TAPE 95-42, SIDE B Number 000 CSSB 106(JUD) - NO MINORS WORK/ATTEND ADULT BUSINESSES TERESA SAGER, Committee Aide, Senate Rules Committee, introduced the bill. Sponsor statement: "Senate Bill 106 would prohibit businesses that provide adult entertainment, such as strip tease establishments, from allowing persons under 18 to patronize or be employed at such businesses. "Most adult entertainment establishments in Alaska serve alcohol which requires that employees be at least 19 and customers at least 21 years of age. However, recently some adult entertainment businesses have opened in Anchorage and Fairbanks that do not serve alcohol, therefore, the age limit rules that are usually imposed because of the service of alcohol do not apply. "CSSB 106(JUD) aims to close that loophole, ensuring that minors may not work in or patronize any such establishment, regardless of the nature of the work and regardless of whether the business does or does not serve alcohol. "The bill establishes the following penalties: Business allowing minors as patrons: Class A Misdemeanor(up to $5,000 fine, up to 1 year  jail) Business employing minors, 1st offense:  Class A Misdemeanor (up to $5,000 fine, up to 1 year jail) Business employing minors, 2nd & subsequent offenses: Class C Felony (up to $50,000 fine, up to 5 years jail)" REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY could not recall a single business venture that has survived commercially, that has not served alcohol. Do we even need to worry about these businesses continuing? CHAIRMAN PORTER said one of the reasons these businesses providing entertainment to minors do not work, is that the law enforcement agencies in the communities are forced into monitoring these places night after night after night. This is the only way to disallow the function of consuming alcohol on or near the premises. This bill would do away with the need to monitor these clubs, because it would pretty well do away with the employers' ability to run them. Number 080 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked about Section 3. In (f) 1 and 2 we have set up a standard for what the violation is: "dancing partly or completely unclothed, removing clothes," and the penalties seem to make sense. If you are caught doing it, you get the lowest level of misdemeanor, a fine up to $500, and up to 90 days in jail. Then the penalties go up from there. None of that makes any sense to me for (f) 3. Here is a person who is participating in either actual or simulated sexual penetration, or various categories of exhibition or bestiality. It is like apples and oranges in this section. We have a little stiffer laws than these already for someone who was to engage a minor in these kinds of activities. Am I missing something here? MS. SAGER asked if Representative Finkelstein was saying that there is a differentiation of penalties for the type of activity and for the type of entertainment offered? REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN answered no, but to clarify it, he completely understands the penalties and the provisions as they would apply to numbers 1 and 2 under Section 3. But when you get to number 3 of Section 3, we have already got a whole variety of laws that deal with an adult or individual who engages or hires a minor to be involved in sexual penetration or some of these other things. It does not seem that we would want to apply these lower penalties to something like this. It does not necessarily relate to what this bill is after. CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that Section 3 is a prohibition against allowing a minor to work in a premise that does this. The presumption would be that this would be an adult premise, precluding minors from being patrons, but there are exceptions for minors to work in places that have liquor licenses, for example. He said he knows that there are jurisdictions within the United States where they actually allow live sex acts. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said that is right but we do not allow such acts. That is the point. CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that in case we ever do allow them, we are saying that we are sure we do not want minors working there. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN still felt that if it did occur, this is way too small of a penalty for this kind of activity. CHAIRMAN PORTER said this would not be for the activity itself, it would be just for allowing a minor to work there. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that Section 4 appears to be for the minor, and Section 5 for the employer. ANNE CARPENETI, House Judiciary Committee Aide, explained that all of the penalties in this bill are for the employer, or his/her agent. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what the difference was between Sections 4 and 5. MS. CARPENETI answered that Section 4 sets forth the penalty for allowing a minor to be present at an establishment, whereas Section 5 sets the penalty for employing them at one. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said that made sense. CHARLES MCKEE testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said with what this bill is attempting to do, the penalties are not stiff enough. They are only misdemeanors. He did not know if any of the committee members would appreciate their 18-year-old daughters working in establishments such as these mentioned. He recommended these establishments be shut down. They should not be in business. He talked to an operator last Sunday who was bragging to another individual that he had 14 back rooms for activities other than stage acts. He realized who he was talking to, and they do not have the appropriate liability coverage, nor does the state. Under Senate Bill 53, they tried to violate his individual property rights. Seeing how they do not have the right to purchase appropriate liability coverage, they should not be in business at all. Number 270 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY made a motion to move the bill out of committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes. Seeing no objection, CSSB 106(JUD) moved.