Whether we realize it or not, and perhaps more importantly, whether we like it or not, we have a partner in business. That partner is the Massachusetts General Court, aka the Legislature.
Legislative bills are filed every session and many of them are aimed directly at our business. One thing that Massachusetts has, unlike many other states, is the right of free petition. Any citizen can ask their elected representative to file a bill to create a new law or amend an existing one. Once this is done, the bill is assigned to a committee for review. A public hearing date will be announced and that gives citizens the opportunity to be heard, whether they support or oppose the bill. After such hearing, one of three things will happen. The committee will recommend that the bill "ought to pass"; this means it will begin to make its way through the House and Senate where it will be debated. If it makes it through this process, it will be sent to the Governor's desk for enactment. The committee may also recommend that it "ought not to pass". When this happens, it will go no farther, however proponents of the bill may submit the legislation again during the next session, which starts the process over. Each session lasts 2 years.
On March 13th of this year, the Committee on Government regulations held a public hearing to listen to testimony on a wide range of bills that would affect liquor licensees.
Following is a brief synopsis of the bills that were heard and what happened.
House #3088: This bill was drafted by myself and submitted by my State Rep. Stephen LeDuc. This bill would provide an added means of protection for liquor licensees. It is based upon Florida legislation that has been in use for over 10 years. It simply says that if a liquor licensee has shown due diligence in training staff to prevent liquor violations, the licensee shall not have their license to sell alcohol suspended for the
employee's violation of the liquor laws. To sum it up, if a licensee obeys the law, there is nothing in this bill that can hurt them. If a licensee is irresponsible, there is nothing in this bill that will save them.
The committee gave this bill an extension order, which means that they will not make a recommendation until December of this year.
House 1747: Commonly known as the mandated server-training bill. This bill has been around in one form or another for about 12 years. In addition to mandated server training, it would make out of state ID's acceptable forms of identification. It also states that a licensee can not be charged with the crime of serving a minor, unless the minor is first charged with illegally procuring alcohol. It would also create a server training advisory council. This portion of the bill was amended just recently to include a
representative of the TIPS® program. It is my opinion that any person or organization with a direct interest, financial or otherwise, in server training should NOT be serving on the advisory council.
This bill was also given an extension order.
Senate 404: This would allow patrons of restaurants that have purchased, but not completely consumed a bottle of wine, to take it home with them. Current law forbids the removal of any alcoholic beverages from a licensed premise.
This was placed into a study order.
Senate 410: This would further define how underage "sting" operations are implemented.
It clearly states that the underage 'agent may not attempt to deceive or coerce in the attempt to purchase alcohol" and "must leave the premises immediately after an unsuccessful attempt to purchase is made."
This bill was released favorably.
House 1749: This is a separate bill to include out of state identification as acceptable.
House 3867 would require all licensees to purchase ID checking machines for their places of business. Although this sounds good, I believe it would place an undue financial burden on small establishments where the service of alcohol is incidental to the service of food. Also these machines are not fool proof. I am not saying do not use such a machine, only that it should be an independent business decision.
Both of these bills have been given an extension order.
Senate 417: Currently fraternal organizations (Eagles, Elks, AmVets, etc.) may only sell alcohol to members and the guest of a member. This bill would allow the club to sell alcohol "to guests introduced by such members and to members of the public attending registered events at said post". This bill does not define what a "registered event" may be.
The committee released this bill favorably. I believe this bill should be scrutinized, as it would appear to give fraternal organizations an added means to compete with restaurants and other function facilities.
In closing, whether you agree or disagree with these bills, I urge you to get involved. Contact you elected officials to show your support, or to speak out against. Your livelihood depends on it.
< Back | Back
to Editorial | Next Archive >
|
