. Daggett asked if drinking should be banned at the dormitories
and sorority houses regardless of legal age. Ms. Daggett commented
that it appears that students tend to consume even greater amounts
of alcohol at home or in the residence halls. Julie Thompson commented
that students of legal age can drink only in their private living
quarters in the dorms so they can’t have it in a restroom, hallway,
elevator, or any room where an underage person is present.
In response to the student resident advisor who commented that nothing
happens to the people he cites for alcohol violations in the dorm,
Ms. Thompson explained the University program. After a first time
violation in the residence halls the student can be required to do
up to 12 hours of alcohol education, do a substance abuse evaluation,
and complete treatment programming if determined there is a dependency
problem. The leverage to make students comply depends on the judicial
officer. If the student lives in a residence hall, their ability to
remain living in a residence hall is tied to following those expectations.
If they live off campus, there ability to re-enroll for course work
at the University can be compromised. The University can place a hold
on their registration.
Mr. Kuhlman asked whether the University was concerned about the fact
that the University published newspaper allows advertisements for
drink specials. It seems to him there is a very conflicting message
being sent. Ms. Thompson replied it is a huge concern. A large portion
of the student newspaper’s advertising revenue comes from liquor
license establishments. The students run the school newspaper with
one paid staff member who works part-time and the editorial board
changes constantly. The editorial board is prideful about not establishing
policies that will affect the next board; therefore, they are not
prone to put things on paper and negotiations are ongoing.
Shagnastys sponsors teen nights with alcohol free alternatives for
underage individuals. Ms. Thompson and parents she hears from don’t
like their underage sons and daughters being drawn to that establishment.
Ms. Thompson feels it is an attempt to groom new customers to crave
that sort of environment.
Mr. Walding asked what the universities could do. Ms. Thompson believes
in substance free programs, aggressive policies, environmental management
and requiring remedial alcohol education when folks do get in trouble.
UNI has a counseling center on campus that provides individual and
group counseling free of charge to all students. Ms. Thompson offers
substance abuse evaluations free of charge and refers students to
treatment services. She also helps students who have accessed treatment
before coming to the University connect with After Care so hopefully
they won’t relapse.
Mr. Walding commented about the speaker who stated lowering the drinking
age would send the problem into the younger group. It was his understanding
that the problem is already at the lower level and that freshmen are
coming on campus with a history of drinking. Ms. Thompson agreed.
She believes research is clear that college environments increase
the level of use, both frequency and amount per setting, of existing
drinkers as well as creating new drinkers.
Ms. Collins asked if Ms. Thompson thought there would be less drinking
if smoking were prohibited in bars. Ms. Thompson said a phenomenon
related to smoking that is fairly specific to college students is
social smoking, people who don’t smoke except when they are drinking.
Certainly, they are intertwined; however, Ms. Thompson doesn’t
think it is the prevention strategy that has the most hope for reducing
binge drinking.
Dedra Billings – Graduate Student at UNI; Works With the
Wellness Resource Coordinator on Campus; and an Educator for Two
and One-half Years.
Ms. Billings stated it is a huge struggle to get through to the students
on campus that there are things they can do with their time rather
than go to the bars. The students want to fit in; consequently, whether
they want to or not, they get pulled into the bar scene by other students
who have been at the university for a longer period. Ms. Billings
believes that getting rid of the ads would be a big help. She is not
against the bar scene for a social gathering, but she would like to
eliminate binge drinking. The elimination of binge drinking would
be a huge help to student health and also make the parents feel better
when they send their students to campus.
Mr. Walding thanked the speakers and commented the Commission needs
to identify whether they think there is a problem and if so, what
the problem is. In addition, the Commission needs to determine what
they think the public wants recommended to the Governor and to the
legislature.
Year-End Compliance Rates for Tobacco
Gary Marker complimented his investigators on the terrific job they
did last year in signing partners and getting the compliance checks
done. Mr. Marker reported that over 190 partners have signed agreements
for this year and have begun compliance checks. The goal is to surpass
the 202 contracting agencies that participated in FY01 and to get
noncompliance in the single digits. Retailers who sold last time,
now face 30 and 60-day suspensions for subsequent violations.
Mr. Walding commented that when the division first took over the program,
most law enforcement agencies were not interested in doing tobacco
compliance because of their experience with the FDA program. The investigators
have done a good job convincing the agencies to sign up for the program
and to continue with it.
The division sponsored law enforcement at the Iowa State Fair where
8 compliance checks were done, 2 of which were noncompliant, and 108
juveniles were cited for possession of tobacco. In addition, the division
sponsored law enforcement at the Scott County Fair, the Cattle Congress
in Waterloo and the Clay County Fair. The coverage at the fairs sends
a message to juveniles that they have to be responsible for their
actions.
Nicole Watson reported that the division achieved 82% compliance with
Iowa’s tobacco laws for fiscal year 2001. That figure is up from
63% two years ago and up 79% midway through the fiscal year. Mr. Walding
added that the press release announcing the figures was covered in
at least 50 newspapers throughout the state. Ms. Watson reported that
the local papers also picked up on the compliance data by county and
by retailer. There was quite a variation in compliance with some counties
achieving 100% compliance while Worth County was only 60% compliant.
The lowest compliance rate among retailers was in the “other”
category that includes pharmacies, auto repair shops, etc. Their compliance
rate was 78.70%. Grocery stores also had low ratings with 79.94% compliance.
Mr. Walding added that tobacco permits are issued locally in Iowa
making the division dependent upon the local jurisdiction to tell
investigators who holds tobacco permits. Legislation was requested
last year, and will be again this year, to make tobacco permits a
state license similar to alcohol.
Ms. Watson shared copies of the full-page ad that ran recently in
the Des Moines Register. The Register’s initial quote of $15,000
for the full-page color ad was rejected and a lower price was negotiated.
The division was offered a special price of $2,000 to run the ad again
in the Register special edition September 11, 2001. In response to
the ad, two law enforcement departments have contacted the division
asking how they can become a part of the Iowa Pledge program. Mr.
Walding wants to use positive reinforcement as an encouragement to
do even better.
The 80% compliance rate means that Iowa will receive the total substance
abuse block grant of $5,000,000. The Department of Health conducts
SYNAR checks that are used by the federal government to determine
the compliance rate for the grant. The Department of Public Health
does a sampling of retailers while the division checks all retailers.
Next year, the division will do the SYNAR checks for the Department
of Health. According to Ms. Watson, 175 checks have been conducted
so far this year with approximately 19% noncompliance. This current
fiscal year, the division must be under 28% noncompliance to avoid
being penalized.
Ms. Watson distributed small prototypes of the 84 billboards posted
statewide. Most of them went up the beginning of September. Mr. Walding
distributed magnets with the division’s new logo.
Counsel's Report
Mr. Lundquist commented that since the last Commission meeting many
of the cases have been settled with the remaining ones scheduled for
hearing in December. In addition to promoting compliance with alcohol
laws in the state, the General Fund is also benefiting from these
settlements. The division has made an effort to deal with the issue
of youth access and over-consumption in the disciplinary process.
In addition, the division is following up more aggressively with cases
in which alcohol is involved in accidents and other issues to try
to hold not only the people who commit crimes but also retailers accountable
for their actions in selling to intoxicated persons. Current efforts
focus on sales to minors and sales to intoxicated persons, especially
in those instances where there has been a negative effect on innocent
people.
The Tied House Rule litigation trudges on according to Mr. Lundquist.
A judge has recused herself from the case due to comments she made
to colleagues and friends. The judge, wanting to avoid the appearance
of being partial, stepped down from the case.
Mr. Walding pointed out that many of these cases are being settled
on a daily basis. He also pointed out that enforcement is important
and it does make a difference in making sure that the licensee partners
follow the law. If a city forwards a case, the state keeps the revenue
and the General Fund benefits if there is a finding of fault and a
civil penalty imposed. Mr. Lundquist stated that in talking with city
attorneys, he has learned that often local communities don’t
understand, or don’t know, what authority or tools are available
to help them deal with problem bars and other circumstances in their
community involving retailers of alcohol. Mr. Lundquist is more than
willing to talk with and share his thoughts about how to revoke liquor
licenses, place restrictions upon a liquor license or get local retailers
attention that people are paying attention to what is going on in
bars. It is difficult for city councils that don’t deal with
these issues every day.
In response to a question, Mr. Lundquist said gambling violations,
such as having a cup of dice in the bar, fall under the “illegal
activity” category. The potential consequences of charging this
type of violation as a gambling violation would be revocation of a
license, and out of fairness, a cup of dice is not the same as running
books and bets out of the backroom. Other activities that fall under
the “illegal activity” category are drug activity, nudity,
refilling and reusing bottles.
Regulatory Plan
Judy Seib reported the Regulatory Plan has been submitted to Governor
Vilsack’s office for approval. Every agency in state government
had to submit a plan as the result of Executive Order 9, which mandated
that all agencies look at their rules and rescind those rules that
are no longer applicable, and to more clearly define the ones that
are on the books. Most of the rules update current language and rescind
language that is no longer applicable to the statute. The biggest
change, and the most sensitive, is the Dram Shop Rule and Chapter
16, Fair Trade Practices.
There is a section in the statute that mandates that the Alcoholic
Beverages Division adopt the substance of the federal rule sub part
6, 8, 10 and 11. The rules must be based on a statute, or because
of the statute, on the substance of the federal rules.
Dram Shop Insurance
Mr. Walding reported the Dram Shop Insurance Rule was presented to
the Administrative Rules Review Committee last week. The Rules Review
Committee voted to require a regulatory audit before the rule proceeds.
The division must review what impact this rule will have on the insurance
industry and the alcoholic beverage industry, specifically related
to the premiums that licensed establishments would have to pay for
coverage. There will be a meeting with the Governor’s office
regarding the issue.
The rule originally had an effective date upon enactment that would
require all licensees, and all licensees upon renewal, to go to the
higher rates. This creates a structure with different rates providing
different benefits to victims depending on where the consumption occurred.
Mr. Walding proposed the Commissioners revisit the issue of the effective
date, setting a date that everyone has to be in compliance.
A Public Hearing was held in August. Mr. Stan Walk, a bar owner, spoke
at that hearing. The comments received focused mainly on the fact
that the rule should also apply to off-premises establishments. Another
issue was contributions. Iowa law does disallow someone from contributions.
If a person is served to intoxication in a bar and then drives his
vehicle and kills himself in an accident, the estate does not have
the right of contribution against that establishment. Most licensees
have the opposite perception, and Mr. Walding believes the reason
they do is because insurance companies settle for $10,000 rather than
argue the case. HSB 133 last year was intended to codify the common
law in Iowa on contribution. Another complaint is that carriers settle
too quickly. By raising the rates, the division believes insurance
carriers will be less inclined to settle and will fight for the industry.
In the comments heard and received, no one questioned the expansion
to higher limits of coverage. The coverage hasn’t been changed
in over 42 years and the current rates amount to a $25,000 maximum
pay out by an insurance carrier with $15,000 being the most any one
person would receive. The limits were increased to $50,000 per individual,
$100,000 total for injury or death, and the property amount was increased
beyond $5,000. A new category was created for loss of support to comply
with the requirements in the statute, 123.92. Also added was a clause
that insurance companies could not exclude fights resulting in injury
by intoxicated persons.
The insurance industry is the only one who has commented regarding
the rates. Some have indicated the rates are still too low. There
are states that do have higher rates. Chapter 123.92 says the Commission
shall set the amount. The state sets the requirements, so the legislature
may debate whether on-premises and off-premises both should have the
insurance. The legislature may also take over the authority from the
Commission to decide the rate and set the rate themselves.
One of the concerns is the effect this rule will have on small
rural communities where there is one licensed establishment and
that one establishment is the community center. There is concern
the higher rates will drive the establishment out of business. The
Regulatory Audit will try to determine what this will do to premiums
for dram coverage. Much of the audit will be speculative. The process
will begin this month with the division and the insurance commission
working together on the audit.
The earliest date for the change in dram shop rates would be July
1, 2002.
| |
|
Dick Stoffer moved to specify a date for enactment
of the increase in the dram shop rather than a phased in date.
Gayle Collins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. |
Before the rule can go into effect, the division is required to
complete the Regulatory Analysis that the Administrative Rules Review
Committee has requested. Once that Analysis is done, it will be
published in the Administrative Rules Bulletin and the comment period
is extended. Beyond that date is 20 days after publication before
any final action can be taken. Before the rule absolutely goes into
effect, the Commission will once again vote for final approval of
the rule. Mr. Walding can, without the approval of the Commission,
make modifications or amendments to the rule; however, it is helpful
to have guidance from the commission.
Under 123.92, the law states alcoholic beverages have to be sold
and served. The sold and served language has been interpreted to
mean sell it for consumption on the premises. The rule is intended
to regulate on-premises establishments that have control and monitor
consumption. The Supreme Court has determined that does not include
off-premises establishments like convenience stores and grocery
stores because they do not serve and have no way of knowing how
the person will consume it. The statute only requires on-premises
retailer to have insurance. Even if the statute required off-premises
retailers to have insurance, there is no liability so insurance
should be cheap.
Meetings
It was suggested the next meeting be held in Des Moines in late October
or early November.
Adjournment
Commissioner Stoffer thanked the speakers for their input. Deliberations
on the issues will continue at the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 4:30 pm.
GAYLE COLLINS, Secretary
|
