After last week’s work session pertaining to the pending beer and wine vote in Tisbury, it is clear to me that there needs to be more clarity on the ballot question that will be before the town of Tisbury on April 27.
In 2008, the ballot question read, in part, “Shall the board of selectmen be authorized to grant licenses, without quota and for seasonal or annual terms as the board shall determine, for the sale of wines and malt beverages . . ..”
In 2010, the ballot question reads, in part, “Shall the board of selectmen of the town of Tisbury be authorized to grant 19 licenses for the sale of wines and malt beverages to be drunk on the premises to restaurants……… and to grant seasonal licenses for the same as the selectmen may determine.”
The difference in the language from 2008 to 2010 is the cap on the number of annual licenses that may be issued by the town, which is stated as being nineteen (19). As I explained at the work session, and as has been explained in various articles in The Martha’s Vineyard Times and Vineyard Gazette, upon submission to the legislature of the proposed 2010 ballot question, counsel for the state Senate informed the town that they would not accept the language, “without quota.” When informed that this language had passed through the legislature in 2008, Senate counsel responded that there had been a mistake, and the language “without quota” would not be approved. Senate counsel informed the Town that it had two options. First, we could request a specific number of licenses. Second, we could request the number of licenses permitted by the so-called quota system under the General Laws of the Commonwealth. For a town with a year-round population equivalent to that of Tisbury that issues alcohol licenses based on the General Laws, the quota system would allow for a minimum of fourteen (14) full, i.e., all alcohol, on-premise licenses. In addition, the quota system would allow for five (5) additional on-premise licenses for the sale of beer and wine only. The ballot question for Tisbury, consistent with the vote of town meeting, is for on-premise licenses limited to beer and wine. As a board, we believed that there were probably more than fourteen (14) potential year-round operations that would apply for a license if this ballot question were successful. Therefore, we did not want to limit the amount of licenses from the outset. Such a limit would undoubtedly guarantee that we would be in a position of having to choose certain businesses over others without any fair process to do so. The number nineteen (19) was the number of restaurants we felt could possibly obtain a license, assuming all of the potential sites met all of the other guidelines for obtaining a license to operate a restaurant and serve alcohol.
Our objective was to provide the maximum number to the state, to show that the board was seeking to cover all of the potentially eligible sites, and therefore not choosing some businesses over others. If the state came back with a lower number, then we would have abided by that decision and found a way to fairly implement the regulation. The state, to our surprise, permitted the figure of nineteen (19) to be placed on the ballot. Because that language is what was approved by the legislature, that language must be contained in the ballot question. The board then has the authority to grant up to that number of year-round licenses. Each license application must be reviewed on its own merits, and the board has the right to either grant or deny each license application based on those merits.
Seasonal licenses “can be issued effective from April 1 to January 15 or any portion thereof and to the number that the local licensing authority deems to be in the public interest.” This is the exact language from the ABCC’s published explanation of the quota system that is set forth in Chapter 138, section 17 of the General Laws. The question has been raised as to why the ballot question seeks to permit the issuance of seasonal licenses without a quota. The very simple answer is that the Legislature will not approve a quota for seasonal licenses. The legislature’s intent is to give the local board the authority to determine what is in the best interest of the town when it comes to seasonal licensing. The reason behind this is that certain towns in the Commonwealth have much different seasonal populations than other towns. The legislature recognizes this, and has taken the position that the individual town is in a better position to oversee seasonal licensing than it is. That is why the ballot question does not include a specific number of seasonal licenses.
Should this ballot question pass, the selectmen will review each and every application on its own merits. The board must approve or deny applications based on those merits, as well as on what the board “deems to be in the public interest.” The townspeople’s expression of what that best interest is will be heard, and will be taken into account by the board should this measure succeed at the ballot.
Geoghan Coogan
Selectman
Tisbury
