LAKEPORT — Ambiguity about parental responsibility caused the Lake County Board of Supervisors to continue a discussion about adopting an underage drinking ordinance until January. All five supervisors expressed concerns, and asked Lake County Sheriff Rodney Mitchell to analyze its effectiveness in jurisdictions that have adopted similar laws.
District 3 Supervisor Denise Rushing said deciding when a parent or guardian is responsible for underage drinking is difficult. “Adults are responsible for their own actions, and could be held accountable if we can reasonably expect that they should have known. There needs to be a reasonable expectation that they (parents) could have obeyed the law,” Rushing said.
The proposed ordinance holds “all responsible persons” liable for the county”s cost to respond to a loud party where alcohol is served to minors on private property for 12 months after a warning is issued for another such party.
District 2 Supervisor Jeff Smith requested clarification about whether or not a parent or guardian could be held liable for the actions of an emancipated minor or drinkers between the ages of 18 and 21.
An underage drinking ordinance will go into effect in Clearlake 30 days after its second reading next week, according to Mayor Judy Thein.
She began campaigning for similar ordinances in Lakeport and the county after Clearlake passed its ordinance in July. Lakeport passed a nearly identical ordinance in November. The ordinances mean police officers can cite underage drinkers on private property if they are not with a parent or legal guardian.
District 1 Supervisor Ed Robey pointed out an essential difference between the ordinances passed by the two cities and the one before the board of supervisors Tuesday.
“The ordinance passed in the cities makes it a misdemeanor crime to allow underage drinking at parties within a private residence if they”re unsupervised. This imposes civil penalties,” Robey said.
The proposed ordinance does not spell out a specific fine to be leveed, but references the cost to law enforcement agencies for responding to “loud or unruly gatherings on private property at which alcoholic beverages are served to or consumed by underage persons.” The ordinance goes on to say that law enforcement response results in “a disproportionate expenditure of public safety resources of the County of Lake, which are underwritten by general municipal taxes paid to the County by its taxpayers and residents and delaying police responses to regular and emergency calls to the rest of the County.”
Supervisors Rob Brown and Anthony Farrington expressed concern that the ordinance would duplicate existing underage drinking laws. “There”s always the thought that it can”t hurt to have another tool,” Brown said. “We don”t want another tool on our tool belt that we”re not using.”
Farrington questioned Thein and California Highway Patrol officer Adam Garcia regarding the law”s necessity. “If there is a party at a residence, and if law enforcement came, where we”re shooting ourselves in the foot is if there are minors at the party drunk and we”re forcing them to disperse are we putting them on the road?”
Garcia said the ordinance might have a preventative effect. “This might discourage people from having the party in the first place,” Garcia said.
Contact Tiffany Revelle at trevelle@record-bee.com.
