HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03021993 - 1.24 (�L
To
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS U2 4
FROM. ra
Mark Finucane Alt--I � �`^ "
February 11, 1993 CS
DATE' W
Cly V1..i�/
SUBJECT: AB 13 1 il�
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AAD JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1 . Endorse AB 13 by Assemblymember Terry Freedman which prohibits
smoking in any enclosed space at a place of employment.
2 . Direct the Health Services Department to monitor the bill for any
preemption clauses which would restrict local efforts to pass
effective anti-smoking legislation.
3 . Direct the County Lobbyist and Health Services Department to support
the passage of AB 13 unless it is amended to include a restrictive
preemption clause, in which case the County Lobbyist and Health
Services Department staff should actively oppose the measure.
BACKGROUND TO RECOMMENDATION:
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and Contra Costa cities have
been leaders in promoting and passing local legislation restricting
smoking in the workplace and in public places . Contra Costa County's
current ordinance prohibits smoking indoors in the workplace, and this
provision has been adopted by every city in Contra Costa County which has
so far considered the Contra Costa Model Ordinance. As a result of the
local efforts in Contra Costa County and in other cities throughout
California, AB 13 has been introduced to make a ban on smoking in the
workplace statewide.
The introduction of AB 13 is a concrete result of local government
leadership on the smoking issue. Passage of AB 13 in California would
set an example for other states across the nation, and encourage local
governments to pursue stronger bans on smoking in restaurants and other
public places .
The bill as written only preempts local governments from enacting
legislation to restrict smoking in the workplace, and such local
legislation would obviously not be necessary in the presence of a
comprehensive state law. There is concern among public health
professionals, however, that the Tobacco Lobby will attempt to insert
stronger preemption language in this bill in order to stifle local
efforts to enact meaningful anti-smoking ordinances . We should oppose
any significant preemption amendments, and if they are included in the
final bill we should oppose its passage. n
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE•
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDA ON F BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE {�
ACTION OF BOARD ON 9 . APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
y UNANIMOUS (ABSENT �✓ ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Wendel Brunner, M.D. , 313-6712 MAR 2 1993
CC: Health Services Administration ATTESTED ..
Public Health Division PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382/7-83 BY ,DEPUTY
FINANCIAL IMPACT•
Eliminating smoking in the workplace will reduce exposure to a Class A
occupational carcinogen, thereby reducing employers ' Worker' s Comp
liability exposure. In addition a workplace smoking ban has been
demonstrated to encourage employees to reduce or quit smoking, thereby
saving millions of dollars in health care costs .
MF:WB:ah