Hearing from the locals

New private club law gives cities, counties more say

In a state that’s grown more comfortable, ever so slightly, with the presence of marijuana, it might strike some as unusual that it’s gotten tougher to get into the business of selling alcoholic beverages through private clubs.

For years, the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Division has been the decision-maker on whether restaurants, country clubs and other entities in wet or dry counties could obtain a license to operate as private clubs. In theory, at least, private club permits are granted to places not primarily focused on serving alcoholic beverages. Rather, they are nonprofit entities established for “some common recreational, social, patriotic, political, national, benevolent, athletic, community hospitality, professional association, entertainment, or other nonprofit object or purpose.” Think Elks Lodge or the local country club.

The director of the state agency, once in receipt of a private club application, has long been required by state law to inform the sheriff, local police chief, the prosecutor and the city council or board of directors of the application. That triggered a 30day window for comments, and if one of those officials objected, the director was required to hold a public hearing. If the director determined the application was in order and its issuance was in the public interest, he or she could issue the license.

In that context, local civic leaders might wield some influence, but none of them were a formal part of the decision-making process. Over the years, the lack of local power and the notion of a Little Rock-based bureaucrat having all the authority rankled some. After all, the decision of whether to grant a private club permit rarely has repercussions in the capital city, but it can impact a locality for many years to come, both in positive and negative ways.

That dissatisfaction has been answered with a new state law that took effect Aug. 2. Sponsored by Rep. Bob Ballinger, R-Hindsville, and state Sen. Eddie Joe Williams, R-Cabot, in the last session of the Legislature, Act 1112 requires private club applicants to obtain approval of the local city council or county quorum court before they can apply to the Alcohol Beverage Control Division for a state license. In other words, that entire process within the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division still exists, but an applicant can’t access it unless the local governing body provides its blessing.

In an interview with the Democrat-Gazette earlier this month, Williams said decisions about private clubs are, at least in the initial stages, best left to local officials, particularly when proposals “start changing the personality of a community.”

In other words, if the local folks don’t want it, it shouldn’t be easy for someone to get a private club permit.

City councils and quorum courts are the levels of government closest to the people, so it makes sense to give them a strong voice in such decisions. Fayetteville’s City Council just last month voted 7-0 to give an applicant the necessary approval to apply for a permit for a 103-member private club on West Center Street.

Hopefully, the change will give local elected leaders a better sense of the private club scene within their communities, more of an ability to monitor the need for them and an improved capacity to hear the concerns of neighbors. For the applicants, it no doubt adds one more bit of uncertainty, but if they struggle to convince their neighbors, that should be an indication that the decision shouldn’t be left entirely up to someone in Little Rock.

WHAT’S THE POINT? A state law change giving city councils and quorum courts a role in private club permitting gives local officials a stronger voice in decisions affecting their communities.