Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/02/1998 09:05 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 233
"An Act extending the termination date of the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 233(FIN)
"An Act relating to membership on the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board; extending the termination date
of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; relating to
sales of beer and wine on a golf course or at a
recreational site; relating to notice of alcohol-
related arrests; and providing for an effective date."
Co-chair Sharp noted for the record that a CS had been
adopted, however no amendments had been addressed.
Senator Donley MOVED amendment #1. Senator Parnell
OBJECTED. Senator Donley explained that the amendment dealt
with the issue of whether or not the Alcohol Beverage
Control officers may carry a firearm and clarified that they
may.
Senator Parnell asked if they were currently carrying
firearms and if this was just a question of whether they
can, or was there a specific reason as to why they should be
carrying a firearm. Senator Donley responded that in the
audit the question was raised as to whether they should or
not. The actual personnel doing the job were the ones
asking for the authority to be able to carry a firearm.
Given the places they were asked to go and types of crimes
they were witnessing, Senator Donley felt it a reasonable
request.
Senator Pearce said it was her understanding that two of the
investigators were former police officers, who took this
request to the commission. It was her further understanding
that the auditors felt there was no merit to having
investigators carry firearms. She requested that Mr.
Griffin testify and advise if there had been a specific
incident wherein he feels his investigators were endangered.
Douglas Griffin, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board,
Department of Revenue testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. He said there had been some threats and some
investigators had been involved in some confrontational
situations. They had not been fired upon and no one had
been injured with regards to these confrontations. However,
the Board has taken these situations very seriously and they
are looking into them.
Senator Pearce asked if during the investigations they would
be looking into any illegal activities and in dealing with
the owners of the licenses did that mean there were bar
owners in the State that were threatening the inspectors?
Mr. Griffin responded that there had been incidents where
bar owners had acted violent. He said the dilemma they were
faced with was they were charged with enforcing Title 4.
The perception was that it only applied to liquor licensees,
however there were Title 4 violations that could be
committed not only by licensees but also by members of the
general public. For example, someone purchasing alcohol and
providing it to an underage individual. Looking at
identification on a licensed premise was another example he
cited. They were looking at all aspects of safety for their
investigators.
In response to Senator Parnell's earlier question, he said
there was a specific regulation at present, 15 AAC 104.505
(b) adopted by the ABC board in 1981 which says the board's
investigative personnel were not authorized to carry
firearms in the performance of their duties. He said the
board had been trying to amend this specific regulation.
Senator Parnell asked what training ABC officers would
receive. Mr. Griffin said they would have to have
particular firearm training and certification as peace
officers. They could be certified the same as police
officers and would be professional in their job.
Senator Parnell asked if they could guarantee training
before allowing the investigators to carry firearms. Mr.
Griffin assured the committee of this guarantee.
Co-chair Sharp asked if the board's personnel costs would
increase if this were to be authorized? Mr. Griffin
indicated that it was his understanding these individuals
would qualify as a police officer and they would be eligible
for those higher benefits. However, it was not the approach
they were taking. In his investigation of this matter, he
looked at other State employees who had two categories that
allowed the carrying of firearms, yet they are not
considered peace officers and are not eligible for the
twenty-year retirement or other benefits of a police
officer. That was also the same category he agreed upon for
their investigators.
Co-chair Sharp asked if the retirement was at thirty years
rather than twenty? Mr. Griffin indicated that was correct.
Senator Pearce asked about park rangers and fish and game
biologists and noted they not only protected themselves but
also other members of the public against bears and other
animals and wildlife. She felt there were also other
problems with other individuals allowed to carry firearms
and cited the airport security who chased someone twenty
miles down the road to kill them. She doesn't feel we
should give more individuals police powers in the State.
Senator Parnell said he appreciated the need as addressed by
Senator Donley. However, he did have the same concerns as
Co-chair Sharp in taking more employees into a new
retirement system and making them eligible for different pay
ranges and benefits. He did not understand that to be part
of the original bill and asked Senator Donley to clarify the
amendment.
Senator Donley said just because someone was authorized to
carry a firearm did not mean they should be classified into
a peace officer status. It would be up to the
administration and collective bargaining. He also noted
that from the audit illegal gambling and prostitution were
being investigated.
Senator Parnell asked if there was an alternative route as
opposed to the amendment. Senator Donley said the issue was
being studied and the board was considering repealing their
regulation that prohibits their investigators from carrying
firearms. Senator Parnell asked if the regulation were
repealed would it accomplish the same as the amendment?
Senator Donley said yes, if the regulation were repealed.
Senator Parnell asked if they would still need statutory
authority to carry a firearm. Senator Donley felt they
would. It is specified by statute who can do it. But then
again, he said the administration took a very broad
interpretation of their powers by regulations.
Co-chair Sharp noted for the record that Senators Torgerson
and Phillips were now present.
Senator Donley continued that philosophically, these were
trained employees of the State. And it is known that the
State is not going to issue them firearms without the same
level of training they do to police officers. These
individuals are being put into some very dangerous
situations, they are highly trained and many of them are
former police officers. Normal individuals are allowed to
carry weapons. These individuals would be highly trained by
the State and he felt this was a reasonable call.
Mr. Griffin indicated that the next couple of months they
expect a policy making decision. He noted that the ABC
board was concerned for the safety of their employees.
Senator Pearce said she felt it was going in the wrong
direction to license investigators. They can always call
the police if necessary and that's what they should use.
She further indicated that it would be difficult to obtain
prosecutions.
Senator Phillips asked how many states allow their
investigators to carry weapons. Mr. Griffin responded that
approximately thirty-seven states allow this, however he did
not know if it was by statute or regulation.
Senator Torgerson voiced his concern of an individual being
in a bar with a gun. He didn't feel that was ever
appropriate.
Co-chair Sharp said there was an OJBECTION to amendment #1
and asked the Secretary to call the roll. By a roll call
vote of 1 yea (Donley) and 6 nay (Sharp, Pearce, Torgerson,
Adams, Parnell, Phillips) amendment #1 FAILED.
Senator Donley MOVED amendment #2. He said it was in
reference to page seventeen of the audit report. The
Commissioner of Public Safety had delegated powers for
investigating gambling and prostitution to the enforcement
officers of the ABC board and the board had approved that
delegation. The auditors recognized that was probably a
good thing to do, as the current investigators are some of
the most knowledgeable enforcement in the State regarding
these issues. The auditors further point out, however, that
the existing statutes specifically prohibit that delegation,
which is in fact occurring and working well. He said the
amendment would make their current procedure consistent with
statute. He said the audit report pointed out that the
investigating officers are all former police officers.
Senator Pearce requested someone from Department of Revenue
testify however, Co-chair Sharp noted there was no one
signed up nor in attendance.
Senator Torgerson said he was not sure the ABC board
investigates gambling unless it is associated with a bar
having illegal gambling. He said the local police and State
Troopers were available in prior cases and also the
Department of Revenue. He felt this was an over-
characterization of what they do as far as investigating
gambling.
By a roll call vote of 1 yea (Donley) and 6 nay (Sharp,
Pearce, Torgerson, Adams, Parnell, Phillips) the amendment
FAILED.
Senator Donley MOVED amendment #3. He said this amendment
would add two public members to the Alcohol Beverage Control
board. In the audit it was pointed out that the current
balance of three public members to two members from the
industry had been problematic, since the Administration had
failed to appoint a third public member. This created a
two-two deadlock on many occasions as far as taking any
enforcement action. It would be good public policy to have
more public members on the commission to balance out the
conflict industry members may have.
Senator Adams asked Mr. Griffin if the agency support this
and if a fiscal note had been prepared for the addition of
two new public members.
Mr. Griffin said the board had not taken a position on this
amendment. A fiscal note had not been prepared as of yet,
even though there was going to be some fiscal impact. He
felt it would be approximately $5000 for additional travel.
Senator Pearce voiced concern over the additional costs and
whether the size of a board just because a particular
Governor has not filled positions in it in a quick manner.
By a roll call vote of 2 yeas (Donley, Torgerson) and 5 nays
(Sharp, Pearce, Adams, Parnell, Phillips) the amendment
FAILED.
Senator Donley MOVED amendment #4. Senator Adams OBJECTED.
He said that amendments #4 and #5 were basically the same
and asked the sponsor explain any preference. Senator
Donley said that amendment #4 pointed out that in the audit
there had been dissatisfaction with the dual responsibility
of the board and the local governing bodies and no one took
final responsibility for the input from local neighborhoods
about problems with liquor licenses in their neighborhoods.
In clarifying the difference between amendments #4 and #5 he
said #5 would place the super-majority into the ABC board
and not into the local governmental body.
Senator Adams asked Senator Donley which one would be his
preference? Senator Donley said either one would work but
the least controversial would be amendment #5. The
Legislature would be making clear guidelines to the State
agency to take its responsibility considering input from
neighborhoods and people directly impacted by the liquor
licenses. He said his preference would be amendment #5.
In response to a query from Senator Adams, Mr. Griffin said
he had looked at the two amendments. He voiced concern in
giving authority to the advisory board. He thought there
might be a violation of Title 29. He said the board had
been trying to work with community councils to overcome this
problem. Senator Parnell concurred with Senator Donley and
noted they shared one community council. He felt it was not
so much a problem with the ABC board but rather with the
assembly not taking into consideration neighborhood
concerns. Senator Pearce said she shared the same concern
of Mr. Griffin. When her community council sees the word
"alcohol" they vote "no".
Senator Phillips also concurred. He said usually the owner
showed up at the meetings and explained what they wanted to
do. There followed some miscellaneous conversation between
Senators Pearce and Phillips as to the different community
councils.
Co-chair Sharp noted there was still OBJECTION to the
amendment and asked the roll be called. By a roll call vote
of 3 yeas (Donley, Parnell, Phillips) and 4 nays (Sharp,
Pearce, Torgerson, Adams) amendment #4 FAILED>
Senator Donley MOVED amendment #5.
(Tape #109, Side A switched to Side B.)
By a roll call vote of 2 yeas (Donley, Phillips) and 5 nays
(Sharp, Pearce, Torgerson, Adams, Parnell) the amendment
FAILED.
Senator Donley MOVED amendment #6. Senator Pearce OBJECTED
and following a brief explanation of the amendment by
Senator Donley WITHDREW her objection. WITHOUT OBJECTION
amendment #6 was ADOPTED.
Senator Donley MOVED amendment #7. Senator Donley explained
that this was a modified amendment #3. It would still
remain status quo leaving the membership at five members.
Line nine would delete "2" and insert "1". Line thirteen
would delete "3" and insert "4". Section 2 would be
deleted. Senator Pearce OBJECTED and asked for comments by
Mr. Griffin. He said it was difficult to respond to this
and noted the vacancy in public member ship is unfortunate.
He felt the board had dealt with most issues with great
unanimity, especially concerning issues of sanctions against
licensees. He felt the board had listened to neighborhoods
and wanted to be on record in saying that he felt the board
had been very responsive. He told the committee that
whenever there was a tie vote he had the authority to be the
breaking vote.
Senator Torgerson asked when the terms of the two members
engaged in the industry would expire? Mr. Griffin said one
ran until the year 2000 or 2001 and the other expired next
year. Senator Torgerson said he would support the amendment
if a transition clause were included that whenever a vacancy
occurred the public member be appointed. Senator Donley
concurred and moved technical correction to the amendment
that the existing members would serve out their terms and
the drafters put in a new transition clause.
In response to a query from Senator Pearce Mr. Griffin
advised that when he voted to break a tie he always voted
his conscience.
Senator Pearce WITHDREW her objection and WITHOUT OBJECTION
amendment #7 was ADOPTED.
Senator Torgerson MOVED CSSB 233(FIN). Senator Adams
OBJECTED. By a roll call vote of 6 yeas (Sharp, Pearce,
Donley, Torgerson, Parnell, Phillips) and 1 nay (Adams) CSSB
233(FIN) was REPORTED OUT with individual recommendations
and a zero fiscal note from the Department of Revenue, ABC
Board.
Co-chair Sharp called SB 332.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|