HB 388 - RIGHT TO REFUSE TO SERVE LIQUOR Number 0025 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business was HB 388, "An Act relating to the right to refuse to sell, give, or serve an alcoholic beverage." Number 0051 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON came forward as sponsor of HB 388. He stated he has spent most of the last two years working on child protection issues. Last summer he, Representative Reggie Joule and Commissioner Perdue [Department of Health and Social Services (H&SS)] put together a statewide symposium on fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) and fetal alcohol effects (FAE). He noted FAE is now called "alcohol-related neurological disorders," and has to do with prenatal poisoning of children. He indicated this made him realize how pervasive this problem was in Alaska, particularly in some areas, noting there are some communities where the teachers estimate half the entering children are permanently mentally retarded as a result of alcohol poisoning. He said the corrections community believes half of Alaska inmates have alcohol-related mental defects. Representative Dyson said FAE is, by definition, not visible, but the kids almost always have problems reasoning from general principles to specific action, an inability to empathize with others, and short attention spans. Number 0108 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON noted this was almost the classic definition of sociopath. He indicated all of this had made him interested in finding out what the legislature could do toward prevention, indicating he thought some of the committee members had been there when legislation was passed requiring signs be posted in bars. He mentioned there were labels "and so on." Representative Dyson stated he went "hat in hand" to ARBA CHAR (ph), the bar owners' association and the bar workers' professional union. He said after these groups "got over thinking that I was the bald avenger who was gonna go out and destroy them," they came to at least three things they thought they could work together on. He said first they are getting more material for these groups to use in their training, noting these groups said the question always came up in their training of bar workers, "Can we refuse to serve someone who is obviously pregnant?" Number 0145 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON indicated this was because the literature now says there is no known safe amount of alcohol for a pregnant woman to consume that is known to be safe for the unborn child, and the bar owners and workers are concerned. He said some of them were concerned because they were afraid of liability, some of them because they really cared about kids. Representative Dyson commented, "So we agreed on three things, ... we've gotten material and [the] Administration's working with them getting our material for their training; secondly, they're probably going to put quite a bit of money into helping kids with FAS and diagnostic equipment; and thirdly, they said that they're caught in a legal no man's land. Most of them say that they refuse to serve, as a matter of - of company policy, someone who is obviously pregnant, but they believe that they're open to civil action, not having a clear mandate that they can refuse to serve someone. The law says that you can refuse to serve if you can believe they're going to be a danger to themself or others. Our law since '73 doesn't clearly recognize unborn child as an other ... to be protected, and they believe they're on shaky ground." He noted in Oregon bar owners had been sued for both refusing to serve a pregnant woman and not refusing to serve. He said to the best of his knowledge neither lawsuit had been successfully prosecuted so far, but he indicated the people in the industry were afraid they were going to be sued on behalf of an advocate for a permanently retarded child, "in light of our suit-happy world and 'dram' shop ... type laws and being held accountable for the actions of people who are served," and so, he said, they ask for this. Number 0219 Representative Dyson stated, "I met with them when they had their board of directors meetings here in February, and we talked about it, and it was absolutely universal acclaim at the table and - and so on. When I got back to them a month ago, to Miss Whitehead (ph) ... their director there in Anchorage, I said, 'Can you guys get me a letter,' and she said, 'Oh my goodness, we didn't realize you were gonna do what you said,' and she said, 'Until we get a board meeting, I can't give you a letter,' but she said, 'Far as I know, there's no trouble.' So I can't tell that there's an official word from ARBA CHAR (ph) on this .... That's the long and the short of it, I have not lined up people to testify ...." He indicated he had been attending Senate committee meetings. Number 0254 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he assumed this provision only referred to those licensed to serve alcoholic beverages, not necessarily a liquor store, and asked Representative Dyson if that was correct. Number 0260 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he would have to look in the code there, quoting, "Licensee, an agent or employee." He indicated he thought it referred to a bar, not a package store. Number 0280 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he thought it was going to be any license, commenting it was in the general provisions. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked, "Including a package store?" CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied, "Everybody." Number 0288 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated someone selling alcoholic beverages at a package store would not know who was consuming those beverages. He noted he believed someone could not consume in a package store. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON indicated Representative Cowdery was correct in that consumption in a package store was not permitted. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "You could carry it out." REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY agreed, "But you could carry it out and give it to .... I don't know, for whatever that's worth." Number 0303 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "Chapter 20 ..." REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Dyson if bars were the main intention of the legislation. Number 0306 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated it was his intention to protect the bar owners from a civil suit because they choose to refuse to serve, under whatever circumstances they made that decision as a policy. He said that is what they have asked for. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY commented he wanted to have that on the record. Number 0319 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG informed the committee this was in the general provisions section of Title 4, Chapter 21, which was followed by [AS] 04.21.065, "posting of warning signs, two separate warning signs and beverage dispensary license, restaurant or eating place license, pub license, brewery license, package store license, common carrier dispensary license, ...." He continued listing the licenses and quoted the warning sign requirements. Chairman Rokeberg commented that with the current statute and the way the bill was drafted, it applied to everybody, as the signs currently did. Number 0379 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said he thought it was pretty good legislation and would be happy to move it along. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, "I think it's kind of redundant (indisc.) what the law says. They already have signs saying they can do it, plus I think it'll give rise to law suits not otherwise. Because if you say that ... they have the right to refuse 'em -- right now, ... 'cause it speaks to it, now it doesn't speak to it." Number 0395 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN reminded the chairman, "Mark Twain said, 'Difference of opinion is what makes horse races.'" CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed that was very true. Number 0405 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON quoted the required sign wording, "Warning, drinking alcoholic beverages such a beer or wine, wine coolers and distilled spirits or smoking cigarettes during pregnancy can cause birth defects." He quoted the (indisc.) one, "Surgeon's warning: smoking by pregnant women may result in fetal injury, premature birth, low birth weight." Number 0424 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated he would prefer to something in the file from CHAR (ph) and "some other folks." He indicated going on hearsay made him a little uncomfortable, noting it was not that he did not believe the bill sponsor. Chairman Rokeberg said he would prefer to hold the legislation until the committee received something, mentioning Ms. Whitehead (ph). He said the committee had been trying to get a hold of those people to verify that. Number 0446 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON noted time was short and he guessed the legislation would not make it all the way through the process, although he said he would like to see it continue, noting there was a small chance. He indicated he did not think waiting for the documentation the chairman requested would make a material difference. Number 0462 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated it was his understanding all HB 388 did was give some latitude to someone serving [alcoholic beverages] to make certain that the server is within the law. He indicated he thought that was all the sponsor was trying to achieve. Number 0476 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON agreed. He related, "Interestingly enough ... I went over and visited with my good friends at the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] and ... they spent 2 1/2 months trying to decide whether they were upset by this or not, and finally decided they couldn't figure that out, and think it's fine, which is [the] first time they've agreed with me in a long time." Number 0493 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN commented it was good legislation. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked the will of the committee. Number 0498 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he would like to make motion to move the legislation along, commenting that hopefully the sponsor would follow and get answers to the committee's concerns. Number 0507 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HB 388 with individual recommendations and accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objections, HB 388 was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. Number 0520 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON indicated he would withdraw the legislation if ARBA CHAR (ph) was not in favor of it.