Thursday, May 26, 2011

St. Charles County Councilman Cronin Admits Restricting VFW s

Mr Cronin

Thank you for your response. I believe the issue is not if the private clubs are included or not. The wording of the ban I believe to be very misleading. It appears to give private clubs such as VFW halls an exclusion. In another paragraph it seeming takes it away. If private clubs wish to ban smoking they can do it at anytime (as can bars and restaurants). What I ask is that you alter the legislation one way or other to clear the issue up. From a PR standpoint I would believe that you and the county council wouldn't want a showdown with veterans. They deserve to know clearly were they stand.



Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 18:13:43 -0500
Subject: RE: [LIKELY_S-P-A-M]Smoking Ban and Private Clubs

Mr. Palazzolo.
Thank you for contacting the Council. Speaking for myself, I can tell you that the private club wording was taken from a "model" ordinance very similar to that what is currently law in O'Fallon and Lake St. Louis.
Again, speaking for myself, I will tell you that the past three national commanders of the VFW have suggested to membership that they consider making all 8,300 VFW posts smoke-free according to Joe Davis the VFW director of public affairs.
And please remember sir that all we are considering is allowing the voters to decide this controversial issue a year from now. Everyone will have lots of time for debate and close study before voting on this.
Regards, Joe Cronin SCCC1

From: Council
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:49 AM
To: Hollander, Terry; Daugherty, Jerry; Joe Brazil; Cronin Joe; Joe Cronin; John White; Nancy Matheny; Paul Wynn
Subject: FW: [LIKELY_S-P-A-M]Smoking Ban and Private Clubs

From: Tony Palazzolo []
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 5:29 PM
To: Executive; Council
Subject: [LIKELY_S-P-A-M]Smoking Ban and Private Clubs

Executive Elhmann

After reading through the proposed smoking ban I have found the wording to be confusing. The smoking ban has been advertised as a including exemptions for the casino gambling floors, cigar bars, tobacco shops and private clubs.

The wording the ban itself goes to length to include private clubs as a definition. It seemingly gives private clubs an exemption from the smoking ban. In section H section 3 the wording "

Private clubs that have no employees present

on the premises of the club, except when being used

for a function to which the general public is invited;

This would then preclude nearly all private clubs as most VFW, Amvets and other private clubs nearly always employ bartenders. Even if the club did not pay and the only compensation was from "tips" then the club would lose the exemption.

I similar tactic was used in the City of St Louis. Most that read the bill believed that private clubs were exempted from the legislation. They only found out later that they had lost the right to allow smoking. As you can imagine that many of them felt betrayed that they risked their lives for freedom only to have it quietly stripped away.

As a person who believes in freedom I don't agree with smoking bans on any level. I believe that the success of this country is based on our ability to make our own choices. If my reading is correct on than I would ask that under definitions that section "K" be removed. Private clubs shouldn't find out after a vote that they were tricked into sitting on the sidelines as happened in St Louis City. They should be allowed to fight for freedom for which they fought. If this is not possible I would ask that you veto a bill if it comes to your desk.

Tony Palazzolo