(posting for Keri) BLAS - New Draft of Bill - Take 2 Notes & Comments

[Tiffany DeFoe]

from Keri:

******************
I have a few corrections as far as what I think about things I discussed in my last email of Notes/Comments upon the most recently published draft of the bill.

1. Dance Hall vs. Dance Club

There's actually no conflict here.

"Dance Hall" is a term of art already used in the zoning code.  Thus, for the first portion of the bill that would sit within the zoning code, they need to use the language that already jives with the way the zoning code is written.  Dance hall is not defined in the zoning code, but I don't think that matters much to us right now being that the only time it's used in this draft is to expand a use into the industrial districts.

"Dance Club" is a new term being introduced not into the zoning code (which would create conflict with the term "Dance Hall"). Instead, "Dance Club" is being introduced into Article 15 on Licensing & Regulation.  It's outside of the zoning code and thus no conflict exists.

However, I retain my complaint about the term "business establishment" not being defined in such a way as to narrow the definition of "Dance Club" and ensure the licensing scheme does not apply to residences, churches, schools, and other places not traditionally considered "businesses" in lay language.

2. Staggered Terms - on pg. 11

The section on tenure now says, "The term of each APPOINTED member is 4 years, concurrent with the Mayor's term..."
If you look closely, there are members of the Board who are not "APPOINTED" under this title, i.e. the President of BACVA (or deisgnee) and the Executive Director of BOPA.  Now, the ED of BOPA is appointed by the Mayor, but I haven't found that language in the Code and thus don't know the term limits and tenure considerations of that position.  However, at the very least, the President of BACVA (or designee) could potentially be on the Board for a long, long time.  This presents positives and negatives.  Positive: we could retain someone on the Board who knew what they were doing as opposed to newbies having to potentially start from scratch every 4 years.  Negative: there may be NO way to get this person out if any community group feels the person is seriously unfavorable.


Now onward with the rest of my Notes/Comments on the bill......


Page 11-12

I'm ok with the Quorum & Voting sections.
The Board Chair- designated by the Mayor.  Other officers chosen from within.  That seems ok. What exactly are the Chair's duties?  Are they strictly administrative?  I'm guessing that's likely the case and thus this matters little for substantive concerns.

Compensation -
Again, the Board is unsalaried.  They are, however, reimbursed for "Necessary & Proper" expenses.  That seems ok to me as well, honestly. There are already laws in place somewhere else to deal with corrupt use of expense accounts (not that it seems to deter people around here!!).

Executive Director of Hospitality Services -

This portion references Article 1 section 29 - this is a section newly created by this legislation.  You can find it starting on page 21 of this draft of the bill.

My question:
Does this "Executive Director OF the Board" (1) Get a Vote when it comes to Board decisions and/or (2) Answer to the Board or have control over the Board??

Traditional, CEOs in Corporations answer to the Board of Directors.  The Board is the highest of the high authority.  This sounds like the Executive Director is the highest authority in this structure.

Also, if the ED is appointed by the Mayor also, that stacks the Mayor's "actual" appointments on this Board up to 4:
the ED
the 2 named Mayoral appointments
& indirectly, the ED of BOPA

*troublesome perhaps?*

Staff for Hospitality Services:

I like that this is now covered by the already existing BMZA.  It still, however, fails to explain to me whether the BMZA will need more money to add these duties to current staff or to add new staff positions.  Where will that money come from?


Page 12

Adoption of Rules & Regs:

I personally would be more comfortable with a clause requiring the Board to send each new Rules/Reg to the City's Law Department or to the Attorney General's Office for comment on the constitutionality of any Rule/Reg adoption prior to the publication of those Rules/Regs to the public.

Notice/Publication:

Should extend publication period to at least 30 days AND/OR
Should add a clause requiring electronic publication on the BMZA website or on a website dedicated to Hospitality Services/Live Entertainment Licenses Board.  E-publication should have to be posted at least 30 days prior to adoption and should have to remain posted for the duration of the time until the public hearing.

I'm personally ok with the specifications about what must be included in the publication (1 - description of proposed rules & regs, 2 - date, time, & location of public hearing, 3 - info on how to get a copy of proposed rules & regs before the meeting).

Only addition: info on how to get a copy of proposed rules "WITHIN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME BEFORE THE MEETING"


Public Hearing on Rules & Regs:

What is this hearing?  Do people just show up and comment but those comments need not mean a damn thing to the Board?  Can people vote?
How does this work & what is its purpose?  Is there already a procedure for public hearings on rules/regs written elsewhere in the City code that can just be incorporated by reference?  Or should we request more language on this within the text of this bill?


Page 13-14

Licensing:

Limited to Restaurants, Taverns, & Dance Clubs.  Other places in proper zones can thus have LE as accessory use but won't need to get licenses.
Still need to limit definition of Dance Clubs as stated previously.

Classes & Scope:

I don't agree with licenses containing any restrictions on what TYPE of LE you can provide or with separating classes of licenses based on TYPE of LE.
This is too far in the weeds and thus too close to First Amendment violative content-restriction for me to be happy.

Considerations:

I appreciate the removal of "Required" from the Considerations language as well as the shift from "shall consider" to "may consider" with the factors.
However, I take issue with the inclusion of the language "AMONG OTHER FACTORS" because that means the list is not inclusive and the Board can, of its own accord choose other items to consider.

This could be good in some instances, but it's dangerous.
My example: the San Fran License Application asks for the demographic of your regular patrons.  Oh hell no!!
I don't think they should be able to ask that.  What does that mean?  Race, age, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference????
I also read about rap/hip hop clubs being targeted in SF.  What if they ask if you will play rap music?  All of this is utterly unconstitutional, but there's no fast recourse for it... it takes money to get attorneys and time to get things going.  The more we cut it off here and leave them as little room as possible to make constitutionally impermissive decisions, the better!

Anyway, that's just an example of something considered by another city.  I'd like to ensure such things CANNOT be considered

This is a tricky section overall.  I'd like to spend more time thinking before I write anything else.















***********************************************************************
The information contained in this communication may be confidential,
is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may
be legally privileged.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original
message and any copy of it from your computer system.
Thank you.
The Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C.
***********************************************************************"

[Tim Reed]

The President of BACVA is a swell guy named Tom Noonan who would probably be a helpful person on the Board. Bill Gilmore is the ED of BOPA, also a great guy (I used to work for them doing the festivals in college) and probably good/neccessary for a Board that is dealing with entertainment.
________________________________
From: baltimore-live-...@googlegroups.com [baltimore-live-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tiffany DeFoe [tiffan...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 2:44 PM
To: baltimore-live-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: (posting for Keri) BLAS - New Draft of Bill - Take 2 Notes & Comments