A proposed ordinance that could limit consumption of alcohol by those serving it and working under contract with a bar or restaurant received input from representatives of city groups and policymakers at a listening session Friday.
The ordinance, known as “Sober Server,” has seen criticism from a number of city officials and local business owners in recent months who feel the restrictions put on employees are too far-reaching and that the ordinance’s definition of ‘under the influence’ is too imprecise.
“I served on the Central District community policing team for three years, have spent a lot of time in area bars and before that managed a bar, and I could not tell you what under the influence means for all people,” Lt. David McCaw of the Madison Police Department said.
City Alcohol Policy Coordinator Katherine Plominski said the idea for the ordinance came up after an alcohol sales representative ran over the foot of a patrol officer during the last football season. The representative had been drinking and the question of whether they were working at the time was brought up.
While the ordinance itself has yet to be drafted, policymakers are looking to receive input on the measure to ensure its success and fairness to both employees and management.
Some present at Friday’s meeting were not entirely convinced by the necessity of drafting and approving an ordinance to address this problem.
“We’re just saying, is this really something you deal with in an ordinance, or something you deal with in another way?” Business Improvement District Executive Director Mary Carbine said.
Plominski said servers have a responsibility to judge the intoxication of their patrons to ensure they are not over-served and that drinking while on duty can significantly impair this ability.
It was understood by those present that a majority of alcohol-serving establishments in Madison have regulations and rules in place to prevent employees who are actively serving customers from drinking on the job. The question for some was not whether this was allowed, but rather how best to address it.
Enforcement, McCaw said, could be difficult in that the current definition for ‘under the influence’ is a judgment of the patron’s intoxication rather than a specific quantity, as in the number of drinks or blood alcohol concentration.
“We are a people who need a number, if we don’t have a number we have vagueness, and vagueness leaves it open for argument,” McCaw said.
Not all present were convinced judging a patron’s intoxication would be all that difficult, and argued the affairs of an establishment should be determined by a broad ordinance.
Madison resident and Downtown Coordinating Committee member Rosemary Lee said she felt determining whether an individual was drunk did not require a specialist in the alcohol industry.
“A good owner does not need the city to come down like a sledgehammer and enact all these restrictions because something might happen,” Lee said.
Plominski said La Crosse is currently the only other community in Wisconsin with a sober server ordinance in place.
