Surprise smoking ban vote leaves some fuming
Following his normal routine, City Councilman Glenn Friendt sauntered into The Coffee House on P Street Tuesday looking to perk up with a hot cup of joe.
Turns out, the trip provided more of a kick than usual, courtesy of ownership normally appreciative of the councilman's business.
"I saw Glenn Friendt this morning and I told him I thought it was a crock," said Coffee House owner Mark Shriner. His customers would have been allowed to continue smoking had a law passed in December not collapsed Monday night during an unusual City Council meeting.
Without public testimony, the council voted 4-3 Monday to instead enact stricter language based on an old proposal that had languished in the heap of smoking-ban drafts for seven months.
"It's underhanded to have a late-night vote on something that was so public," Shriner said. "I think it's shady politics."
Shade or sunshine, it appears Shriner and possibly hundreds of other business owners throughout the city will have to acquiesce to the decision made by Friendt and three other council members Monday evening, in the 11th hour of the nearly yearlong debate over a local smoking law.
Spurred by anger and executed with keen gamesmanship, the new ban mostly mirrors what was originally proposed by the Lincoln-Lancaster County Board of Health. It came as a complete surprise to some council members who expected to add mostly ancillary language about enforcement and permits to the law as it was passed in December.
The previous ordinance would have allowed smoking in businesses such as bars where food makes up less then 60 percent of total sales; the new ordinance makes no exceptions based on percentages. The old law said business owners could cater to smokers by carving out separate and ventilated rooms; the law passed Monday provides no such leeway.
The drastic changes, made just three days before the law was to go into effect and four months before officials planned on enforcing it, induced bewilderment Tuesday.
"This came up so quick and fast it's a little like 'Man alive, I need to find out what ducks are in the water and what's stacking up,'" said Stephanie Maser, owner of Critters Bar, 1101 Arapahoe. Because most of its sales are liquor, smoking would have been allowed to continue inside the bar had the previously approved ordinance stuck.
Months ago, during one point in the topsy-turvy debate, Maser believed smoking might only be allowed in separate smoking rooms. So she rented extra space.
She is still paying the higher rent bill in hopes the City Council will change its mind again.
"I certainly hope we (bar owners) start putting pressure on a couple council members to reconsider their votes," she said.
Some residents got an early start Monday night, and continued applying pressure through Tuesday.
Councilman Ken Svoboda, who introduced the surprise amendment that implemented the original, more rigid ban language, received about 70 phone calls. About eight of every 10, he said, were from people who lauded the change.
Joan Ray, secretary to the City Council, said the office received about 19 e-mails and the same number of phone calls.
Based on interviews with council members Tuesday, it appears unlikely they will reverse course again. One of the four members who voted in favor of the original ban Monday - Svoboda, Friendt, Jon Camp and Terry Werner - would have to request the issue be reconsidered at a future meeting.
On Tuesday none said they were interested.
One argument that could arise is that the new ban is unfair to businesses that had already spent money preparing for the softer, previous ordinance. Councilman Jonathan Cook brought the issue up Monday.
Called to address it, Health Director Bruce Dart told the City Council: "We're not aware of anybody who's invested any dollars yet."
When the looser law was approved in December, only Werner and Svoboda voted against it. Friendt said Monday night he decided to support Svoboda's amendment because of growing concern the law passed in December was unfair and deeply flawed.
Contacted Tuesday, Camp said his support was based on the same issue that prompted Svoboda to introduce the amendment: The decision by Cook and Councilwoman Patte Newman to delete an age restriction.
Camp last year introduced the restriction to the law approved in December. It would have banned people under 18 years of age from smoking establishments.
While inserting relatively benign language about enforcement and permits into the ordinance Cook and Newman also requested the age restriction be taken out. The cleanup wording is the reason the ordinance passed in December was again put on the Council docket.
Camp learned shortly before Monday's meeting that Cook was prepared to introduce an amendment that would have restored the age provision. However, it contained one significant caveat Camp said he couldn't support: With parental consent, those under 18 would be allowed inside businesses with smoking.
That added to key information he had previously received from Svoboda. Svoboda had told Camp that there weren't enough votes to reinstate the original age restriction without the consent loophole.
"When Ken said 'Jon, you don't have the support'," Camp said, "That just nailed it for me."
Some have asked Camp why he didn't mention that his support for the ban as approved in December would crumble without the age restriction.
"Hey, folks, I said months ago I need an 18-year-old provision," Camp said. " They got a little aggressive and wanted to get those things out."
"This is one of those stark examples of you'll get what you ask for if you ask for major changes."
Had the age restriction not been stricken from the December ordinance, Svoboda said Monday, he probably would not have introduced the amendment that overhauled the ban.
The City Attorney's Office, he said Tuesday, assured him that introducing such a radical change with no public hearing presented no legal problems, nor did the amendment itself. Clear precedent for strict smoking bans has been set with cities and states across the country that have approved similar laws.
A phone call Svoboda received Tuesday from State Attorney General Jon Bruning buttressed the city attorney's opinion of the amendment. Svoboda said Bruning told him the ordinance as approved Monday would hold legal muster as a statewide smoking ban, if legislators chose to pursue such a law.
"I think this will open the floodgates for citizens to say 'We only needed one'," Svoboda said. "I'm sure this now kind of cracks that ceiling."
While the new law will officially go into effect in about two weeks, enforcement will not begin and compliance will not be expected until Nov. 1.
Reach Nate Jenkins at 473-7223 or njenkins@;journalstar.com.
Turns out, the trip provided more of a kick than usual, courtesy of ownership normally appreciative of the councilman's business.
"I saw Glenn Friendt this morning and I told him I thought it was a crock," said Coffee House owner Mark Shriner. His customers would have been allowed to continue smoking had a law passed in December not collapsed Monday night during an unusual City Council meeting.
Without public testimony, the council voted 4-3 Monday to instead enact stricter language based on an old proposal that had languished in the heap of smoking-ban drafts for seven months.
"It's underhanded to have a late-night vote on something that was so public," Shriner said. "I think it's shady politics."
Shade or sunshine, it appears Shriner and possibly hundreds of other business owners throughout the city will have to acquiesce to the decision made by Friendt and three other council members Monday evening, in the 11th hour of the nearly yearlong debate over a local smoking law.
Spurred by anger and executed with keen gamesmanship, the new ban mostly mirrors what was originally proposed by the Lincoln-Lancaster County Board of Health. It came as a complete surprise to some council members who expected to add mostly ancillary language about enforcement and permits to the law as it was passed in December.
The previous ordinance would have allowed smoking in businesses such as bars where food makes up less then 60 percent of total sales; the new ordinance makes no exceptions based on percentages. The old law said business owners could cater to smokers by carving out separate and ventilated rooms; the law passed Monday provides no such leeway.
The drastic changes, made just three days before the law was to go into effect and four months before officials planned on enforcing it, induced bewilderment Tuesday.
"This came up so quick and fast it's a little like 'Man alive, I need to find out what ducks are in the water and what's stacking up,'" said Stephanie Maser, owner of Critters Bar, 1101 Arapahoe. Because most of its sales are liquor, smoking would have been allowed to continue inside the bar had the previously approved ordinance stuck.
Months ago, during one point in the topsy-turvy debate, Maser believed smoking might only be allowed in separate smoking rooms. So she rented extra space.
She is still paying the higher rent bill in hopes the City Council will change its mind again.
"I certainly hope we (bar owners) start putting pressure on a couple council members to reconsider their votes," she said.
Some residents got an early start Monday night, and continued applying pressure through Tuesday.
Councilman Ken Svoboda, who introduced the surprise amendment that implemented the original, more rigid ban language, received about 70 phone calls. About eight of every 10, he said, were from people who lauded the change.
Joan Ray, secretary to the City Council, said the office received about 19 e-mails and the same number of phone calls.
Based on interviews with council members Tuesday, it appears unlikely they will reverse course again. One of the four members who voted in favor of the original ban Monday - Svoboda, Friendt, Jon Camp and Terry Werner - would have to request the issue be reconsidered at a future meeting.
On Tuesday none said they were interested.
One argument that could arise is that the new ban is unfair to businesses that had already spent money preparing for the softer, previous ordinance. Councilman Jonathan Cook brought the issue up Monday.
Called to address it, Health Director Bruce Dart told the City Council: "We're not aware of anybody who's invested any dollars yet."
When the looser law was approved in December, only Werner and Svoboda voted against it. Friendt said Monday night he decided to support Svoboda's amendment because of growing concern the law passed in December was unfair and deeply flawed.
Contacted Tuesday, Camp said his support was based on the same issue that prompted Svoboda to introduce the amendment: The decision by Cook and Councilwoman Patte Newman to delete an age restriction.
Camp last year introduced the restriction to the law approved in December. It would have banned people under 18 years of age from smoking establishments.
While inserting relatively benign language about enforcement and permits into the ordinance Cook and Newman also requested the age restriction be taken out. The cleanup wording is the reason the ordinance passed in December was again put on the Council docket.
Camp learned shortly before Monday's meeting that Cook was prepared to introduce an amendment that would have restored the age provision. However, it contained one significant caveat Camp said he couldn't support: With parental consent, those under 18 would be allowed inside businesses with smoking.
That added to key information he had previously received from Svoboda. Svoboda had told Camp that there weren't enough votes to reinstate the original age restriction without the consent loophole.
"When Ken said 'Jon, you don't have the support'," Camp said, "That just nailed it for me."
Some have asked Camp why he didn't mention that his support for the ban as approved in December would crumble without the age restriction.
"Hey, folks, I said months ago I need an 18-year-old provision," Camp said. " They got a little aggressive and wanted to get those things out."
"This is one of those stark examples of you'll get what you ask for if you ask for major changes."
Had the age restriction not been stricken from the December ordinance, Svoboda said Monday, he probably would not have introduced the amendment that overhauled the ban.
The City Attorney's Office, he said Tuesday, assured him that introducing such a radical change with no public hearing presented no legal problems, nor did the amendment itself. Clear precedent for strict smoking bans has been set with cities and states across the country that have approved similar laws.
A phone call Svoboda received Tuesday from State Attorney General Jon Bruning buttressed the city attorney's opinion of the amendment. Svoboda said Bruning told him the ordinance as approved Monday would hold legal muster as a statewide smoking ban, if legislators chose to pursue such a law.
"I think this will open the floodgates for citizens to say 'We only needed one'," Svoboda said. "I'm sure this now kind of cracks that ceiling."
While the new law will officially go into effect in about two weeks, enforcement will not begin and compliance will not be expected until Nov. 1.
Reach Nate Jenkins at 473-7223 or njenkins@;journalstar.com.
Copyright © 2002-2008 Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved.