St. Louis Health Director Shows that Money and Lawsuit Threats Do Talk, Suspends Smoking Ban for One Business Only

Proving that policy makers can still essentially be bought off by wealthy and influential individuals and scared off by the veiled threat of lawsuits, City of St. Louis Health Director Pam Walker has granted an exemption to a private club that serves wealthy people in the city, while requiring all other bars, restaurants, and private clubs to remain smoke-free as called for by a city ordinance.  

A smoking ban went into effect in St. Louis in 2011, barring smoking in all restaurants and other places of employment, but not including bars whose square footage is less than 2000 or private clubs without employees. The Missouri Athletic Club in St. Louis does not qualify as a small bar, nor as a private club without employees. Thus, it is subject to the smoking ban, or at least it is supposed to be subject to the ban.

However, after threatening the city with a lawsuit and apparently holding backroom meetings with the city, the downtown Missouri Athletic Club was able to win an exemption from the smoking ban from the City Health Department.

City health department director Pam Walker acknowledged that she was granting an exemption to the aristocratic club earlier this week.

The Rest of the Story

There is no ambiguity about the law and whether it applies to the Missouri Athletic Club. It applies. The Club is neither a private club without employees nor is it a bar. Thus, it is subject to the ban. Or ... it should be.

Clearly, what happened here is exactly what Bill Hannegan (one of our own Rest of the Story readers and commenters) said happened: This is the result of a backroom deal that, with no legal basis, excluded one establishment from the law in order to appease a privileged and influential sociopolitical class of individuals: the city's politicians.

This is the worst kind of political elitism. It is exactly the kind of back-door negotiating between government officials and private aristocracy that democratic polity despises.

And it therefore the worst kind of hypocrisy. The St. Louis Health Department is basically saying that employees and the public need to be protected from the hazards of secondhand smoke, but not if the establishment is an elitist one which serves politicians. Then, public health principles go out the window and a backroom deal can buy you an exemption from the law.

In St. Louis, the law only applies, I guess, to "lower-class" establishments that serve the 99%. Elitist joints that serve the 1% aren't subject to the same laws. They can essentially buy their way out of having to follow the law by using their political, economic, and legal clout. Threaten a lawsuit and be able to back up the threat with money and the public health department will back down. No longer will the public health principles of protecting people from the hazards of secondhand smoke be paramount.

This is hypocrisy at the highest level. If the Missouri Athletic Club is granted an exemption when there is no lawful exemption written into the city ordinance, then why shouldn't Pat's Bar & Grill and hundreds of other establishments in the city be allowed to negotiate for exemptions through their own backroom deals?

As Hannegan asks: "It opens the door for bars to petition for their own exemption. If she can do this for the MAC, why can’t she do this for other establishments?"

Why didn't the ordinance simply specify (in a new section - section 17) that any establishment with political and economic clout could apply for an exemption from the law through a special exception that could be arranged through a backdoor deal? That's exactly what the Health Department is doing, and that is why its director - Pam Walker - has joined a private club of her own - the Colonel Benjamin Church Hypocrisy Hall of Shame - as a gold club member.

Note: By stating that the health department was essentially "bought off," I am not suggesting that there was any payment of money in exchange for this agreement. Instead, I am arguing that by virtue of the wealthy status of the Downtown Athletic Club and its membership, this business was able to achieve the equivalent of an exemption, while other businesses that have less money and are less well politically connected, have no hope of getting the health department to look the other way.

In Backroom Deal, St. Louis Health Director Agrees to Exempt Missouri Athletic Club from Smoking Ban

Colonel Benjamin Church Hypocrisy Hall of Shame Award

Awarded to: St. Louis Health Director Pam Walker      Gold Rank

Awarded for: Agreeing to a backroom deal that exempts the Missouri Athletic Club from a smoking ban, while arguing that all other businesses must comply with the ban for health reasons.

Other Hall of Shame Members:

BOB BUTTERWORTH

Attorney General of Florida  SILVER RANK

CAMPAIGN FOR TOBACCO-FREE KIDS

National Anti-smoking Organization  GOLD RANK

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG

Mayor of New York City        BLUE RANK

FRANK LAUTENBERG            
U.S. Senator, New Jersey   BRONZE RANK

KEMP HANNON   

State Senator, New York     DIAMOND RANK 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Today, I am announcing the induction of the 6th member of the Colonel Benjamin Church Hypocrisy Hall of Shame, and the second member to be inducted at the Gold level.

A smoking ban went into effect in St. Louis in 2011, barring smoking in all restaurants and other places of employment, but not including bars whose square footage is less than 2000 or private clubs without employees. The Missouri Athletic Club in St. Louis does not qualify as a small bar, nor as a private club without employees. Thus, it is subject to the smoking ban, or at least it is supposed to be subject to the ban.

According to an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "The 109-year-old downtown Missouri Athletic Club may wriggle free from the city's smoking ban. City officials have prepared an agreement which exempts the private, invitation-only establishment — long frequented by judges, attorneys and politicians — from the municipal no-smoking ordinance. The club, known as the MAC, has flouted the law since it was enacted Jan. 1, 2011, openly leaving ashtrays in the lounge, hosting hazy boxing matches and allowing men in suits to gather weekly at the bar with tumblers in one hand, cigars in the other. The city cited and fined the club twice. The citations ended up in municipal court, where attorneys began working out a deal."

"On Thursday, city Health Director Pam Walker presented a draft agreement to her advisory commission, the Joint Boards of Health and Hospitals, arguing that the nonprofit MAC is a unique entity, governed neither by rules for private clubs nor by those for businesses. If approved, the agreement would bar smoking in the employees' lounge, but allow club members to continue to smoke in four locations: The Art Lounge, in the first floor lobby; The Jack Buck Grille, inside the club's first-floor restaurant, after 2 p.m.; the private dining rooms next to the Sportsman's Club, after 2 p.m.; and in the Missouri Room, three times a year for special events." ...

"This is the whole problem with government," said Joe Finn, owner of Pat's Bar & Grill in the city's Dogtown neighborhood, adding that the ban is killing his business. "All things are equal, but some things are more equal than others. I don't have the money — I don't have the clout — to make these backroom deals." "Others wondered what such a ruling would mean for the region. Could private city veterans' halls, for instance, ask for similar exemptions? Is this kind of agreement even legal?"

"I'm not against the MAC, but I think what they're doing is illegal," said Keep St. Louis Free Director Bill Hannegan, who lobbied against the smoking ban. The state constitution, he said, bars ordinances that single out businesses. "We'd like to see the MAC fight the law, not get themselves an exemption."

The Rest of the Story

There is no ambiguity about the law and whether it applies to the Missouri Athletic Club. It applies. The Club is neither a private club without employees nor is it a bar. Thus, it is subject to the ban.

Clearly, what is happening here is exactly what Bill Hannegan (one of our own Rest of the Story readers and commenters) and Joe Finn say is happening. This is a backroom deal that, with no legal basis, excludes one establishment from the law in order to appease a privileged and influential sociopolitical class of individuals: the city's politicians.

If this were "Joe's Bar & Grill," or I should say "Pat's Bar & Grill," the matter wouldn't even be up for discussion. I'm sure that Walker wouldn't have even agreed to meet with Mr. Finn to discuss an exemption. But when politicians talk, she is suddenly ready to listen. The table is open to deals. And it's especially open to unlawful deal-making when the establishment in question has money and therefore economic and political clout.

This is the worst kind of political elitism. It is exactly the kind of back-door negotiating between government officials and private aristocracy that democratic polity despises.

And it therefore the worst kind of hypocrisy. The St. Louis Health Department is basically saying that employees and the public need to be protected from the hazards of secondhand smoke, but not if the establishment is an elitist one which serves politicians. Then, public health principles go out the window and a backroom deal can buy you an exemption from the law.

In St. Louis, the law only applies, I guess, to "lower-class" establishments that serve the 99%. Elitist joints that serve the 1% aren't subject to the same laws. They can essentially buy their way out of having to follow the law by using their political, economic, and legal clout. Threaten a lawsuit and be able to back up the threat with money and the public health department will back down. No longer will the public health principles of protecting people from the hazards of secondhand smoke be paramount.

This is hypocrisy at the highest level. If the Missouri Athletic Club is granted an exemption when there is no lawful exemption written into the city ordinance, then why shouldn't Pat's Bar & Grill and hundreds of other establishments in the city be allowed to negotiate for exemptions through their own backroom deals?

Why didn't the ordinance simply specify (in a new section - section 17) that any establishment with political and economic clout could apply for an exemption from the law through a special exception that could be arranged through a backdoor deal? That's exactly what the Health Department is doing, and that is why its director - Pam Walker - has joined this private club - the Colonel Benjamin Church Hypocrisy Hall of Shame - as a gold club member.

Political Corruption in the Gateway City: If St. Louis Health Department Won't Stand Up for Health, Then What Will It Stand Up For?

In my 25 years in tobacco control, I have seen many cities and towns grant exemptions from smoking bans to certain types of establishments. But never have I seen a health department unlawfully exempt a particular establishment, thus willfully violating the law.

That all changed this week, when St. Louis city health department director Pam Walker decided to allow smoking at the downtown Missouri Athletic Club, in direct violation of the ordinance passed by the St. Louis City Council. That ordinance bans smoking in all bars and restaurants, including private clubs, unless there are no employees. Since the Missouri Athletic Club has multiple employees, it is subject to the smoking ban. However, after threatening a lawsuit (that would have no legal basis) and flexing its muscles, and after some apparent back-room deal-making, the health department announced that it would allow the Missouri Athletic Club to violate the law.

What is this? Chicago in the 1960's? Can wealth and prestige simply buy off policy makers? Apparently so.

David Hunn, the reporter who covers St. Louis government and politics for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, covered this important story in yesterday's paper.

He wrote: "No other city in the country has enacted a smoking ban and then willingly broken the ban to make an exception for one business, said Dr. Michael Siegel, who has tracked tobacco laws for 25 years. Siegel, a professor at Boston University’s School of Public Health, said city health director Pam Walker’s decision to allow smoking at downtown’s Missouri Athletic Club is the first of its kind. “I’ve never seen a health department essentially fight to provide an exemption for an entity,” Siegel said. He doesn’t even consider Walker’s decision an exemption. If the city scrapped the existing law, wrote a new bill, added an exemption for the MAC, and got it passed into law by the Board of Aldermen, that’d be one thing, Siegel said. “This is simply looking the other way,” he said. “They’re essentially saying they’re not going to enforce the legislation for this particular business.” “It really sours the entire integrity of the health department, I think,” he said."

If you haven't already seen it, please read my previous coverage of this issue:

In Backroom Deal, St. Louis Health Director Agrees to Exempt Missouri Athletic Club from Smoking Ban (link)

St. Louis Health Director Shows that Money and Lawsuit Threats Do Talk, Suspends Smoking Ban for One Business Only (link)

The Rest of the Story

If the city of St. Louis wants to avoid being guilty of political corruption and the St. Louis Department of Health wants to retain any integrity, this decision needs to be revoked immediately and the law needs to be enforced as written. Otherwise, St. Louis is going to quickly become the laughing stock of public health nationally.

The rest of the story is that in one of the most egregious examples of political corruption affecting public health in my lifetime, the St. Louis Department of Health has succumbed to political pressure and agreed to knowingly look the other way in the face of recurrent and willful violation of city law.

In my opinion, not only is this a public health travesty, but the Department of Health and the Mayor's office need to be investigated by the Missouri Attorney General's office. Willful failure to enforce the law is in my view an abrogation of the responsibility to uphold the law.

Note: By stating that the health department was essentially "bought off," I am not suggesting that there was any payment of money in exchange for this agreement. Instead, I am arguing that by virtue of the wealthy status of the Downtown Athletic Club and its membership, this business was able to achieve the equivalent of an exemption, while other businesses that have less money and are less well politically connected, have no hope of getting the health department to look the other way. 

Colonel Benjamin Church Hypocrisy Hall of Shame Award

Awarded to: Mayor Michael Bloomberg       GOLD RANK

Awarded for: Proclaiming himself as a champion of the public's health while trying to deny any mandatory paid sick days for workers in New York City."

Other Hall of Shame Members:

PAM WALKER

St. Louis Health Director     GOLD RANK

 

PORTLAND CITY COUNCIL    DIAMOND RANK

 

BOB BUTTERWORTH

Attorney General of Florida  SILVER RANK

CAMPAIGN FOR TOBACCO-FREE KIDS

National Anti-smoking Organization  GOLD RANK

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG

Mayor of New York City        BLUE RANK

FRANK LAUTENBERG            
U.S. Senator, New Jersey   BRONZE RANK

KEMP HANNON

New York State Senator         DIAMOND RANK
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Today, I am announcing the 8th induction into the Colonel Benjamin Church Hypocrisy Hall of Shame.

Today's inductee - Mayor Michael Bloomberg - is actually being inducted into the Hall for a second time.  

Bloomberg was first inducted into the Hypocrisy Hall of Shame on June 12, 2012 when, just after proposing to ban the sale of sodas larger than 16 ounces, he spoke at the weigh-in ceremony for the 2011 Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest and proclaimed: "It is a moment for all New Yorkers and all Americans to celebrate the inalienable rights bestowed on us by our forefathers: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For the contestants assembled here, that includes consuming as many hot dogs as humanly possible."

Mayor Bloomberg's comments praising the blatant over-consumption of hot dogs were not only witnessed by the 400,000 people at the event, but by an ESPN television viewing audience of 1.95 million viewers.

The winner of the 2011 hot dog eating contest consumed 62 hot dogs and buns in just 10 minutes. In the female competition, the winner consumed 50 hot dogs and buns in 10 minutes.

A single Nathan's hot dog has 297 calories and 18 grams of fat. The bun contains an additional 120 calories. Thus, a single serving delivers 417 calories and 18 grams of fat. This means that the winner of the hot dog eating contest consumed 25,854 calories and 1,116 grams of fat within 10 minutes.

Thus, Mayor Bloomberg participated in a ceremony that glamorized and promoted the over-consumption of already calorie- and fat-laden food to literally millions of people, including about half a million New Yorkers.

 Moreover, while Bloomberg was busy banning super size sodas, he was also busy declaring "New York City Donut Day." His proclamation established a day on which donuts were given out free throughout the city. Ironically, the donut give-away came just a day after Bloomberg's announcement that he wanted to ban super size sodas.

And this is the guy who proclaimed himself to be a public health champion by virtue of his wanting to limit soda consumption to 16 ounces.

In achieving his second induction into the Colonel Benjamin Church Hypocrisy Hall of Shame, Bloomberg moves up from a Blue Rank to the prestigious Gold Rank.

The Rest of the Story

The reason for Mayor Bloomberg's second induction into the Hall of Hypocrisy? While proclaiming himself a champion of the protection of the public's health, he opposed a simple measure that would have required medium and large-size employers in the city to provide full-time employees with a minimum of five paid sick days per year. According to advocates, this ordinance would provide paid sick leave for one million workers who do not have this benefit. 

According to an article in the New York Times: "New York City is poised to mandate that thousands of companies provide paid time off for sick employees, bolstering a national movement that has been resisted by wary business leaders. A legislative compromise reached on Thursday night represents a raw display of political muscle by a coalition of labor unions and liberal activists who overcame fierce objections from New York’s business-minded mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, and his allies in the corporate world.

The legislation would also prohibit companies from firing workers who take a day off because they are sick.

How can anyone who proclaims to be a public health leader oppose a law to prohibit companies from firing workers for taking a sick day? And how could he oppose a measly five sick days a year? Clearly, what Bloomberg is protecting are corporate interests, not the public's health. He is therefore fully deserving of a second induction into the Colonel Benjamin Church Hypocrisy Hall of Shame.

Political Corruption in St. Louis Health Department Opens Door: Now All Bars and Restaurants Can Ask for Exemptions

The St. Louis health department's decision to cave in to pressure from wealthy and politically connected constituents at the Missouri Athletic Club by agreeing not to enforce the law as it regards that establishment has now opened the door to all St. Louis bars and restaurants to request similar arrangements. After all, a precedent has now been set that for no health-related justification at all, the City of St. Louis is willing to look the other way if your business complains loudly enough, or at least has the right political connections.

As our own Bill Hannegan has pointed out, the Missouri Athletic Club kicked off its negotiations with the city health department by actively flouting the ordinance. In how much better a position, then, are the hundreds of bars and restaurants that have been following the law? Should they not be in a better position to negotiate with the city, since they have taken the moral high ground and diligently followed the law? Should they City not consider their good behavior in negotiating with these establishments? And if the bad behavior of the MAC resulted in the city agreeing to look the other way, should not the good behavior of these other bars be rewarded by the city happily looking the other way?

Now that it has established that businesses can successfully negotiate with it to get out of having to follow health ordinances, the St. Louis department of health is going to need to set up an "Exemptions Department" to handle all these negotiations. The line will be out the door.

St. Louis is now the only city I am aware of where if you don't like a health regulation, you can negotiate with the city health department to be excused from having to adhere to the law.

The Rest of the Story

The irony of the situation was not lost to cartoonist Dan Martin of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch who mockingly depicts health director Pam Walker sitting at a desk signed "Smoking ban exemption application division," taking requests from local businesses to get out of having to comply with the smoking ban.