By Joe Jarosz
Northeast News
March 4, 2015

KANSAS CITY, Missouri — After listening to testimony, there are many who are for and against the city getting rid of employee liquor permits.

At last Wednesday’s Public Safety and Emergency Services Committee hearing, city officials heard from proponents and opponents of the proposed ordinance that would eliminate employee liquor permits.

The city currently issues the permits to any person who works in an establishment as a bar manager, bartender, waiter, cashier, sales clerk, stock person, doorman or any position responsible for checking identification. These permits are issued by the Regulated Industries Division, which strongly oppose the ordinance.

The city has restrictions on who can and cannot receive an employee liquor permit. The city currently will not issue the permit to any person who is a dangerous offender, persistent sexual offender or predatory sexual offender or has been found guilty of, pleaded guilty to, or been convicted of a felony for murder, voluntary manslaughter, forcible rape, forcible sodomy, kidnapping, false imprisonment, first degree child molestation, second degree child molestation, or sexual abuse. The city does this to assure residents that those who do not qualify, would not be allowed to check identification or sell or serve alcoholic beverages at any liquor licensed business. The ordinance is sponsored by First District At-Large Councilman, and committee member, Scott Wagner.

Committee Chair John Sharp opened the floor to the proponents first. Jason Pryor, who currently chairs the government affairs for the Greater Kansas City Restaurant Association, told the committee a large contingency is in favor of repealing the permits and an oppressive tax. Proponents complained that city regulators administer permit checks usually during the busiest time. This often causes more stress and heartache for owners, managers and staff if someone is caught with an expired permit.

“The burden falls on the employees who have to prove their innocence,” Pryor said. “It’s about proving your innocence for the right to work.”

Carl DiCapo, retired restaurant owner and Kansas City resident, has been in the restaurant industry all his life. He pleaded with the committee to do the restaurant owners and businesses across the city a favor, and repeal this permit.

“The regulations [for the restaurant industry] are unheard of at times,” DiCapo said. “We don’t need this thing. Remove this. If it doesn’t work, we can put it back, but we’ll show you it works.”

Pryor, DiCapo and other proponents of the ordinance also noted how the permit is burdensome to those who have to apply for it. Anyone who applies for the liquor permit must pay a $42 fee, which last for a three-year period. The fee is broken down to $21 for a criminal background check by an outside vendor and the other $21 goes to fund the Regulated Industries Division.

Jim Ready, Regulated Industries Manager, emphasized to the committee the importance of public safety with these permits. He noted one instance in 2009 where a customer said she was raped by employees in a club in downtown Kansas City, Mo. The workers did not have valid employee liquor permits. Ready then read a collection of headlines from across the country, pointing out instances where people in the service industry took advantage of customers. In 2014, Ready said his office denied liquor permits to 54 applicants, at least one a week, because they failed a background check. Of those who were denied the permits, Ready said they included one murderer, three rapists and six lifetime sex offenders.

“We’ve twice changed the ordinance within the past five years,” Ready said. “We’ve taken it as far as we can go.”

Michelle Wycoff, worked as both a Kansas City police officer for 10 years and behind the bar serving drinks. She believes there’s room for improvement, but overall, thinks Regulated Industries is doing a good job. In her experience, she told the committee not every convicted felon leaves prison trying to reform their lives. Some come out better criminals.

“I think it’s just irresponsible to put them in a position where they have access to alcohol and pouring someone’s drink,” Wycoff said. “The things that could happen, scare me. I know these things happen and to act like they wouldn’t happen is irresponsible.”

Following the debate, the committee postponed a vote on the measure at least until its next meeting, Wednesday, March 4.