Editor’s Note: This is the first of a two-part analysis of yesterday’s public hearing before the commissioners of the state’s department of alcohol and beverage control. The next hearing will be held Tuesday, June 17, at 6 p.m. at DABC headquarters, 1625 South 900 West. Tomorrow, the second part will focus primarily on an extensive study conducted by the Real Estate Professionals for Economic Growth and the Summit Group Communications.

Despite the large turnout at yesterday’s hearing, heavily represented by those hospitality interests eager to see an overhaul of the state’s arcane liquor laws, the campaign to bring about that reform will be difficult, loud, and divisive. More to the point, the hospitality industry must do a much, much better job of clarifying its message, sticking to relevant talking points, and using relevant empirical data. The issue of liquor law reform extends well beyond yesterday’s oft-repeated concerns of private club memberships and enforcement. For a discussion of these aspects, go back to my June 2 post here.

In many respects, yesterday’s hearing offered plenty of clear examples of the good and ineffective ways of speaking as an advocate before a public hearing. Clearly evident is what promises to be an aggressive lobbying campaign by Mothers Against Drunk Driving in blocking any change whatsoever to the state’s liquor laws. While individual business owners did a reasonably admirable job in articulating the concerns and impact of such restrictive measures as private club memberships, they often rambled beyond well past the point of hitting their target message and most of the hearing suggested a repetitive theme that hardly extended into the far more significant conversation needed to outline what comprehensive liquor law reform should do. And, Trenton David’s short, uninspired statement as the representative of the Utah Hospitality Association did little at communicating definitively the broad outlines of workable reform that balance and address the mutual concerns of the hospitality industry and those directly involved in sustaining the public’s safety, health and welfare.

The most interesting portion of the hearing came early in the 90-minute session when two real estate professionals spoke about the survey report that will be the focus of tomorrow’s analysis. However, with no disrespect intended to the two speakers, tactical mistakes in presentation style deflated the report’s well-merited immediate value for consideration. It is an extensive longitudinal study with broad support from a variety of key stakeholders in Utah who would ultimately play major roles in helping shape a consensus on liquor law reform.

What makes an effective presentation? In the case of the survey report, I would have advised a 3-4 minute high-level summary of the study’s key findings and the major sponsors of the study. I would have settled on three talking points and perhaps three specific findings references. And, I would not have handed the reports to the commissioners until the end of the brief presentation. Otherwise, the intended audience gets distracted as was the case when Kathryn Balmforth, a DABC commissioner, immediately leaped onto the issue, saying that the study hardly substantiates a compelling need to revisit the state’s liquor laws.

As for speakers, public hearings such as these are never good venues for extemporaneous speaking, unless someone is very good at it, and that is rarely the case. This is no time for grandstanding nor is it the appropriate moment to vet personal dramas. There will be plenty of that come next January when the state legislature convenes.

I would strongly urge the Utah Hospitality Association work more closely at coordinating its speakers, selecting those who can best articulate the positions and research that will come to define the framework of proposed reform. Presentations should be short, crisp, fact-based, and alert to the sensitivity that comprehensive reform will likely involve some give-and-take on many sides. That is the reality of the reform process. Each speaker should be delegated one message and three associated talking points. Given those who were attending yesterday’s hearing, I was disappointed that representatives of the larger hospitality interests did not speak.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, there is good reason to be cautiously optimistic about the prospects of substantive liquor law reform. The governor has indicated his preferences and a majority of the commissioners, who have been appointed during his first term, believe it wise to give fair voice and consideration to his intentions. If indeed any reform package that serves positively the interests of the hospitality and tourism industries will pass the muster of a recalcitrant legislature, pro-reform advocates will have to do a great deal more in preparing for what inevitably will be an extraordinarily contentious campaign.