State Affairs: More on Personnel Board and Raising Bounty on Underage Drinkers

[I have been trying to report fairly objectively, but now and then I'll add my own questions in at the end. No one in the committee called this a bounty (though Gatto called it an award), but someone I mentioned it to said, "You mean a bounty?" Those comments are at the end.]

(H)STATE AFFAIRS		STANDING COMMITTEE *
Mar 16 Tuesday 8:00 AM		CAPITOL 106
=+	HB 348	PERSONNEL BOARD MEMBERSHIP	TELECONFERENCED
+	SB 194	ALCOHOL VIOLATIONS: PENALTY/CIVIL DAMAGES	TELECONFERENCED

HB 348 PERSONNEL BOARD MEMBERSHIP TELECONFERENCED

Two purposes:  1) Enlarge the committee from 3 to 5  and 2) insulate it from the Governor whose conduct could be reviewed by the Board.  (This bill was inspired by the Personnel Review Board's investigations of former Gov. Palin.)

I got there late.  The sky was blue, the sun was shining, and after a week of mostly clouds, snow, rain, and wind, I was distracted.  Attorney Doug Wooliver of the Court system was testifying as I got in and was saying something like:

"The Court doesn't typically support or oppose bills.  We don't support or oppose this bill. . . But . . . this isn't the kind of bill that the court is real enthusiastic about." 

The bill has the Chief Justice sending three proposed names to the Governor to choose from for Personnel Board appointees.  The idea is to make this less political since the Board might have to review the Governor and the Governor's appointees.

After trying to respond with options that didn't include the Court and playing around with wording about lobbyists for an hour, I think what happened is that they ended up with pretty much the same bill they started with (the Court sending names to the Governor) but they added "political" before the word "group," to clarify that 'group' didn't mean football team.  I did ask a few people if they got the same impression and everyone agreed, though no one was absolutely sure.

And then they passed the bill out of committee to Judiciary.

I was able to sit where I could watch the sun on Mt. Juneau reflected in the windows of the State Court Building across the street. 



The second bill was SB 194.

SB 194 ALCOHOL VIOLATIONS: PENALTY/CIVIL DAMAGES

This bill would increase penalties for minors buying alcohol.  This bill amends an existing law that
1.  fines minors caught trying to buy alcohol by licensed alcohol dealers.
2.  fines adults buying alcohol for minors and
3.  fines kids hanging around liquor stores soliciting adults to buy them liquor.

There's currently a $1000 fine and this bill would raise it to $1500. 


Here's how it works as described by witness Mr. Madden of Brown Jug liquor stores.


1.  It deters minors from coming in, in the first palce, gives us a means to go after them.  We use the penalty to award our employees.  Bonus of $200.  We offer minors the option to waive $750 if they go through an alcohol education program and sexual assault awareness program.  Gets the family involved with the minor.  In many cases they don't know kid was caught.  Now they get letter saying you owe Brown Jug $1000.  We've pursued action against over 2000 kids since 1998 (MOA law) though we haven't collected from all.
2.  Adults buying alcohol for minors.  Adult who has carload of kids outside the store.
3.  Kids outside soliciting adults to buy for them.

There were some question about what other licensees, besides Brown Jug, do. 

Rep. Peggy Wilson:  [This are from my notes, so it's a rough approximation of what was actually said]  Only Brown Jug and not a lot of other businesses doing it.  If they had more incentive to do something, maybe it would be worth it, we could catch more people this way.  For me it is a travesty that people would do something like this.
I'm trying to get other entities involved.  If Brown Jug has caught 2000, you know they are saying, we'll just go somewhere else.  If we could get others involved it would make a big difference.


Sen Kevin Meyers [bill sponsor]:  Yes, Brown Jug and Chilkoots, do have a reputation.  But now, CHARR will do this on your behalf. [CHARR = Cabaret, Restaurants, & Retailer's Association.  Known by some as the liquor lobby.]

Wilson:  Since CHARR has said they would do this, have you seen an increase?

Meyers:  Yes, they have been doing quite a few of these and they have asked us to bump up the price because of the cost of tracking down the kids.

Rep. Gatto:  We have existing fine, actually an award.  The liquor store owner gets $1000 and $750 waived if go to training.  This would just change his $300 to $800. 

Meyers:  That's Brown Jug's policy.  Others will pay employees or bouncers more.  CHARR says it is harder to find where they live.  Each establishment has different policies and costs.

Gatto:  No requirement that cashier share in the bonus?
Meyers:  No

The bill passed out of State Affairs Committee and to Judiciary next.

So, Rep. Gatto figured out that while it may be a penalty for the violators, it is a reward for the licensee who gets the payment.  Rep. Gatto began to ask a line of questions that does raise a good point:  how much are we rewarding liquor stores and CHARR for obeying the law themselves, by not selling to minors?  I think perhaps the committee accepted Sen. Meyers' response too easily.

The idea of using rewards instead of penalties is supported by behavioral psychology.  But we really don't know how much of this increased fine merely pays expenses and how much will enrich CHARR's coffers.  Sen. Meyer said CHARR asked for the increase.  Mr. Madden from Brown Jug didn't talk about the costs of tracking down kids.  He said that they'd pursued over 2000 violators in twelve years.  Say 25% don't pay (he said they didn't get them all), that's still about 125 per year, which now would be $1500 a pop.  That's $187,500 a year.  Say all the violators go to alcohol and sexual abuse awareness training and they waive $750 each, it's still $93,750. And it wasn't clear if that was a Brown Jug option and if CHARR gives the same option.  It's possible they do have to expend considerable monies to track down violators, but I think the legislators should get some accounting data before giving them what some might call a bounty. 




Photos:
 1.  Mt. Juneau from just outside our apartment.
2.  Walking down the steps above Capitol Park.  There's a white building in the middle.  That's the newly remodeled Tom Stewart building that is an annex to the Capitol, and where I'm writing right now.  To the right is a brick building - the Capitol - and behind it is a taller black building - the State Court House.
3.  Mt. Juneau from Capitol Building Room 107 reflected off the State Court Building.
4.  And then the sun even made it into the hearing room.  Representatives, from left to right:  Gatto, Seaton, Lynn, Gruenberg, P. Wilson, and Petersen.
5.  Sen. Meyer and his staffer Christine Marasigan testifying, Reps. Gatto and Seaton listening