Monthly Archives: September 2013

Portland Fall 2013 Bar Summit: Highlights

City of Portland, ,

The Portland Police, Office of Neighborhood Involvement, the Fire Marshall’s Office, the OLCC, and Portland bar and club owners gathered downtown on the afternoon of Wednesday September 25th to discuss issues of mutual concern.

Fire Marshall.  The Fire Marshall talked about how important it is for bar owners to know the occupancy limits of their premises, including both the interior and exterior areas.  He stressed the importance of proactive crowd management and monitoring of occupancy throughout the evening.  The Fire Marshall’s office will continue to inspect Portland area businesses for compliance with their occupancy limits and other violations, such as blocking entrances or exits.  The Fire Marshall expects the security staff working the door to have accurate information about the patron head count and to convey that information upon request.  In addition, the fire department staff are well trained in conducting patron counts by walking through the premises.  Although not mentioned by the Fire Marshall, another potential source of information are photos and pictures of the premises posted on the web showing overcrowding.  Upon discovery of a potential violation, the Fire Marshall’s office has a variety of options, ranging from informal warnings, citations, and/or closing the premises for the evening if there is a significant public safety concern.

Portland Police.  The Portland Police started off by thanking Portland area bar owners for stepping up and improving their screening procedures at the door, but cautioned them not to let up and to stay focused on keeping weapons, drugs, alcohol, and other contrabrand from getting into their businesses.

The Portland Police followed up with an additional caution to security professionals regarding the requirements for taking a citizen into custody.  They emphasized that even DPSST certified professionals had only limited powers to detain or take a citizen into custody.  One important requirement is that the security guard must be a first hand witness to the alleged activity to take someone into custody.  A security guard who unlawfully takes a citizen into custody may be charged with kidnapping or other criminal offenses.

The Portland Police concluding by showing the many ways in which patrons may try to smuggle contraband into a club, including fake cameras, cell phones, bags, purses, clothing, jewelry and more.  While the Police recognize that security cannot find everything, they stressed the importance of thorough screening procedures, their consistent application, and keeping up with current trends.

Multnomah County.  Multnomah County announced new programs aimed at reducing bing drinking and to discourage driving while intoxicated.  They were looking for bars willing to participate in newly developed training programs.

City of Portland Noise Office.  The Noise Office recently moved from the Bureau of Development Services to the Office of Neighborhood Involvement.  The Noise Control officer talked about recent citations and how to decrease the probability of being issued a citation, such as by keeping doors and windows closed and consulting with an acoustical professional.  That being said, the Noise Control officer sent a strong message that enforcement would increase going forward.

Eleven New AVA’s are Proposed for the Paso Robles Viticultural Area

Laws & Rules, TTB, ,

The Paso Robles American Viticultural Area Committee has submitted eleven petitions to the TTB for the creation of 11 new AVA’s within the Paso Robles viticultural area.  The local wine industry group consists of 59 members that own or manage over 10,000 acres of vineyards within the proposed area.  Comments are due on or before January 21, 2014.

For more information, click here.

60% of Portland Licensees Sell to Minor Decoys in Recent Operation

Compliance, OLCC

The OLCC conducts minor decoy operations across the state.  Licensees are selected in two primary ways for these operations: random and targeted.

First, the OLCC selects a pool of licensees at random to be tested for compliance.  Any licensee may be selected at random at any time.

Second, the OLCC responds to citizen complaints and will conduct minor decoy operations and compliance checks for licensees that are subject to such complaints.  In addition, the OLCC typically will retest licensees that fail a minor decoy operation.  Both approaches target licensees that may be compliance risks.

The recent 60% compliance rate is well below the state wide average of 81%.  Click here for more information.

18th Annual Wine, Beer & Spirits Law CLE in San Diego: Fantastic!

General

18th Annual Wine, Beer & Spirits Law CLE in San Diego: Fantastic!

Attended the Wine, Beer & Spirits Law CLE in San Diego was fantastic.  Learned some interesting new things about consumer promotions, challenges that retailers face, issues with distribution, and more.  And, most importantly, had the opportunity to reconnect with alcohol regulatory attorneys across the country and to meet some ones.  Looking forward to next year.

More about the CLE.

Industry Groups Considering the Privatization of the OLCC

OLCC, Privatization

Oregon grocers and convenience store owners are considering a privatization effort in response to the Commission’s announcement that it would consider applications from Oregon liquor stores to carry beer and wine.  The Commission’s decision was based in part on the success of a four store pilot program at which existing liquor stores offered beer and wine.  The Commission may also be trying to give the impression of moving forward after a challenging couple years in which controversy and turnover have marred the agency.

The Commission overseas the operation of nearly 250 privately owned liquor stores across the state.  The stores own and operate the stores, but the OLCC retains title to the distilled spirits until they are sold.  The liquor stores retain a percentage of each sale.

Any talk of privatization in Oregon sits in the shadow of Washington’s mixed results.  Sales of spirits at Oregon liquor stores near the Washington border have spiked since Washington’s privatization and Washington consumers have voiced concerns about the result.  In addition, much of the cost savings of privatization in Washington stemmed from getting state employees that worked at Washington liquor stores off the state payroll.  In Oregon, they are already are–liquor store employees are paid directly by the retail agent and operator of the store.

An privatization effort would need to be well thought out and executed to have any chance at success.  While the OLCC has had its challenges, new OLCC chairman Rob Patridge’s legislative experience and pragmatism could be just what the Commission needed.  Given this backdrop, the selection of the OLCC’s next executive director, a position vacant since Steve Pharo retired last October, could be pivotal in charting the agency’s future direction.

 

 

 

Rulemaking Regarding Prohibited Interests for OLCC Commissioners and Staff

Laws & Rules, OLCC

Commission staff are recommending changes to OAR 845-004-0001 regarding the prohibited interest set out in ORS 471.710(2) applicable to OLCC commissioners and staff.  The primary substantive change is to expressly set out the exemption for the food and beverage industry commissioner.  The other proposed changes are primarily to clarify the nature of the prohibitions, the disclosure requirements, and process for addressing such prohibited interests.

Generally speaking, the rule achieves its stated goal and ensures that the Commission and its staff will continue to safeguard the public and fulfill the Commission’s other regulatory interests without being subject inappropriate interests.

For more information about this rulemaking, click here.

Change to Age Verification Equipment Rule Effective October 1, 2013

Laws & Rules, OLCC, ,

Oregon licensees may elect to purchase age verification equipment (“AVE”) instead of receiving the standard sanction for a first or second Category III or III(a) under certain circumstances.  The licensee must purchase and use the AVE in order to qualify for the reduced sanction.  The change clarifies the definition of “equipment” and does not represent a material change in OLCC practice.

For more information about the rule change, click here.

Proposed Changes to the OLCC’s Service Permit Denial Criteria

Laws & Rules, OLCC, ,

The OLCC is in the process of clarifying and streamlining its rules that specify when the agency has a basis to deny a service permit application and when “good cause” exists for overcoming such denial criteria. The proposed changes are consistent with the OLCC’s regulatory goals and should not be unduly burdensome to future service permit applicants.

The denial criteria would be broken into three general categories:

1. Felony Convictions.
2. DUII’s and Liquor Law Violations.
3. Habit of Using to Excess.

Felony convictions that could serve as a basis for denying a service permit application include convictions involving drugs, violence, or driving while suspended. The rule is drafted broadly to include such convictions under both Oregon and non-Oregon law. The Commission would look back two years for individuals with a single felony conviction and four years for multiple felony convictions from the date that the Commission receives an application.

DUII and liquor law violations include both felony and misdemeanor convictions. The rule is drafted broadly to include convictions related to or involving alcohol generally. The Commission would deny an application if the applicant had two or more such violations provided that at least two of them occurred within four years of the date that the application was received.

The Commission will determine that the applicant has a “habit of using to excess” based on a number of factors. The Commission will deny a service permit if the applicant has two or more drug or DUII convictions, or diversions, provided that at least two of incidents occurred within five years of the date the Commission received the application and at least one occurred within the last 12 months.

“Good Cause” largely would turn on whether the applicant had a drug or alcohol addiction problem at the time of the incidents that are the basis for the denial criteria. The applicant would have the burden of establishing good cause by providing the following:

1. Evidence of drug or alcohol addiction problems;
2. Sworn statement that the applicant has not used alcohol or controlled substances in the preceding 12 months;
3. Written proof of completion of a treatment program and continuing compliance with any treatment recommendations; and
4. Evidence that the applicant is complying with any probation requirements (if applicable).

To learn more about the rule making, click here.