MTA committee eyes DUI bills
Mark Staples told the Montana Tavern Association Legislative and Gambling Committee that much future legislation addressing increasing concern over driving under the influence (DUI) was on the horizon.
Staples is the MTA government affairs counsel and addressed the committee at the behest of chairman Ralph Ferraro. The committee and executive board met at Jorgenson's in Helena March 2.
Staples emphasized that MTA wants to see DUI-related problems effectively addressed, but that the roots of the problem lie primarily with repeat and high-blood alcohol content (BAC) drivers.
"DUI initiatives are, and will be, coming fast and furious," Staples said, "but we must all work to make sure that truly effective strategies are used, not just ones that sound good or poll well."
He said he has met with representatives of various interest groups including the Highway Patrol and the Attorney General's office. He said he was hopeful that officials recognize the need to place the most emphasis on repeat and high-BAC offenders.
Staples said all interested parties seem to be cognizant of the high fiscal cost of prosecutions and incarceration, and there is growing consensus that the most effective option may be more and better treatment coupled with other preventive measures.
He noted some local jurisdictions are considering making refusal to be breath-a-lyzed or have blood analyzed a separate criminal offense for DUI suspects. Since a constitutional right of unreasonable search and seizure clearly is in play ("searching" bodily fluids or even exhalations), Staples said one legislator is suggesting a designated judge be on call 24 hours-a-day/seven days-a-week to issue search warrants in the event a DUI suspect refuses blood or breath testing.
"It's all going to be expensive so the question arises, who will pay?" Staples said. He noted one statutory initiative is being supported by Montana Supreme Court Chief Justice Mike McGrath to earmark $5 million of current alcohol tax collections for creation of special DUI courts and enhanced treatment programs. He said some are suggesting that if prison beds were saved as a result, maybe reductions in the corrections department budget could pay for that initiative.
In the meantime, Staples said, it is good proactive policy for local tavern association chapters to continue to implement and improve designated driver and "home-free" type programs.
Shifting gears, Staples told the committee rules had been drafted to clarify the relationship between institutional lenders and licensed businesses when a loan guarantee is in place. He said banks are under increasing federal pressure to mitigate lending risks and as a consequence are more often seeking loan guarantors.
He said the rub occurs when the Gambling Control Division (GCD) must distinguish when a loan guarantee in fact equates to an ownership interest in a licensed business. The Gaming Advisory Council (GAC) has been sifting the rules language and is working with GCD to arrive at precise language that clearly defines the proper relationships, he said, adding he had testified at the GAC meeting along with other business representatives.
At that GAC meeting, Staples said an underlying problem is that "often parents (who currently hold a license) try to help their kids get into the business so will act as a loan guarantor. However, there is a prohibition on multiple ownership of an all-beverage license." So if a loan guarantor is to be considered an owner on an additional license, it could run afoul of the multiple ownership prohibition, he said.
"Bankers don't want a business to be in total default before they can pursue a guarantor," Staples continued at that time. So one issue is how to make sure a guarantor with a license does not become an "owner" on another license, he said.
Perhaps a guarantor, when called upon to satisfy the guarantee, could be treated the same as any other non-institutional lender, which currently are investigated and require approval, yet are not considered an "owner" of the license, Staples suggested.
The GAC will be reviewing an amended rules draft.
"We're caught in the middle," Staples told the MTA committee. "We don't want lending to dry up, but don't want to run afoul of the multiple ownership prohibition, either." He assured the committee MTA's perspectives were being considered in the rules deliberations.
Staples told the committee a crop of new candidates and incumbents have been filing for office and that MTA needed to start raising funds to help candidates who are fair toward small business. The primary election will be conducted in June and the general election in November. "It's time to start doing our field work" in meeting with and getting to know candidates and their views, he said.
When the agenda turned to the smoking ban and its impacts, Staples said MTA's focus needed to be on mitigating the revenue losses seen by many licensees statewide, especially in gaming departments. Political solutions are limited, he said, but perhaps some additional entertainment value can be built into current games, especially machine poker, an idea being explored by the Gaming Industry Association and others including MTA under the auspices of a Gaming Advisory Council subcommittee on poker enhancement.
While no one expects or even wants gaming expansion, including the Governor, Staples said, efforts to rebuild tavern incomes must be encouraged and allowed, short of the politically implausible repeal of the smoking ban.
Tim Carson, a route vendor and gaming machine builder who also sits on the GAC, said the subcommittee will look at "simple things that can be changed that could promote some immediate benefit" such as devising a new poker rules authority that would replace the antiquated "Scarne" rules first adopted in the 1980s. Under Scarne only five dealt cards and one draw is allowed which prevents game developers from introducing any of the variations that are common and popular in other jurisdictions such as seven-card hands and multiple draws.
Comments from the audience were supportive as long as erosion of machine income wasn't worsened, small independents could stay competitive and machine obsolescence wasn't hastened.
Carson said poker game upgrades wouldn't change "the basic model for software upgrades cycles," which are now seen every eight to 12 months. If an operator chooses to not upgrade, Carson said, that would indeed constitute a competitive disadvantage.
Dave Clark of Eureka pointed out upgrades can cost between $400 and $1,200 and that for small independents to be able to afford them and stay competitive, the costs need to be held down and level for all.
Janet Prescott suggested independents ought to consider forming a buying group to wield combined purchasing power for upgrades. Carson responded, "Why not?" to which Prescott replied, MTA could serve this function and thereby provide another membership benefit.
Carson said players' clubs reward systems are becoming more available and efficient and could lower the costs of promotions – or at least increase efficiency – while enhancing play. He said the GAC subcommittee may also examine existing parameters, noting players clubs would have to continue to be confined to just one specific location.
Kent Frampton said any enhancements made in players' rewards systems would have to take the ever-decreasing machine revenue percentages into account. Operators need to resist "innovations" that increase machine sales at the expense of operator profitability, he said.
The committee meeting then adjourned.