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.