Panel reverses decision on exempting private clubs
By:Jennifer Potash
The Princeton Regional Health Commission is expected to take a final vote June 1 on the proposed ban of smoking in indoor public places, after removing an exemption for private clubs Tuesday.
If approved, it would be the most comprehensive prohibition of smoking in New Jersey.
The ban, which would include bars and restaurants, was first introduced by the commission in February. Its intent is to protect patrons and employees from environmental tobacco smoke, commonly known as secondhand smoke, commission members have said.
The question of whether the ordinance would apply to private clubs arose in March, when Barbara Strapp Nelson, an attorney representing three Prospect Street eating clubs — Ivy Club, Cottage Club and Cap and Gown Club — asked the commission to create a specific exemption. In an effort to address those concerns, the commission added an exemption and, according to Chairman Robert Hendry, lost its focus of protecting employees in the Princetons, which include those working at private clubs.
“The exemption for the social clubs would diminish the health protection, especially for employees that have long-term exposure to secondhand smoke, and it runs counter to the goals of the ordinance,” Mr. Hendry said.
Commission member Henry Powsner, a radiologist, pointed out that the proposed ordinance defined a workplace as any enclosed space under the control of an employer with more than one employee, and that private clubs would meet that definition.
“It is a workplace and it would be hypocritical to exempt,” he said.
The commission voted 7 to 1 Tuesday to take out the private club exemption.
Commission member and attorney Katherine Benesch voted no.
“I thought we should leave the exemption here,” Ms. Benesch said. “I never thought it was our intent to regulate private places.”
Commission member Dolores Phillips abstained, without providing a reason. When reached Thursday, Ms. Phillips said she wanted more discussion on the legal issues regarding the exemption.
“I didn’t feel prepared to make a decision,” she said. “If we are going to do it, we should do it in a way where we can possibly win litigation and that we would be acting in a way that would be consistent.”
Ms. Phillips said she does support the proposed ordinance.
Ms. Nelson, the attorney representing the eating clubs, who did not attend Tuesday’s meeting, sent a letter to the commission asking members to keep the exemption in the proposed ordinance.
“Non-public places, maintained by membership organizations which govern their own facilities, should be allowed to continue doing so without interference in their private activities,” she wrote. “If it is truly the Commission’s intent that private homes, extension of private homes and private facilities not be included in the proposed ordinance, then the amendment clarifying this issue should remain in the proposed ordinance.”
She noted that many of the clubs provide smoke-free facilities, so the issue is not about being in favor or against smoking.
“Rather, this is about protecting private citizen’s federal constitutional rights,” Ms. Nelson wrote.
If the ordinance is adopted next month, smoking would be allowed only in residences, hotel and motel rooms with separate ventilation systems; tobacco shops; vehicles; and the outdoors.
The commission on Tuesday discussed removing the exemption for tobacco shops after Dr. Powsner expressed concerns about the shops becoming a smoking lounge and the health effect that would have on store employees. Members decided to leave the exemption in place, but said they could revisit the issue.
Tuesday’s meeting drew about 15 people, both supporters and opponents of the ordinance.
Paul Budline, a Princeton Township resident and self-described former smoker, urged the commission to be consistent and ban smoking in homes that hire domestic help or have health-care assistance.
“If you’re worried about people, then what about people who employ other people at their houses?” Mr. Budline asked. “You’re going to have to come into private homes and stamp that out.”
Mr. Hendry said the commission could look into that but said he wanted to avoid getting stuck in “a quagmire of definitions” in the ordinance.