MTA's 'big tent' allows for dissent
Pub Date: 12/1/2008
To thrive, a business association needs a big tent. The Montana Tavern Association has one.
Members are all small business owners, to be sure, but they come from every corner of the state, every socio-economic background and every life philosophy. Their politics cover the full spectrum, as do their party affiliations.
All members' views are respectfully heard and considered. Remarkably, this hugely diverse group of individuals often winds up in unanimous agreement on pressing and contentious business issues of the day.
Often, but not always.
When an individual member disagrees with the direction of the body, he or she is not drummed out of the corps. Nor are they bound by any loyalty oath to march in lock step.
Individual freedom and responsibility are two of the primary tenets of this successful organization. And rightly, individual members are free to pursue matters according to their own conscience.
Perhaps the most divisive issue to be dissected and finally settled by the Montana Tavern Association's collective membership is that of smoking in businesses licensed for adult beverage sales and gaming.
We won't recount the whole complex Montana history of the legislative and court battles surrounding smoking in taverns and casinos, but it serves to recount at least the most recent developments.
In the 2005 Legislature, there was a bill introduced to permanently ban indoor smoking in public buildings including taverns and casinos. The bill had been bottled up in a committee and may have died there. But that would only have offered tavern owners a temporary respite.
It was clear national anti-smoking forces wanted to tip over Montana "Marlboro Country" as the perceived bastion of personal freedom and tolerance for bad habits'; make our state a national symbolic watershed: "If Montana can be made to completely ban indoor smoking, then it follows so can any other state or municipality in the Union. We need to win this pivotal battle and we'll win the war."
Bar and gaming groups were fully aware that numerous anti-smoking groups had the money and the organizations to enact a Draconian smoking ban via Montana's all-to-easy citizen initiative process. Such initiatives had passed (and are still being passed) in numerous states. Not in any state has one been defeated. And Montana business research groups had already conducted scientific surveys that confirmed they would be overwhelmed by voter sentiments.
In addition, class action lawsuits were threatened to destroy any business that knowingly allowed customers or workers to be exposed to second-hand smoke.
Finally, under Montana's Constitution, which guarantees every citizen the "right to a clean and healthful environment," it was deemed likely any smoking exemption law would be found unconstitutional by the courts anyway.
So, tavern owners faced this prospect: win an exemption bill but ultimately lose an initiative they hadn't the money to fight, lose a class action suit with associated ruinous damages, and lose in the courts on constitutional grounds.
A compromise was painstakingly pieced together.
In essence, licensed businesses were to be granted a four-year exemption, time in which to make adjustments to their business models to accommodate a non-smoking world.
Businesses, in the meantime, had to ban anyone under 18 from areas where smoking was allowed, and had to construct barriers between smoking and non-smoking areas.
There was an unwritten caveat, though, that was made clear to all parties, and shared with the zealots: tamper with this carefully constructed compromise, and all bets are off the table'; the whole thing blows up, shrapnel flies everywhere and its bloody, expensive war.
Most moderates praised the wisdom of the compromise, but some partisans of more extreme persuasions on both sides condemned it as a sell-out.
And thus it has simmered along, both sides treading uneasily, if not distrustfully, waiting for the full ban to take effect Oct. 1, 2009.
When the MTA Board of Directors met November 12, it was reported an individual business owner had requested a bill be drafted to grant bars and casinos a permanent exemption to the pending ban.
The discussion that ensued was passionate and gut wrenching, often with the old bones in this issue graveyard plowed to the surface once again.
It came down to this in the end: Nothing has changed'; a smoking exemption is still ultimately a loser, if not in the Legislature, then surely in the initiative ballot measure that would ensue, and in the courts.
But most convincingly it was argued the Montana Tavern Association had given its word back in 2005 and it would abide by the compromise'; that MTA has an honorable history of honorable dealings with the public and the government, and that history and reputation is not to be trifled with or squandered.
The MTA has a large board of directors with 47 seats. When the board met November 12, and the votes were cast whether to honor its word, the MTA board had just two dissenters. That's about as close to unanimous as you can get.
However, the motion passed by MTA went further, stating the organization would vigorously, publicly oppose any change to the original agreement...from either side.
That takes guts because some members who have not attended all the meetings over all the years and heard all the discussions may not understand how their association can take this stand, and may resent it.
To those of us who have been there all along, it is clear the MTA has done the right thing...once again.
And by the way, all are still welcome in the big tent.
Source: The Montana Tavern Times, December, 2008, published monthly by Continental Communications, 125 W. Granite St., Suite 102, Butte, MT 59701.