Another legislative win: Effective July 1, revised food requirements for Indiana brewery taprooms.

Previously, we took a look at the resolution of one long-running annoyance ...

May 20, 2015: PourGate 2013: took two years, but this new law silences Dr. Tom Harris and the Floyd County Health Department.

 ... and now, on to another. The background is here.

September 10, 2014: ON THE AVENUES: Law-abiding by weenie was never this viral.

With all due credit to Rep. Ed Clere and the lobbying effort put forth by the Brewers of Indiana Guild, there'll be a common-sense change to the law requiring Indiana brewery taprooms to furnish food -- those dreaded frozen weenie sandwiches. It takes effect on July 1.

Here is the exact wording.

HOUSE ENROLLED ACT No. 1311

AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning alcohol and tobacco.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION 1. IC 7.1-3-2-7, AS AMENDED BY SEA 297-2015, SECTION 2, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]: Sec. 7. The holder of a brewer's permit or an out-of-state brewer holding either a primary source of supply permit or an out-of-state brewer's permit may do the following …

… (5)(G) Sell the brewery's beer by the glass for consumption on the premises. Brewers permitted to sell beer by the glass under this clause must furnish the minimum food requirements prescribed by the commission. make food available for consumption on the premises. A brewer may comply with the requirements of this clause by doing any of the following:

(i) Allowing a vehicle of transportation that is a food establishment (as defined in IC 16-18-2-137) to serve food near the brewer's licensed premises.

(ii) Placing menus in the brewer's premises of restaurants that will deliver food to the brewery.

(iii) Providing food prepared at the brewery.

Food trucks and delivery menus. That's fair, isn't it? Now that Earth Friends Cafe is housed at Bank Street Brewhouse, the point is moot for NABC -- but I didn't urge a solution for us alone. It's about the collective.

Also, there always was a fundamental difference between these two issues.

Ironically, the food requirement is about the Alcohol and Tobacco Commission, an Indiana brewer's central governing authority. I respect the ATC and its role, and have tried to organize my professional life accordingly.

Meanwhile, the health department's insolent insistence that it could conjure administratively what couldn't be found in statute was something that needed to be fought hard, and was.

The health department wants beer to be under its domain as food?

Then change the law, but don't wave the magic revenue enhancement wand and expect me to buy it.

Tiring fighting these battles ... but necessary.

PourGate 2013: It took two damn years, but this new law silences Dr. Tom Harris and the Floyd County Health Department.

We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.
-- Winston Churchill

Since June of 2013, when the Floyd County Health Department blithely usurped its statutory authority by demanding that NABC obtain temporary food serving permits to pour pints of beer into plastic cups, we have proven it wrong three times.

First, with the Indiana Court of Appeals ruling Ft. Wayne v Kotsopoulus, then with an advisory opinion from the Indiana Attorney General's office, and finally with an actual state law providing even more excruciating detail as to why Dr. Tom Harris should lose his job.

Major thanks go to Rep. Ed Clere for authoring "SECTION 6. IC 16-42-5-30," of House Enrolled Act No. 1311, and shepherding the bill. It is what might be called an omnibus beer-related collection of seemingly minor directives, including the modification of the food service requirement for taprooms (more on that later), but allow me just this one observation.

Most of the media attention during this year's legislative session was centered on Senate Bill 297 and small brewer barrel limits. As time goes by, these limits will become increasingly relevant for our bigger industry players. But right now, with the vast majority of Indiana brewers still quite small, it's the smaller things that matter most.

Rep. Clere understands this, and is to be commended for it.

I've posted the complete tome at my NA Confidential blog. Included is the narrative, text of the new law, and links to the back story.

PourGate 2013: It took two years, but this new law silences Dr. Tom Harris and the Floyd County Health Department.

On June 14, 2013, the New Albanian Brewing Company was peaceably vending beer at Bicentennial Park, by means of a supplemental catering permit issued by the company's governing agency, the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission.

The Floyd County Health Department arrived and said that NABC also needed a temporary food serving permit.

I said no, that's incorrect.

They persisted, and a two-year-long struggle commenced.

RFRA and the damage done: Legislators have some explaining to do.

With the exception of five lonely defectors in the Indiana House, including my own state representative Ed Clere, the state's Republican majority dropped a neutron bomb on Indiana business when it pushed RFRA through to Governor Pence. It has since been amended, but ample damage waa done.

The PC: Our bedfellows are becoming stranger with each passing legislative session.

It is bad law, a regrettable over-reach (the GOP enjoys a super majority in Indiana state government), a human rights disaster, and a body blow to the state's business climate -- all of these being purely negative aspects, and yet the saddest part of it might be the grubby, small-minded pettiness of the politics involved, and how, with a stroke of his gilded crayon, Pence has deposited this bundle of divisive bile at all our front doors, to foul all our communities.

These are the same legislators who've been so conducive to measures favoring the growth of Indiana-brewed beer. Understanding that this is my personal opinion only ... but don't some of our "friends" need to explain in greater detail why this happened?

Surely RFRA must rank as one of the greatest unforced errors in recent Hoosier political memory. From the perspective of beer and brewing, it's worth remembering that the same fundamentalist constituency being pandered to with RFRA forms the backbone of Prohibitionist sentiment in Indiana. That's worrisome.

My state senator, Ron Grooms, has responded to principled criticism of his unqualified support for RFRA by digging ever deeper bunkers of denial, and insisting that RFRA was misunderstood.

But the problem for Grooms is that we understand all too well.

Honesty, anyone?

Business Insider: Only group effort can clean up RFRA fallout, by John Ketzenberger (Indy Star)

... Downtown Indy's Senior Vice President Bob Schultz said last week there were more than 700 million Internet impressions of the phrase "Boycott Indiana" in the first four days after the governor signed the bill. He called the reaction a "catastrophe" for local business.

While the loss of dollars and cents won't be determined for months and may never be known for certain, the damage is already done for those who match talent with jobs in Central Indiana.

"This has played into every stereotype," said David Phoebus, an executive recruiter for Indianapolis-based Vaco. "You know, like the sign at the state line that says, 'Welcome to Indiana, set your clocks back 200 years.' "

SB 75 passes 2nd reading in the House, should go up for 3rd today.

Rep. Ed Clere phoned last evening to tell me that SB 75 passed its second reading in the House and is scheduled for the third and final reading today. According to Ed, yesterday's success didn't guarantee final passage, but immeasurably increased the chances of passage.

Just so you can see how the bill has evolved, I'm reprinting the entire text below. The original bill absorbed two other alcohol-related measures, and has been amended several times, again with provisions pertaining to the state's alcoholic beverage statutes. I've separated the clauses for easier reading. For more on the bill's progress, go here: Senate Bill 75 - SUPER-DUPER-SIZED!

Now: Cross your fingers. I'll be waiting to hear from Ed, and I profusely thank him for his diligence both in supporting the bill and keeping information flowing back to us.

--

Senate Bill 0075
2010 2nd Regular Session

DIGEST OF SB 75 (Updated February 22, 2010 5:05 pm - DI 92)

Alcoholic beverages.

Allows a microbrewery to sell the brewery's beer for carryout on Sunday at the address for which the brewer's permit was issued.

Allows alcoholic beverages to be sold on election days. Allows the holder of a retailer's permit to sell alcoholic beverages on Sunday from 7 a.m. until 3 a.m. the following day. (Under current law, the holder of a retailer permit may sell alcoholic beverages on Sunday from 10 a.m. until 12:30 a.m. the following day).

Makes it a Class B misdemeanor for an alcoholic beverage permittee or permittee's employee or agent to recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally sell, barter, exchange, provide, or furnish another person alcoholic beverages for carryout without first requiring the person to produce proof that the person is at least 21 years of age by: (1) a driver's license; (2) a government issued identification card; or (3) a government issued document; that bears the person's photograph and birth date.

Provides that it is a defense in a criminal or administrative proceeding that the individual to whom the alcoholic beverages were sold appeared to be at least 50 years of age.

Provides that, in a criminal prosecution or proceeding before the alcohol and tobacco commission, it is a defense to a charge of unlawfully furnishing alcohol to a minor that the purchaser produced a government issued document bearing the purchaser's photograph and showing the purchaser to be at least 21 years of age.

Eliminates the requirement that a publicly owned airport be served by a scheduled commercial passenger airline in order for a restaurant located in the passenger terminal to be eligible for a permit to sell beer, wine, and liquor.

Allows an indoor theater located in a city having a population of more than 200,000 but less than 300,000 and that has been listed in the National Register of Historic places to: (1) be issued a one-way, two-way, or three-way permit to sell alcoholic beverages; and (2) to have children present.

Requires alcohol servers, retailer permittees, or management representatives of retailer or dealer permittees to complete alcohol server training by May 1, 2011. (Current law requires completion of the training by January 1, 2010.)

Requires an applicant for a permit to sell alcoholic beverages in Marion County to file with the local board verification from a department of the consolidated city designated by ordinance that the applicant is in compliance with zoning requirements for the premises to be licensed.(Current law requires verification from the department of metropolitan development.)

Current Status: Passed 2nd reading - 2nd House