Adams Debates Penalties For Failed Alcohol Compliance ChecksBy Andy McKeever, iBerkshires Staff
10:00AM / Thursday, September 15, 2011 | |
 The Board of Selectmen are re-thinking their liquor license enforcement after six establishments failed compliance checks in June. |
ADAMS, Mass. — The Board of Selectmen are re-thinking their fines for establishments that fail alcohol compliance checks in the wake of six locations failing compliance checks.
In June, O'Geary's Package Store, the Forest Park County Club, WOJO's, Gringo's Firehouse Cafe, 7-Eleven and CJ's Sports Pub failed compliance checks. The town policy recommends a three-day suspension but both the owners and the board agreed that that punishment was too strict and eventually the establishments were given a six-month probationary period — with another failure during that time resulting in a one-day suspension. Now the board is questioning if that punishment was strong enough.
Based on a subcommittee recommendation, the board crafted an updated draft at its Wednesday workshop meeting that implements fines, sets suspension levels and requires all liquor license holders to post "We I.D." signs.
"What we proposed to do is put some leeway to the first, second and third offense," Chairman Arthur "Skip" Harrington said. "A compliance check costs the town money so we thought there ought to be a fine associated with it."
The board members differed on their views — with Scott Nichols wants lighter penalties and Michael Ouellette harsher — but eventually came to agreement on a new draft to send to the town's attorney, the police chief and the absent board members for further review.
The new draft calls for a $100 fine for the first offense as well as up to a two-day suspension of the liquor or package store license. The second offense would be from two to five days' suspension but without a fine, and the third offense would be a suspension of at least five days up to revocation of the license. The establishments will also be required to have "We I.D." signs and all patrons must be out of the building before 2 a.m.
"My experience is that people have been pretty diligent in this community," Nichols said while voicing opposition to harsher penalties. "This [the compliance checks] are supposed to be an educational piece."
Nichols said underage drinking problems are not a problem in bars and restaurants but are mostly centered around an adult buying for a juvenile.
On the other side, Ouellette advocated for strict penalties after speaking with an upset parent who said her son was not carded at a local liquor store on his 21st birthday — a sign, he said, that stores are not being as diligent as they should be.
"I want more protection so that we don't sell to minors," Ouellette said. "I think there ought to be a mandatory fine."
Nichols contended that progressive fines are punishing the establishments double. The loss of revenue from license suspensions is the punishment, he said. The board agreed to drop the progressive fines but did keep it on the first offense. The board also added "up to" on the first offense so that a suspension is not mandatory.
Nichols also questioned the punishments when the establishments are "being set up" with the compliance checks. The Northern Berkshire Community Coalition, which manages the compliance checks, sends an underage person who looks older than 21 to "try to catch them," Nichols said.
Harrington added that not only were the compliance checks publicly announced but a few of the six who were caught were given phone calls from previously checked locations warning them.
"I know that some of these places were called and they still failed," Harrington said.
Ouellette said one place was warned 45 minutes before it failed the check.
Selectwoman Paula Melville, who had to leave the meeting early, said she supported the subcommittee's recommendations but opposed adding fines. However, she said she would go along with a fine system and recommended $300 for a violation if the board chose to do that.
The subcommittee had discussed setting a period of time the offenses would stay on record but decided on keeping the violations always on record. The board did not discuss that.
|
|
|
MEMBER SIGN IN
