Apparently, Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson’s PR agent Bill Mullan has not seen his boss’s name in the paper lately, so the news is all atwitter that Patterson not only will not enforce the popular workplace smoking ban that takes effect in two weeks, he is going to sue the state.
Patterson has made the unfounded claim that the smoking ban is an unfunded mandate, so he will not enforce the hard won smoking ban. That is simply not the case. The enforcement protocol is complaint driven. Local health departments are responsible for inspecting food service establishments to comply with Public Act 188. Most violations would be no more than a bartender or manager asking the person who lit up to simply stop smoking. However, any complaint recorded by the health department would be logged, and a protocol would be followed. If the local department had to go out and investigate any complaint that could not be cleared up by phone, the business would be charged a fee for that investigation. If the bar or restaurant failed to pay, their liquor or food license would be at stake.
That makes it a funded mandate. Even if that were not the case, counties receive state revenue sharing. Not only that, the very function of a health department.
Call the Oakland County Health Department at (248) 858-1280 and tell them to do their job of protecting the public health.
UPDATE: Apparently, the flak Patterson received from the overwhelming number of people who support the workplace smoking ban has led him to backtrack, and he no longer plans to sue to stop the ban, the Detroit Free Press reported shortly after 3 p.m. today. However, he still has no plans to enforce the law and protect the public health.
10 comments:
Guru, you wrote, " If the local department had to go out and investigate any complaint that could not be cleared up by phone, the business would be charged a fee for that investigation. ... That makes it a funded mandate."
So they would be charged a fine and possibly have their business closed down for nonpayment on the basis of an anonymous complaint even if they were found not guilty of the charge?
That seems to be what you are saying. If it is NOT what you are saying, then how will the investigation visits be funded? Will the investigators be expected to fund their wages and expenses out of their own pockets?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
That is correct. If the local department had to go out and investigate any complaint that could not be cleared up by phone or letter, the business would be charged a fee for that investigation. That makes it a funded mandate.
If a bar or restaurant had constant complaints or refused to enforce the law, an investigator would have to come out to resolve it. An investigator would only come out as a last resort, so why shouldn’t the business pay the fee? I hardly think a $100 fine will close down a business. Considering the local health departments are required to conduct quarterly sanitary inspections, I don’t see much of a need for a special trip.
The wages of the investigator are paid with taxes, such as state revenue sharing. Not only that, the MDCH gave the county money for enforcement.
Overwhelming number of people? About 100 calls and E-mails is not an "overwhelming number of people".
Oakland County is one of the largest in the country. 100 people isn't alot. However, the calls and E-mails did come in over a matter of hours. To Patterson's credit, he listened to the people and decided against following through on the suit, at least for the time being. He's a politician that actually listened to his constituents. It's too bad that in DC they didn't listen to the 58% of the people who said no to Obamacare before passing the strictly partisan bill that very few people in this country want.
Nice try at spin though.
Interesting. So according to you Guru, it is now legal for the State to initiate investigations against citizens and charge them for the expenses of those investigations even if the citizen is found innocent of any wrongdoing. And you seem to approve of this when you say "Why shouldn't the biz pay the fee?" The amount is immaterial. Any amount could result in a closure of a business and the destruction of the lives and livelihoods of the owners and their families if they were either on the edge to begin with or had misguided notions of justice that caused them to stand up and resist the fine.
As for the wages of the investigator being paid by taxes, either we are paying too many investigators to sit on their butts to begin with or we will have to spend extra, unfunded, tax money to pay new ones to do the extra work unless innocent people agree to pay the blood money.
As for the constant tired comparison of ban laws to "food and health regulations" how about we try a little experiment. We'll set up one town with only reasonable minimal smoking regulations {e.g. no smoking in maternity wards, grade schools, you get the idea...} and another town where smoking is banned but there are NO other "food and health regulations" and fly by night diners are welcome to set up and poison folks for a year or three before being sued out of existence and there's nobody in charge of testing the water system or fire exits at theaters and concert venues and such.
Which town would you rather raise your family in?
- MJM
That is correct, anonymous, an Overwhelming number of people. Like Patterson said,
“I've never reversed a lawsuit in my life," said the 71-year-old Patterson, who has worked 37 years as an attorney, prosecuting attorney and county executive. But he said that after the flood of responses he received from the public opposing the suit, "I believe it is the right thing to do."
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100416/METRO02/4160392/1409/Smoking-ban-lawsuit-goes-up-in-smoke#ixzz0lGKBsc6o
“He listened to the people?” I don’t think so. The people spoke back in December when they overwhelming voted to approve this bill.
I don’t know what “Obamacare” care is, but if you are referring to the historic health insurance reform bill, the people also spoke loud and clear in November 2008 that they wanted reform.
Nice try at spin though.
I have no idea how you reached that erroneous conclusion. Gee, I guess you have never heard of a person found guilty of a crime being charged court costs. Like I said, the health departments inspect restaurants for cleanliness to protect the public health on at least a quarterly basis. Smoking harms public health. It costs no extra money or time to check out the few complaints of people violating the smoking law.
Your two town scenario makes absolutely no sense.
Guru, you wrote, "Gee, I guess you have never heard of a person found guilty of a crime being charged court costs."
Guru, anyone reading my post above will clearly see that I was referring only to people found INNOCENT.
- MJM
Then your post makes no sense.
Guru I am content to let the readers decide which of us made the better sense and leave it at that if you wish.
- MJM
You do that because the facts are on my side.
Post a Comment