There are a many bills being put before the House and the Senate with respect to section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws chapter 138. This law currently stipulates the number of alcoholic beverage licenses a city or town may issue based upon population, as determined by the most recent census. This legislation would authorize the licensing authority in the requesting towns to issue an additional license for the sale of alcohol. The following municipalities have requested such action: Milford (3); Millbury (4); Medford; Hingham. As stated before we neither support nor oppose these actions, however licensees in these towns should be aware that with every new license created, the value of their own license decreases.

Senate Bill Number 436: An Act relative to an underage law enforcement agent. This legislation would lawfully permit law enforcement agents under the age of twenty-one, to work under the direction of local police or the ABCC to purchase but not consume alcohol in conjunction with a selective liquor enforcement program such as sting operations. This bill further states that the underage agent cannot deceive or attempt to coerce a seller of beverage alcohol, and must leave the premises after an un-successful attempt to purchase. This would actually protect licensees. So-called “sting” operations have held up in court and are a common tool used by law enforcement. With the passage of this bill, if an underage agent were to use deceptive means to entice a seller into selling, it would invalidate the action. There have also been cases where an agent has gone to the bar and been refused service, and then has gone to another area of the licensed premises and been served. This bill would make such action illegal.

House Bill number 1475: This is legislation that would amend Section 34B of the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 138 to add to the specified list of ID types, a valid photographic, non-duplicative driver’s license issued by the registry or department of motor vehicles of another state. Under the current law the statute reads one who is licensed to sell alcoholic beverages can reasonably rely upon the following types of items in order to check the age of a purchaser:

A) A valid driver’s license issued by the Massachusetts RMV.
B) A liquor purchase identification card issued by the Massachusetts RMV, not to be confused with an “identification card” issued by the RMV.
C) A valid passport issued by the U.S. government or by a foreign government recognized by the U.S.; or
D) A valid U.S. military identification card
It seems crazy that a licensee can reasonably rely on a (for example) Lithuanian passport, but not a Rhode Island Drivers’ License. We are a state that attracts many tourists; has many resort areas and we have many colleges that attract a diverse population. There has been talk of making Boston a “world class city”; Cape Cod and the Berkshires are inundated with tourists at different times of the year but cannot reasonably rely on the drivers’ licenses of 3 bordering states!

This bill has been filed many times in the past. I am told that both the MA Chief’s of Police Assoc. and our Secretary of State are opposed to it, claiming that underage drinking would increase. One ABCC investigator has said the same.

To give you some background on this issue, prior to the World Cup Games being held in Foxborough, MA (approx. 10 years ago), the law stipulated only two forms of I.D. would provide a licensee with a defense – a MA Drivers’ License and a MA Liquor I.D. card. The law was amended to include passports and military I.D.’s as a direct response to the World Cup Games and the tourism that would result. The law was supposed to be temporary and expire after 90 days. As we now know, it was made permanent. I know of no studies to show that underage drinking has increased as a direct result of making passports and military I.D.’s a part of reasonable reliance.

Additionally, as I have stated before, as a licensee, I should do everything in my power to prevent the underage consumption of alcohol. However, if a minor is able to go to another state (or use the internet) to fraudulently obtain another state’s drivers’ license in their own name, THAT is a problem for law enforcement, NOT for retail sellers of beverage alcohol.

House Bill Number 1473: is an act providing for the certification of alcoholic beverages licensees and servers of alcoholic beverages. This legislation would establish an alcoholic beverage service-training advisory council to be chaired by the chairman of the ABCC. It would be the duty of the council to review and certify programs for alcohol server training. The legislation would require all servers of alcohol to undergo a training program, which would instruct servers on various aspects of responsible service of alcohol. The legislation would also stipulate a licensee who holds an on premises license would be required to have all servers undergo an approved training program before those persons could legally serve. Licensees who violate these provisions could lose their license or be denied renewal. It also states that a licensee may not be charged with the crime of serving alcohol to a minor, unless the minor is first charged with a crime.

Whereas many municipalities in MA, and many states across the country, have mandated server training, mandating server training within the Commonwealth would be a good idea. Currently the cities & towns in MA that have taken this step all seem to have different ideas about training. This makes it difficult for a restaurant group that has multiple locations. Also a “cottage industry” has arisen from alcohol server training. There are many persons “certified” in one program or another, but there is no oversight to ensure that these persons are doing an adequate and effective job. It should be noted that the server training advisory council would not be paid for performing the functions of the council. However, this bill has been around in one form or another for over ten years and always dies in committee, so it is unlikely that it will move out of committee this year.

House Bill Number 2975: This bill was written and submitted by myself. It simply says that if a licensee has taken certain steps and made a reasonable effort to ensure that his or her employees comply with the law, the licensee will not suffer any consequences for an employee’s violation of the law. The text of this bill is based upon the Florida responsible vendor statutes, created over ten years ago, and current Maine law. Simply put, if a licensee is operating in a responsible manner there is nothing in this bill that will hurt them. Nor will it cost any more money or time to administer. If a licensee is irresponsible, there is nothing in this proposed legislation that will save them. If you wish to see the full text, please call or write our office.

Senate bill 394: This is an Act relative to the sale of alcoholic Beverages by Licensed Veterans organizations. This legislation would amend the current statute to strike the restrictions which state that alcohol can only be served to members of the post and guests introduced by the members and to no others. That will allow such Veteran organizations to serve alcoholic beverages to the general public and no longer restrict them to selling only to their members and their member’s guests. We neither support nor oppose this legislation. However it should be noted that licenses for veteran’s organizations are not a part of the aforementioned quota system, nor do the organizations pay the same licensing fees as a restaurant or similar type of business. This is the reason behind them serving only members and the guest of a member. By letting them serve the general public, they now have a distinct advantage over bars & restaurants.

House bill numbers 2625 & 2594 are acts relative to Liquor Liability Insurance. This legislation would amend section 12 of MGLA Chapter 138 to require applicants seeking to be granted a license or seeking to renew a license, to provide proof of coverage under a liquor liability insurance policy. In our opinion, mandating liquor liability insurance is unnecessary. Most licensees already carry liquor liability insurance. It is a minority that does not. The legislator that wrote H. #2594 has admitted to this. We have spoken with numerous persons and organizations around the country about this issue. Mandated insurance will only make the cost rise, not decrease. There is one possible exception to this. If a state also has “dram shop” laws, laws that will, among other things, put a cap on monetary awards, then mandated insurance might possibly decrease in price. Massachusetts does not have dram shop laws. If a suit is won for $10,000,000, the next case is for $15,000,000 and each time it goes up. When insurance companies start paying skyrocketing claims, they must raise premiums. The only real winners in this situation are the civil attorneys. Interestingly enough, the legislator that wrote H. #2594 is an attorney and he works for a law firm that handles a large amount of liquor liability litigation. In our opinion, a legislator that writes legislation that will benefit him financially and submits it to his own committee for approval is a clear conflict of interest. Yet another interesting thought is that this only applies to on-premise licensees but not off premise (package stores, etc.).

We will, in the coming weeks publish a more detailed examination of this subject.

< Back | Back to Editorial |  Next Archive >