Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/22/2001 03:30 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 132-LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICANT CHECK/TRAINING Number 1665 CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 132, "An Act relating to the possession or distribution of alcohol in a local option area; requiring liquor license applicants to submit fingerprints for the purpose of conducting a criminal history background check, and relating to the use of criminal justice information by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; providing for a review of alcohol server education courses by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board every two years; and providing for an effective date." Number 1655 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, speaking as the chair of the House Judiciary Standing Committee, which had sponsored HB 132 by request, offered a proposed committee substitute (CS), version 22-LS0380\J, Ford, 3/20/01. There being no objection, the committee adopted the proposed CS for HB 132 as the working document. Number 1610 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that in the proposed CS, the 12 liters of wine [corresponds] to the 24 liters in the current statute, and the 6 gallons or more of malt beverage [corresponds] to the 12 gallons in current statute. So, he said, the only change regarding the bootlegging provisions of the bill consists of lowering the limit of distilled spirits from 12 liters to 6 liters. The proposed CS also deletes the 50-air-mile radius [stipulation] from Section 3 of the bill. Number 1463 DEAN J. GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, came forward to testify. He said he had spoken with Representative Rokeberg's staff, the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board, and the Alaska State Troopers; all groups are in support of the changes. He provided some brief information about why [the changes] make sense. MR. GUANELI explained that the original HB 132 was written before the state troopers received a large federal grant that will provide more investigators. Initially, there was an attempt to figure out some way to get additional information about bootleggers, he said, and that was where the idea of liquor stores keeping track of people within a 50-mile radius originated. There is less need now for that provision, he commented. MR. GUANELI reported being told by the ABC Board that package stores are voluntarily cooperating by providing tips on potential bootleggers. "We don't want to destroy that cooperation by imposing what might be an onerous burden on them," he said; therefore, deleting that provision is appropriate. Number 1481 CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked what would happen if the grant was not continued. MR. GUANELI expressed hope that it would be continued. "If not, we may be back before the legislature for continued state funding of that," he said. "We'll just have to see." Number 1460 MR. GUANELI, regarding the other provisions, said beer and wine are not the problem in rural Alaska; it's hard liquor. And so keeping the limits as they exist under current law really makes the most sense. In looking at the recommendations from the Criminal Justice Assessment Commission (C-JAC), he said he thought the specific amounts of the types of beverages reflected a rough equivalence of a certain amount of alcohol. "In other words, I sort of figured that ... the amount of alcohol in 12 liters was comparable to 24 liters of wine, and so cutting everything in half made some sense," he remarked. However, in calculated it this morning, he found that current law allows a person to have a lot more alcohol in hard liquor than in beer and wine, "so cutting the hard liquor in half really does more to equalize all of those types of alcoholic beverages," he said. Number 1382 MR. GUANELI testified that the United States Postal Service (USPS) also favors cutting the amount of hard liquor. Postal officials have agreed to set up a system to x-ray mail as it goes through the postal service; x-raying only those things that are more than one case would equate to x-raying just large packages, which the USPS doesn't feel would be terribly effective. The [USPS] felt that it was important to cut that limit in half so smaller packages could be x-rayed, in an [attempt] to intercept [those breaking the law]. Number 1321 MR. GUANELI addressed the concern of people being able to have a certain amount of liquor in the home. If there are two adults in a home, he explained, each can possess this amount of liquor, and even cutting the amount of distilled spirits in half, it is still a fair amount of liquor for a couple; if there are more adults in the house, it goes up from there, he said. Cutting the amount in half is not going to burden anybody as a practical matter, he remarked. Number 1281 MR. GUANELI concluded by saying that for all of the [aforementioned] reasons, this is an appropriate change and "we're" comfortable in supporting the amendments and the bill. Number 1273 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked for clarification that the state would get five new troopers [paid for] with the federal grant. Considering the size of the state, he asked if that would be enough. He stated that while he thinks this bill has merit, he doesn't think [the state] puts enough troopers out on the streets to [accomplish the goal here]. He asked for Mr. Guaneli's opinion. Number 1246 MR. GUANELI explained that the grant would provide for greater enforcement. The troopers are planning to focus efforts on certain areas where liquor is thought to be coming from, including parts of Anchorage, Bethel, and Kotzebue. "I think ... it's certainly going to be a lot better than what we've had before, and I think we just have to see where it goes," he said. Number 1199 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked how the ABC Board feels about doing a review of alcohol-server education courses every two years rather than every three years. He stated that it seems a little undermanned, and he asked if [the ABC Board] agreed with this level of effort. Number 1177 MR. GUANELI noted that Mr. Griffin was online to speak to that question. CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Guaneli if he had any comments on either the fingerprinting or the licensing sections of the bill, because the committee didn't hear testimony on those during the last hearing. MR. GUANELI spoke in support of those sections and said in order to get national criminal history records, the FBI requires fingerprints. Furthermore, there are some licensees who live out of state. Fingerprints aren't wanted from all employees, just the licensees, the corporate officers, and so forth, he said. He stated that he thinks fingerprinting is important for the board's efforts, and he suggested that Mr. Griffin expand upon that. Number 1104 DOUG GRIFFIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board), Department of Revenue, via teleconference, said [the department] thinks it can accommodate the additional review of alcohol server training; it is an important partnership between the board and private groups that provide the training. Over the last couple of years, he said, there have been some improvements, and the additional work would be manageable within the budget. Furthermore, providing oversight to the trainers pays dividends. Mr. Griffin informed the committee that [the department] is planning to keep better statistics about violations and the type of training that the person receiving the violation had. MR. GRIFFIN turned to the issue of fingerprinting and thanked Representative Rokeberg and the House Judiciary Standing Committee for including it in this bill. This is similar to a measure that passed the House of Representatives last year, but it didn't make it through the Senate. It is appropriate and necessary to give licensing agencies such as [the ABC Board] the ability to access federal data banks. Public Law 92-544 [allows them to] review fingerprint cards of potential licensees for purposes of doing a more comprehensive criminal background check. In doing so, it takes into account that today's society is more mobile. Furthermore, this would mainly focus on those who reside within the United States, he explained, but outside of Alaska. Mr. Griffin mentioned that there had been a couple of situations in which people applying for a liquor license would not have shown up on the background check, since it currently only involves violations in Alaska. If the board had known of these people's criminal backgrounds, the license would have been denied; however, the board would not have known this information based on the current process. Although there is a nominal charge for a background check through the Department of Public Safety, the additional cost would be passed on to the licensee. MR. GRIFFIN noted that the [ABC] Board uses its discretion in determining someone's criminal history with regard to giving that person a license. Therefore, just because someone has a criminal background doesn't necessarily disqualify him or her. On the other hand, Mr. Griffin highlighted the importance of the board's having knowledge of someone who would be licensed to serve alcoholic beverages in the state. Mr. Griffin said he feels that the individual selling the alcohol is a big part of the alcohol abuse problems in Alaska. If the board doesn't have access to criminal activity that has that occurred outside the borders of Alaska, the board is hamstrung in trying to do its job. He pointed out that the ABC Board is made up of volunteers who meet on their own time and attempt to serve the interests of the public by making sure that those involved in the alcohol beverage industry are of good character and respectful of the law. Mr. Griffin informed the committee that last year this was widely supported by the Department of Public Safety, and he was sure it remains supportive. This is one of those common-sense preventive steps. Furthermore, this legislation sends a message that the service of alcoholic beverages is taken seriously and that adequate steps will be taken in order to review the criminal history that will be licensed in this endeavor. Mr. Griffin felt that the more hoops a person has to go through for an alcohol license, the more it impresses upon people that this a serious business in which care and respect should be taken. MR. GRIFFIN reiterated that prevention saves money. He estimated that it costs tens of thousands of dollars for the state to revoke a license. Number 0487 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired about the board's process when reviewing and approving an alcohol-server education course. MR. GRIFFIN responded that [the ABC Board] reviews the materials provided and look to see if the 16 specific items are covered. He said there is a "canned" nationwide course that is customized to address those things that are different about Alaska state law. He added that the course needs to be of an appropriate duration and require a test, and the people who are instructing need to be knowledgeable. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Mr. Griffin, when reviewing those courses in the past, whether he had made suggestions or changes to improve them, or whether [the courses] have been inline with the established regulations and conditions. Number 0408 MR. GRIFFIN said the only major thing that [the ABC Board] talks to them about is the customization, making sure that the things unique to Alaska state law are covered. Mainly, he said, the canned course is good and covers how to deal with a customer, how to diplomatically cut someone off, and so forth, which are usually generic. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked how many groups provide the education training course. MR. GRIFFIN replied that at this time there are basically three major groups: the Techniques of Alcohol Management (TAM) course, which is most widely available and offered through the Cabaret Hotel Restaurant & Retailers Association (CHARR); the so-called "Bar Code," which is offered through the Alaska Hotel and Motel [Association] (AHMA) and the Anchorage Restaurant and Beverage Association (ARBA); and "Tips Training," which is typically provided in-house by a large chain, for example. Number 0280 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked how long it takes Mr. Griffin to review one of these courses. MR. GRIFFIN said if it is a new course, like Bar Code, it takes three days to go through, and there is discussion back and forth; then for renewal, it would take one to two days per course. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Griffin to tell the committee how a limited liability [company] (LLC) can be fingerprinted. MR. GRIFFIN explained that regulating LLCs is a challenge. He said [the ABC Board] tries to focus on the components of the LLC, because an LLC can consist of a cluster of corporations and there is a lot of dialogue back and forth trying to find out who the key players are within the LLC. Once determined, the board wants to make sure its "net" is cast wide enough to protect the public interest. Obviously, there can be LLCs that have hundreds of people, so some detective work has to be done to find out who really has the authority. Sometimes six or eight people would be fingerprinted, he remarked, if they were key to the alcohol-service aspect of the bill. TAPE 01-38, SIDE A Number 0038 MR. NORRIS said alcohol is the biggest problem out in Bush Alaska. One of his troopers working on the Kotzebue [River] told him that when a "stream" of alcohol gets into the community, it turns into a river of family assault, suicides, DWIs, motor vehicle accidents, and homicides. He is in favor of the bill as it is. MR. NORRIS referred to the five [new state] troopers that will be paid for from the federal grant. He said it is an attempt to be proactive because the current levels just allow [the state] to react to crime. Number 0174 BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration, via teleconference, said he thinks it is a good idea and he agreed with Mr. Guaneli when he said the bootlegging problems are mostly with hard liquor, rather than wine or beer. He stated that he redid the fiscal note and made a solid estimate of the types and amounts of cases that have to be covered, taking into account the $1.4 million grant that the Department of Law and the Department of Public Safety will be receiving. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. McCune if he could ask for part of that grant to help out. He also asked how bootleggers would qualify for a public defender. MR. McCUNE responded that he hadn't asked Mr. Guaneli directly about public defender services [paid for] through the federal appropriation. In his past experience with federal law and federal grants, they restrict recipients to law enforcement and prosecutors, more than public defenders; he said he would ask, but [public defenders] don't normally get "cut in" on federal funding because of the involvement of federal laws. Number 0403 MR. McCUNE, addressing the question of bootleggers affording a private attorney, said some can, but the majority can't. In his experience as a public defender in Bethel, the liquor isn't brought in with a container, it is brought in with "knapsacks and boxes," and the people bringing it in don't have a lot of money. He said he didn't know of any "bootlegging kingpins." Certainly, the misery that it causes is spread around; the people who do the bootlegging are not wealthy people and don't have the means to hire an attorney. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he believes that it is entirely unfair for this legislation to be "saddled" with the results of a $1.4 million grant to the Department of Public Safety; the same conditions apply to the Department of Corrections. He suggested that Mr. McCune "plead" with the administration to get some funding because the fiscal notes will "kill" the bill. If the legal fees can't be received in-kind from a bootlegger, it is going to make it tough to pass this legislation, he remarked. Number 0598 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES referred to Section 3, and asked what criteria would exclude someone from getting a liquor license. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded that [the ABC Board] is looking for a criminal charge in another state. MR. GRIFFIN replied that [the board] is looking at alcohol- related things; someone who has a string of DWIs wouldn't be a good candidate to have a liquor license, or someone who has been convicted of assault within the last five years, or someone who has been convicted on a weapons charge, and so forth. [Crimes that occurred] within the past ten years would be of particular importance. He gave an example of a man who was applying for a liquor license in Alaska, and only because he was involved as an informant for the Anchorage Police Department did the information surface: he had been convicted of kidnapping, selling alcohol without a license, and one other alcohol-related charge in California within the last five years. He said this was found out because [the Anchorage Police Department] did a background check before employing him. If he had gone through the normal Alaska-only background check, this wouldn't have been known. Number 0801 MR. GRIFFIN, responding to a question about whether someone who had served time for a crime and was rehabilitated would be denied a liquor license, stated that these cases are handled case-by-case; it is one of the more important things that the ABC Board does. It is done in executive session with the person, he said, unless the person doesn't have problem talking about his or her criminal background in a public session. [The ABC Board] takes into account a lot of factors, but if the charge is serious enough, there is a good chance that the board would deny a liquor license for a person even after being convicted and serving his or her time. MR. GRIFFIN explained that a liquor license is viewed as a privilege, and the board has to take into account the ability of someone to be responsible. [The ABC Board] has to keep the public's safety in mind. He equated it to a person who gets picked up for his or her third or fourth DWI and gets his or her license revoked; he said even after the time has been served, that person still is not going to be issued a license for 10 to 20 years. [Package-store owners] are dispensers of a legal drug, and [the board] wants to take the greatest care to ensure that those owners have the highest character and regard for the law. Number 0989 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to move the CS for HB 132[22- LS0380\J, Ford, 3/20/01] out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 132(L&C) was moved from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|