At tonight’s liquor law reform hearing, Bobbie Coray, one of Utah’s five liquor control commissioners, suggested that there appears to be no compelling justification for sustaining the state’s long-standing private club memberships, despite an odd assortment of statements from a few small tavern owners and the usual array of representatives from MADD, family groups, and conservative grassroots conclaves.

As in the first hearing, most of those present and speaking called for abolishing the arcane membership requirement. In a well-articulated series of statements, the Utah Hospitality Association, the Utah Restaurant Association, Utah Hotel and Lodging Association, the broadly-based Utah Tourism Industry Coalition and Global Events Partners laid out the compelling message that eliminating club memberships will not only bolster the state’s reputation as an undisputed leader for tourism and hospitality but also will ensure that there will be no compromise on the state’s aggressive enforcement portfolio against alcohol-related problems.

The string of focused messages occasionally was interrupted by clumsy statements borne alternately out of fear-mongering tactics by teetotaling activists and egos smarting from a confused sense that small tavern owners’ voices have been ignored in previous encounters concerning the state’s perplexing liquor laws. Also missing was conclusive evidence suggesting that removing memberships would correlate with increased incidence of excessive consumption, DUI incidents, and underage drinking.

Interspersed among statements by the state’s largest hospitality interests were numerous comments by private citizens who testified that local residents would reap the economic impact and benefits as much as tourists would experience from a welcoming hospitality industry. Representatives of downtown establishments such as The Red Door and Kristauf’s Martini Bar provided solid testimony that in eliminating this unnecessary barrier no other laws would be impacted in terms of effective enforcement. Jill Christoffersen of Kristauf’s said the focus would be wisely shifted from wasting time and effort on “unnecessary verbiage” about “quirky laws” to more effective club management where “we can keep an eye on our customers and create the right type of hospitality and environment.”

On the other hand, there was the meandering — occasionally inappropriate — testimony of Jack Carlton, owner of 3 Alarm Saloon, a Midvale bar the scene of a June 13 shooting where three people suffered surprisingly just minor injuries at the hands of a gunman who apparently was denied entry because he refused to pay for a membership. The incident, according to Carlton, justified the need for memberships because owners can decide whom they want as their clientele.

How that would change in the absence of a membership requirement was left open to speculation. A handful of other small bar owners agreed with Carlton, seeing no inconveniences in requiring club memberships. Yet, not all small bar owners agreed on that point, including the owner of Chuckle’s Lounge, near the 900 South TRAX station, who said the restrictions served no purpose.

Perhaps unwittingly, these small bar owners may have provided the best evidence of why it’s well past time to do away with these troublesome membership requirements. As Lisa McGarry of the Utah Hospitality Association noted, a club employee working the door, busy trying to handle the bureaucratic explanations and paperwork of memberships with one customer, might miss the would-be patron who, for one reason or another, should not be admitted.

The question also was raised about how clubs would deal with losing a revenue stream generated by the membership fees, a potentially sizable sum as suggested by an Ogden bar owner who claims 12,000 members. Several bar owners — notably, Mark Livingston of Bogey’s, a private club in Clearfield — suggested that removing the membership barrier would spur solid increases in walk-in traffic as well as food sales.

And, Coray, clearly engaged with many of the speakers throughout the hearing, noted that, in the absence of membership fees, many clubs would establish cover charges (which some already do on top of the membership costs), and, therefore, nobody could complain that the charges were connected to the state’s “quirky laws.”

Finally, it was attorney Rick Golden who suggested that while those opposed to reform had respectable intentions, their concerns were “not very well taken” and were not focused on the real problems associated with alcohol abuse. Certainly, the “Chicken Little” approach offered nothing in terms of the sort of compelling justification Coray was looking for in keeping private club memberships.

The commissioners will likely make their recommendations to the governor later this summer.