Let’s start with what’s most important: Best we can tell, our town officials — and indeed, most adults — share a commitment to doing whatever they can to lessen the chances that another local family will have to bear the worst consequences of teen drinking.
Unfortunately, what that concern has recently spawned — a debate led by the Board of Health over whether the cause might be served by repealing the town’s social host bylaw — is a case of misdirected energy.
To review: The state’s social host law, G.L.c. 138, §34, makes it a crime punishable by a fine of up to $2,000 or up to one year in prison to furnish alcohol to a minor, where “furnish” means “to knowingly or intentionally supply, give or provide to or allow a person under 21… to possess alcoholic beverages” on the owner’s property.
Meanwhile, in the 1990s, the town enacted a local bylaw meant to complement the state law. The town bylaw differs from the state law in a few respects. First, it is concerned with alcohol possession by people under the age of 18, not 21. The sanction — a $150 fine — is less steep. But unlike the state law, which requires “knowing or intentional” conduct, someone who owns or controls a property need only fail to prevent a person under the age of 18 from using or possessing alcohol to be subject to a fine.
In other words, there are circumstances — a parent upstairs unaware of what teens are doing in the basement — in which a homeowner could violate the town bylaw without violating the state law.
Underlying the push to take to Town Meeting a proposal to repeal the town bylaw is a false premise.
“My thought was, why have a weak law on the books?” Chair Dr. Thomas Massaro said at a meeting last month. “If we remove the bylaw, then the stronger one would become the law driving the town culture.”
There are a few flaws with that theory, however.
Apparently, the underlying premise is that the absence of the town bylaw would force the hand of a police department allegedly reticent to “throw the book” at parents who allow drinking parties, thereby sending a strong deterrent message.
But Police Chief Dennis King has explained, he and his department are not reluctant to enforce either law.
Instead, as King told the Current in December, “Not every call meets the legal threshold for charges or fines.”
In other words, the state law’s “knowingly or intentionally” requirement can make it hard to make a criminal charge stick, and the appropriate response to any particular house party is highly dependent on the circumstances.
One could also argue that the greatest deterrent related to social hosting has nothing to do with the police at all. Sitting atop a state fact sheet created with the help of former Essex County District Attorney Jonathan W. Blodgett is a hypothetical budget for a party — $75 for food, $500 for a DJ, $190 for “alcohol for underage drinkers.”
The next line reads, “Damages From Civil Lawsuit: $8,694,162.”
While the state social host law theoretically provides for jail time, when a Beverly mother was sentenced to six months in prison for permitting teenage drinking at her home in 2012, it was the first time anyone had been sent to jail when no one had died, as far as officials knew. Though it could come in tandem with criminal penalties if the worst happens, the prospect of a financially ruinous civil lawsuit is perhaps the more foreseeable negative consequence for a homeowner who makes a poor decision with social hosting.
In addition, the structure of town government places oversight of the Police Department with the Select Board. The Select Board, not the Board of Health, should be hosting any policy discussion about how the department is enforcing the state or local social host laws.
It would be nice to think that one could flip a switch, enforce one law instead of another, and “drive the town culture” with respect to underage drinking. But time has shown that this thorny problem does not lend itself to such a simple solution.
We support the “community conversation” Massaro envisions would occur if the Board of Health sponsored a Town Meeting article related to the town’s social host bylaw. But rather than being repealed, the local bylaw could perhaps be improved — by raising the age from 18 to 21 or by beefing up the penalty.
However, there is no reason the community conversation has to occur in the context of a Town Meeting article at all. Indeed, in one sense, such a conversation has been a constant in the community for decades, with tragedies unfortunately bringing renewed urgency to it periodically.
The Board of Health can play a vital role in that conversation with activities like developing a comprehensive understanding of the latest research on youth brain development and sharing what it has learned with the community, or marshaling resources to bring innovative programming to students and their parents. In other words, it could be a valuable partner to those already engaged in important work in homes, schools and, yes, the police department.
The board would be well served to shift its focus in such a direction. Doing so would be a better use of its time and energy than trying to repeal the town bylaw.
