Playing with Fire

With Speaker Matt Ritter proclaiming "Sine die," Connecticut's legislative session came to an end at midnight on Wednesday, June 7th. The Latin phrase means "without a day," and signifies the end of a legislative session without a specific date being set for the next session.

While much of the session and the media commentary dealt with the state budget, educational reforms, affordable housing, other issues surfaced or, in some cases, resurfaced. Liquor issues were no exception.

Public Act 23-50, ''An Act Conceming the Department of Consumer Protection's Recommendations Regarding Alcoholic Liquor Regulation," as amended House Bill 6548 was reviewed and approved by both the Senate and the House. The vote in the Senate was 35-0, and the vote in the House was 149-1. The bill was 65 pages and had 28 sections to it.

35-0 and 149-1

The lone 'No" vote was from State Representative Ben McGorty.

A Republican, McGorty has been a member of the Connecticut House of Representatives since 2014, elected from the 122nd district, and serves as co-chair of the bipartisan Fire & EMS Caucus. In his career as a firefighter, he served as a local fire marshal, having performed “hundreds" of liquor permit Inspections.

While the legislation requires fire marshals to conduct on-premises businesses (bars, restaurants, taverns) at least annually, it removed the requirement for such businesses to provide proof of a fire inspection at time of liquor permit renewal.. Typically, businesses that failed to submit such proof might be subject to having their liquor permit suspended after a hearing. It was common that when bar owners received a heanng notice from Liquor Control, it spurred them to contact their local fire marshal for an Inspection. Although it placed a burden on Liquor Control and its attorneys, it was pretty effective in getting prompt compliance.

McGorty stated that such a requirement served as "one of the most effective tools fire marshals had to gain fire code safety compliance at these liquor establishments". He was disappointed with this component of the bill, and saw it as a ''lack of protecting the consumer".

Actually, the state representative may be correct. We will have to wait and see. So don't be surprised if the legislature revisits this issue.

This takes effect October 1, 2023.