by Wendy A. Ritch, M.A., M.T.S.
and Michael E. Begay, Ph.D.

Appendix A
Summaries of Key Industry Documents
Used in this Study

October 21, 1978: Memo, TI – "To: Jack Kelly, From: Mike Kerrigan, Subject: Report on Massachusetts Campaign/Independent Citizens for an Effective Government" [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #1005115395-5397] Independent Citizens for an Effective Govt is referred to as a "committee" and this report contains info on MA registration requirements and campaign finance laws which "require the reporting of any expenditures or contributions, whether of money or of services/materials, in opposition to/support of a referendum question." The TI with "concerned citizens of the Massachusetts Hotel and Restaurant industry" formed the ICEG, "a political committee, pursuant to the statute, which will fund the opposition to the referendum." Retained Ringe/Russo Associates, Inc., to assist with implementation of this plan, and retained Choate, Hall & Stewart [accountants] to keep the books and advise on state reporting rules cuz very complex ICEG will oppose Question 8 on the November ballot; chairman is "Stephen Elmont (a non-smoker), president of Soups On restaurant chain and the next (1979) president of the Massachusetts Restaurant Association." Treasurer and only one allowed to write checks is Dennis Dyer Sec’y of State deleted the words "in enclosed spaces" from the ballot before printing, so it’s now unclear whether outdoor smoking in public venues would also be prohibited. "The sponsors’ intention is for the referendum to lead to a ban or restriction on smoking indoors." The sponsors requested a recall of the ballots or that a correction notice be sent out but the AG refused. "The Committee and Ringe/Russo have noted these matters and our direct mail copy and telephone script will be designed accordingly." [was this an intentional set up for the referendum to fail?] CC: Dowdell, Greer, Grefe, Pepples, Stevens, Dyer (with enclosures)

March 29, 1984: Report, State Activities Division, The Tobacco Institute – "StateLine" [MRA: TI Docs; Doc #TIMS0020109-0110] State Headlines: "Good news in Boston. Full Council accepted Government Operations Cmte.’s unanimous "ought not to pass" recommendation on restaurant restriction measure"; "Massachusetts self-extinguishing bill (S1382) killed in Senate … on recommendation of Joint Public Safety Cmte." Smoking Restrictions: "Massachusetts meddling. Newton's special subcmte. met 3/28 to work on workplace draft for 4/6 Legislation Cmte. meeting. Reading restaurant ordinance on town meeting agenda 4/9. And Cambridge Ordinance Cmte. meets 4/5 for restaurant restriction review" State Sidebars: "Solid coalition building sunk Boston restaurant restriction ordinance. Government Operations Cmte. hearing attended by Chamber of Commerce, MA Restaurant Assn., Greater Boston Restaurant Assn., MA Hotel/Motel Assn., two-thirds of major Boston hotels as well as 30 of City’s major restaurants. President of Boston’s oldest restaurant experimented with voluntary "no smoking" sections … two month test yielded only two "no smoking" requests from 17,000 customers"

February 27, 1985: Memo – "Roger L. Mozingo, Tobacco Action Network, to State Activities Policy Committee, Re: MA Action Request" [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc #504984001-4005] For 10 years the MA legislature has considered Clean Indoor Air acts Legislation passed in 1975 regulating smoking in public elevators, super markets, museums, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, trains, airplanes, single-car public transportation, and the MBTA No further regs passed at state level to date, but $0.05 tax increase enacted in 1982 Tobacco regs passed out of Joint Health Care Committee but "because of their fiscal impact, they have been sent to House W & M, where they have failed to receive consideration … this has prompted anti-tobacco activists to decry the supposed ability of the industry to tie legislation up in committee." Election in 1984 produced changes in leadership for 1985 that will effect industry: new House speaker, formerly majority leader, "is generally responsive to our issues" but "those who supported him are generally not supportive of the tobacco industry or our perspectives on our issues"; new House W & M chairman Richard Voke [note: Voke sponsored diversion of Q1 funds to Healthy Kids starting FY 1994] is a former sponsor of anti-tob legis, so "this, combined with traditional ‘ought to pass’ report received by anti-tob legis in the JHCC suggests the likelihood of a floor vote in the House"; in Senate "there has been some erosion of leadership control" – Senate W & M, chaired by Patricia McGovern of Lawrence "will not be as sympathetic a group as in past years" but a new committee, Steering & Policy, through which all legis must pass prior to consideration "is likely to be more supportive."

February 27, 1985: Memo – continued (2) [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc #504984001-4005] Last week Senate voted 19-3 to ban smoking on Senate floor. "Historically, the industry has been successful by keeping tobacco issues off the floor. Legis leadership changes effected in 1985 may limit our ability to keep legis off the floor. A floor vote in either house would be, at best, a very narrow and difficult win for the industry." Plan of action will include: direct lobbying & legis support [great detail in doc]; "This office is currently engaged in an effort to develop the support of various business associations in Boston and the state. At present, the support of the MRA, MA Hotel and Motel Assoc., Greater Boston Hotel and Motor Inn Assoc., Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, and Springfield C of C has been secured. The help of other C of Cs, the Associated Industries of MA, and the labor community is being actively sought. The education of their members and direct lobbying of legislators is the aid we seek from these groups." Action requested: TAN activists should write (sample letters and lists of points are included in info given to TAN members) chairmen of JHCC, Speaker of House, Senate Pres; if legislation goes out of committee, write chairmen of House W & M; if legis goes to House floor, write House members, participate in petition drive & phone bank effort to encourage TAN members and members of the business community to oppose

February 27, 1985: Memo – continued (3) [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc #504984001-4005] the legis and distribute flyers to retail outlets throughout state; if legis goes to Senate, write members of S & P; if legis is approved for consideration by full Senate, write members of Senate W & M and other senators, and use activities mentioned above in House section; medical testimony, voter opinion survey, economic analysis also needed with first to be used at 3/13 hearing and latter two with legislative leaders, members of both W & M, and "key legislative allies"; if floor fight seems likely we will use a public relations program to include meetings with editorial boards of major newspapers and full effort with the Boston and other major market radio & TV talk and magazine-type shows Other action requested: contact subsidiaries, suppliers and advertisers that you use within MA to secure their early opposition to this legislation. "The efforts of such people would be immediately helpful with members of the JHCC and the legislative leadership. Later these contacts would be most helpful with the members of the Senate S & P committee." The actions requested herein do not require the participants to register as legislative agents/lobbyists Contact is Bill Canner for approval of requests & additional suggestions for actions [Note: Distribution list includes lots of lawyers and registered tobacco industry lobbyists (Chilcote, Coyne Sr & Jr, Dyer, etc.)]

January 16, 1986: Memo/Report – "To: Peter Sparber From: Susan Stuntz Subject: Corporate Contacts Re Workplace Smoking" [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2025853944-3975] Report from the "public smoking issues team" which consists of Susan Stuntz, Jeffrey Ross, and Lisa Osborne; covers contacts made between 6/1/85 and 1/8/86; contacts include over 1200 companies that attended seminars at which TI reps or consultants spoke, trade assns, chambers of commerce, state restaurant groups and the natn’l restaurant assn, unions, EEO professionals and corporate labor lawyers "You will recall that our workplace smoking program plan calls for some 120 corporate briefings and 35 group briefings on this issue by the end of 1986. We already have met more than 50% of our "group" goal." "Our work with chambers of commerce in a number of states. All chambers with whom we have met are supportive of and in agreement with our goals of ensuring that compliance with legislation be as accommodating as possible to smokers and nonsmokers. They have also volunteered to refer us to members seeking assistance." New Contacts: 165 reps of major companies, unions, and govt agencies requested copies of Lewis Solomon’s report "Smoking Policies in Large Corporations" – were sent a workplace kit and offered assistance in dealing with the issue; James Wholly, Cambridge, is BC law student writing article for law review, asked for info on workplace smoking legislation and restrictions, especially interested in studies on claimed health effects of ETS – sent appropriate materials including several legal backgrounders; MA Rest Assn; MA Hotel-Motel Assn; Greater Boston Hotel-Motel Assn Pending Contacts: none listed were in MA Completed Contacts: Stride Rite, Cambridge – Field Staff Contact: "Staff informed and advised against responding"; no further listings for MA

October 23, 1987: Report – "Executive Summary from The Tobacco Institute." [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc #506772572-2573] "A MA restaurant smoking restriction bill remains on the Senate’s third reading calendar. The legislation would require nonsmoking sections but would not mandate a specific size. TI staff and legislative counsel continues to work closely with the MRA to defeat this bill."

September 26, 1989: Report by Tobacco Institute – "Proactive Legislative Targets 1990. Proactive Proposal. MA Hiring Discrimination" [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc. #507616056-6057] Prohibit employers from using personal activities as considerations for hiring, firing, or promotion decisions Focus on labor not tobacco issues Focus on civil rights not tobacco issues Allies: ACLU, AFL-CIO, general labor groups, mobilized smokers "Lobbying support will be developed in a way that does not identify the industry as the primary sponsor of this legislation." "If this legislation develops to the point where industry involvement would appear natural, and our absence suspicious, then it may be reasonable to utilize the talents of our spokespersons in the state on this issue."

September 26, 1989: Report by Tobacco Institute – "Proactive Legislative Targets 1990. Proactive Proposal. MA Indoor Air Quality" [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc. #507616058-6060] Establish state-wide IAQ standards for workplaces and potentially preempt anticipated local action on this issue Labor issue sponsored by AFL-CIO, SEIU, Sheet metal Workers "As with most types of positive legislation introduced in the Northeast, identification of the tobacco industry as the primary sponsor would be of no value to the effort … our role would be supportive but not overt." "Overt tobacco contact with this legislation may not be supportive of the ultimate goal … the industry’s lobbying support will be conducted in a very targeted format to reduce the potential for industry exposure on this issue."

September 26, 1989: Report by Tobacco Institute – "Proactive Legislative Targets 1990. Proactive Proposal. MA Sampling Preemption" [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc. #507616061-6062] Bill to codify current sampling practices and prohibit local municipal bans – preempts currently enacted local bans Chances of enactment slim (narrowly defeated in 1987) but will help to "dissipate their capacity to attack us" by "putting anti-tobacco forces into an unaccustomed defensive posture." Legislative focus on preemption with the stress on meeting the "preemption requirements of federal law." Allies: "likely few" but maybe state’s wholesalers, retailers, and Cs of C, possibly labor via lobbying (not grassroots) Will need access to PM, RJR, UST and wholesaler legislative counsel for periodic meetings "to coordinate statehouse activities" Bring in the Helping Youth Decide program to legislators to develop their support for sampling legislation

September 26, 1989: Report by Tobacco Institute – "Proactive Legislative Targets 1990. Proactive Proposal. MA Local Restaurant Restriction Rollback" [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc. #507616063-6064] Reduce stringent local ordinances (Somerville, Malden, Braintree) to level of state’s statute requirements Additional cities may be included pending these outcomes Approached members of restaurant community to "urge passage of new local ordinances in conformity with the state statute" Must develop fact sheets to respond to local variations, especially detailing "the impact of stricter regulations on the restaurants in question and the employees of the establishments" "In reality, most of these laws have been in place for a number of years and there has been little impact and no legal ramifications" MRA, local restaurant owners/managers, local Cs of C "will lead this effort … the function of the Institute will be limited to resources and organizational activities" Regarding TI grassroots mobilization, company resources, and public relations: "direct tobacco contact with this effort would have a negative impact on its ultimate outcome"

Undated: Publication, Waltham/West Suburban Chamber of Commerce and the MRA – "Workplace Smoking Guide for Waltham Area Employers" [MRA: TI Docs; Doc #TICT0015401-5419] Introduction: W/W Sub C of C and MRA produced this publication "in a cooperative effort with the Waltham City Council"; "businesses are encouraged to develop and implement workable smoking policies that meet the needs of employers and employees alike. A well-considered response is good sense and good business." Almost impossible to read anything that is not headline-sized text but contains the following sections: I. Introduction; II. Some Practical Guidelines to Help You Accommodate Smokers and Nonsmokers in the Workplace; III. Drafting a Smoking Policy; IV. Survey Your Employees; V. Sample Employee Survey; VI. Evaluating the Employee Survey; VII. Implementing Your Policy; VIII. Sample Policies (#1 is lame with most responsibility on nonsmokers to move desk, try to resolve issues interpersonally, etc; #2 is a bit more strict with more employer regulation); IX. Establishing Restaurant Smoking and Nonsmoking Areas; X. Maintaining a Quality Indoor Air Environment; XI. Ventilation Maintenance Guidelines; XII. About Air Cleaners; XIII. A Final Note; XIV. Reply Card and Request for More Information

October 1990: Revised Report by the State Activities Division of the Tobacco Institute – "1991 Preliminary State Legislative Forecast For Consideration of Major Tobacco Issues" [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc. #512564768-5124] 1991 Legislative Analysis Massachusetts: "The state of Massachusetts is suffering from the reversal of the "Massachusetts Miracle," and is likely to continue the economic downturn that began in 1988. The economic conditions will severely strain the state’s ability to generate the funds necessary to pay for the functions of government as approved in the fiscal 1990 budget. There have already been several budget reductions this year, but the revenue collections are lagging far behind projections. This will come at a time when the need for the government to intervene to protect those people in jeopardy because the recession will be at its highest. The state will be required to either uniformly cut the entire budget, eliminate certain programs, accelerate certain tax collections, or impose tax increases. Since the state already has one of the highest tax structures in the country, it is reasonable to assume that the legislature and the governor will have to look to consumption taxes to fund the deficit. Cigarette taxes may be in the most jeopardy because of our successful defeat (deferral?) of proposed increases during the past eight years while all other taxes increased. … If Question 3 [tax reduction initiative on Nov. ballot] is defeated the potential for additional taxes, especially consumption taxes is almost assured. …[governor’s race:] the Republican ticket is less likely to be interested in talking to the industry than the Democratic ticket … a Silber governorship is more likely to be receptive to the industry arguments than a Republican. … Because of the recession and the possibility of new tax increases, it is also reasonable to assume that the legislature and the governor will be looking for minimal cost legislation that looks progressive. This could prove to be a problem for the tobacco industry. This will be especially true if the EPA report is particularly damaging. … The political and economic situation is extremely volatile. The industry needs to move cautiously. Its agenda needs to be very clearly developed with coordinated effort with the legislature and administration. We will be holding additional meetings after the election to finalize our strategy."

October 1990: Revised Report – continued (2) [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc. #512564768-5124] State Tax Plan Massachusetts: [more on the state’s fiscal mess, the gubernatorial race, and likelihood of a cigarette tax] "Tax increases continue to be an anathema but appear to be necessary if the state is going to avoid having its bonds rated lower than Kuwait’s." The MA program must "(1) enhance alliances with business organizations, (2) increase organized labor contacts, (3) utilize member company grassroots programs when appropriate, (4) continue to build a team effort with member company lobbyists and allied member lobbyists, (5) encompass a local media relations program to establish credible working relations with print and electronic media, (6) prepare for potential opportunities that would allow us to reach an accommodation at a minimal tax rate early in the process, rather than be forced to accept a significant increase later in the process." [section on resources needed and date needed, including economic analysis/factsheet by 1/30/91, expert witnesses by 1/30/91, coalition allies on an on-going basis, TI grassroots mobilization educational by 4th qtr 1990 and action by 1st qtr 1991, company resources on-going, public affairs/media resources by 1/1/91, and additional needs by 1/1/91] Coalition Allies: The industry lacks credibility in MA but our representatives do not. "Our carefully built coalitions are, therefore, critical and must be tended. The groups which are helpful are: MA Food [Restaurant?] Association, MA Automatic Merchandising Council, NE Convenience Store Association, NE Association of Tobacco & Candy Distributors, MA State Federation AFL-CIO, Citizens for Limited Taxation, and NE Coin Machine Industry Council. The specific involvement of these groups varies at any given time but can include direct lobbying, public testimony, phone banking, and mailing campaigns. The access to these groups needs to be controlled and critically timed. We need to avoid overuse and multiple messages."

October 1990: Revised Report – continued (3) [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc. #512564768-5124] Pro-Active Proposal, Hiring Discrimination Massachusetts: plan to counter possible hiring discrimination against smokers in private workplaces; labor not a tobacco issue with the industry playing a supportive role in the development and passage of this legislation. "This legislation may be drafted as a section of a more comprehensive piece of workplace smoking legislation." Includes resources needed and date needed [eco analysis/factsheet by 11/1/90, legal memo by 10/17/90, expert witnesses by 4th qtr 1990, coalition allies by 4th qtr 1990, TI grassroots mobilization by 1st qtr 1991, company resources by 4th qtr 1990, public affairs/media resources by 4th qtr 1990, additional needs tba] Coalition Allies: State Federation AFL-CIO and other labor groups; develop support of ACLU and other activists with help from Covington & Burling; "business support through the Associated Industries of Massachusetts may be possible, but will not be counted on for the purpose of this plan." Company Resources: "Access to member company lobbyists to meet with the TI lobbyist to coordinate the industry’s support for the efforts of organized labor and other groups. This lobbying support will be developed in a way that does not identify the industry as the primary sponsor of this legislation."

October 1990: Revised Report – continued (4) [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc. #512564768-5124] Pro-Active Proposal, Indoor Air Quality Massachusetts: plan to establish state-wide IAQ standards for workplaces and pre-empt anticipated local action; "as with most types of positive legislation introduced in the Northeast, identification of the tobacco industry as the primary sponsor would be of no value to the effort." Includes resources needed and dates needed [eco analysis/factsheet by 10/17/90, legal memo by 10/1/90, expert witnesses by 4th qtr 1990, coalition allies by 4th qtr 1990, TI grassroots mobilization by 1st qtr 1991, company resources by 4th qtr 1990, public affairs/media resources by 4th qtr 1990, additional needs by 4th qtr 1990] Company Resources: "Access to member company lobbyists to meet with the TI lobbyist to coordinate the industry’s support for the efforts of labor and other allied groups. The industry’s lobbying support will be conducted in a very targeted format that reduces the potential for industry exposure on this issue." Coalition Allies: entirely sponsored by AFL-CIO; develop support of other unions including SEIU, Sheetmetal Workers and BC&T. "The support of the business community would be ideal, but difficult to develop. AT the very least, there is a need to neutralize the largest organizations representing the business community. Help from the resident tobacco industry could be helpful but of limited impact because of its size and political experience."

October 1990: Revised Report – continued (5) [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc. #512564768-5124] Pro-Active Proposal, Minors Massachusetts: plan to introduce into eleven selected communities "reasonable regulations of sales and sampling" to minors to "pre-empt more drastic measures"; with local chambers of commerce as sponsors (towns selected based on the "good relations" the industry has with those Cs of C). Will mean passage of reasonable regulations, and will "divert anti-smokers efforts elsewhere." Includes resources needed and dates needed [eco analysis/factsheet by 12/1/90, legal memo on-going, expert witnesses as needed, coalition allies now, no TI grassroots mobilization, company resources as needed, no public affairs/media resources (although "it may be helpful to have the Institute’s public affairs organization assist the local business people to develop and coordinate a media campaign"), additional needs tba] Coalition Allies: "The chambers of commerce will be the critical and primary players in this effort." TI Grassroots Mobilization: "Direct tobacco contact with this effort would have a negative impact on its outcome. The impetus should be seen as chamber driven."

October 1990: Revised Report – continued (6) [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc. #512564768-5124] Pro-Active Proposal, Restaurant Restriction Rollback, Massachusetts: plan to "reduce stringent local ordinances to level of state’s statute’s requirements" with the MA Restaurant Association as the primary sponsor and with local sponsors; start with Somerville, Malden, and Braintree, which have stricter than state-level mandates and have smaller restaurants (state says only that smoking/nonsmoking areas be established in restaurants seating 75 or more patrons); may expand to include other cities pending the outcome of efforts in these three; has the benefit of making anti-tobacco forces "expend time and energy to defend against the new ordinances," even though actual passage of such ordinances is "unlikely." Includes resources needed and date needed [eco analysis/factsheet by 12/1/90, no legal memo needed, expert witnesses by 12/31/90, coalition allies by 4th qtr 1990, TI grassroots mobilization by 1st qtr 1991, company resources by 1st qtr 1991, public affairs/media resources by 2nd qtr 1991, additional needs tba] Coalition Allies: "The Massachusetts Restaurant Association and local restaurant owners/managers, possibly supported by the local chamber of commerce, will lead this effort. The function of the Institute will be limited to resources and organizational activities." TI Grassroots Mobilization: "It will be necessary to motivate a variety of consumer and business groups during the course of this effort. However, the industry’s resources will only be used to mobilize members of the restaurant community and assist local restauranteurs to motivate their customers. Direct tobacco contact with this effort would have a negative impact on its ultimate outcome." Company Resources: "It may be beneficial to have access to the companies’ smoker mailing lists to develop letters and calls to local officials. However, direct contact with these individuals should be through local restauranteurs or chambers of commerce and not the cigarette manufacturers." Public Affairs/Media Resources: "IT may be helpful to have the Institute’s public affairs organization assist the local business people and coordinate a media campaign."

December 1990: Report – "Questions and Answers on "It’s the Law" Campaign" [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2054322723-2726] A series of questions and answers for the "It’s the Law" campaign Materials distributed via co-sponsors to retailers in all 39 states where minimum age to purchase cigarettes is 18 or 19 years of age; info brochures, stickers, a "stop" sign, and tips for retailers to train employees in how to comply with the law and this program Includes the following co-sponsors: MA Food Assn, MA Restaurant Assn, MA Candy & Tobacco Distributors

October 1, 1991: List – "State Co-sponsors/Participants as of 10/1/91" [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2025727042-7044] Don’t know what these orgs are co-sponsors of or participants in, but list includes approx. 130 orgs New England Assn of Chamber of Commerce Executives (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT) New England Assn of Tobacco & Candy Distributors (same states) New England Convenience Store Assn (same states) Coin Machine Industries of New England (same states) South Shore Chamber of Commerce (MA) MA Restaurant Assn MA Food Assn MA Candy & Tobacco Distributors

January 1992: Report – "Local Plan for BOH Hearing-City of Marlborough, MA" [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc. #515198794-8796] Marlborough B of H considering ban on couponing, ban on self-service sales, 18 year minimum age requirement for sellers, vending machine restriction, ban advertising on transportation vehicles Doc lists local data, issues, coordinators of various activities for the Industry, strategy, key dates, action steps/resources/timetable, resources needed/date needed, comments Strategy: "Defeat ordinance by retailer group meetings with individual calls to council members, the mayor and finally BOH members in advance of the hearing on 1/13/92." Arrange Witnesses/Community Hearing Attendance: Resources-Susan Mitchell; local retailers, RJR partisans, vending rep., Mass. Rest. Assoc.; Timetable-1/7/92-1/13/92 Supplemental Information/Comments: "I have spoken with Don D’Errico from TI. HE suggests, when telephone calls are being conducted, we urge the local retailers/smokers to call their city council members prior to the 1/13/92 hearing. The members should be informed of the negative effect these regulations will have on business in the city, and be urged to oppose these regulations. I have also called and left a message for Cathy Flaherty, NECSA; Cindy Ede, Mass. Rest., and Tom Fitzen, RJR Sales."

June 18, 1992: Memo – "To Don D’Errico, Tobacco Institute, from Kathy Getz, Account Manager, re: Massachusetts Restaurant Membership Directory 1993" [MRA: TI Docs; Doc #TIMN206573] The MRA membership directory is distributed to members and allied members, which constitute "75% of the buying power in the restaurant industry throughout the state of Massachusetts … our purpose is to offer a vast array of suppliers to this buying power." First come, first served, so hurry Marginalia: "Due to the prime advertising space that you had last year, it is necessary to reserve asap to be guaranteed the same space for the 1993 issue."

July 14, 1992: Memo – "To Carol Hrycaj from Susie Gilligan, subject: Follow up to Upcoming Ads" [MRA: TI Docs; Doc #TIMN0163758] Summary of upcoming ads in New England Gilligan doing ads for NH Grocers and NE Convenience Stores, Hrycaj doing ad for VT Grocers Not doing the ad for the MRA membership directory, but when Gilligan called Cathy Getz to let her know, she "said that since the book doesn’t come out until sometime in December, they would bill us at the end of December for payment in January. Does this change anything? Please let me know." Cc: Don D’Errico

May 1993: Article, Yankee Food Service – "New England Operators Assess the Impact of Proposed Smoking Bans at State Level" [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2021204022-4024] [doc better if viewed online – printed copy very hard to read] Basically about how New England states are considering smoking bans, and how many restaurant/food service assns are fighting state and local restaurant smoking bans while seeming to be amenable to federal legislation so businesses don’t lose revenue due to cross-border sales. The party line is that restaurant owners know how to best accommodate their customers, and it should be up to them how to best provide for the comfort of smokers and nonsmokers alike. Cindy Eid [MRA’s legislative affairs director] says "In light of the EPA report (detailing the impact of secondhand smoke in the workplace) I think eventually what will happen is that OSHA will determine that smoking is a hazard to people’s health and ban it from the workplace – and a restaurant is a workplace." "Ms. Eid says that if a national smoking ban of some type is implemented, the action would level the playing field and restaurant business would not decrease much. ‘But it’s our feeling that if it’s done at the local or state level, it puts our members at a disadvantage.’" Until then, it should be left up to individual business owners to "implement whatever standards are necessary to attract the type of customer he wants." The NRA has tracked state activity but does "not tell states how to lobby or what position to take." It should be left up to the individual operators until legislation reaches federal level, at which point the NRA will become involved. Kathy Sweeten, president of VT Lodging & Restaurant Assn, says "while it has been difficult to gauge whether smoking bans are hurting or helping business, there have been vocal opponents of the smoking ban among VLRA’s membership."

August 1993: Article, Yankee Food Service – "Restauranteurs Confront the Smoking Issue with Philip Morris’ Accommodation Program" [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2021204015] [doc unreadable in printed form; read online] In response to the EPA’s report on secondhand smoke that was released in January, some New England restaurants are going smoke-free to assuage liability concerns, and some towns are considering smoking bans in public places Philip Morris introduced a non-profit accommodation program in response to restauranteurs concerns about smoke – a free packet including signage to clearly demarcate smoking and nonsmoking sections, information on HVAC upgrades to provide cleaner air in these establishments, and an "800" number staffed by HVAC engineers, among other resources to prevent restaurants from going smoke-free PM party line is that restaurant owners know what their customers need and want, and they should be free to accommodate all of their customers as best they can – feedback from restaurant owners that have been using the program has been very positive

September 23, 1993: List – "State Co-Sponsors/Participants as of 9/23/93" [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2023389716-9720] Don’t know what these orgs are co-sponsors of or participants in, but list includes approx. 120 orgs New England Assn of Chamber of Commerce Executives (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT) New England Convenience Store Assn (same states) Coin Machine Industries of New England (same states) South Shore Chamber of Commerce (MA) MA Restaurant Assn MA Food Assn MA Candy & Tobacco Distributors

December 1993: Report Draft – "Massachusetts Restaurant Association Executive Summary S. 458" [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2046114198-4202] [another incarnation of doc #2046114219-4222 with some additions of text] MRA Q&A: "is it true that you are being used as a front group for the tobacco industry" has added at end of answer "Backup Answer: No. The MRA is not a "front group" for the industry; Philip Morris is a dues paying Associate Member, but MRA has a membership of 2,500 businesses"; "is your whole effort being bankrolled by the tobacco industry" has added at end of answer "Backup Answer: As I indicated, Philip Morris is only one of 2,500 dues paying members, this is an effort supported by business in Massachusetts"; question about the MRA resisting previous restaurant restriction bills is gone from this version PM/RJR/TI Statement on Accommodation, Uniformity of Laws and the MRA: added to end of statement is "Backup Answer: Philip Morris is a dues paying Associate member to the MRA, an organization that has 2,500 members across Massachusetts"

December 1993: Report Draft – "Massachusetts Restaurant Association Executive Summary S. 458" [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2046114213-4216] [read with final copy, next slide, Doc #2046114219-4222] Some basic grammatical edits, and marginalia MRA Q&A: "is it true that you are being used as a front group for the tobacco industry" – marginalia says "what’s the relationship"; "is your whole effort being bankrolled by the tobacco industry" – marginalia says "in part? any financial support? where else is it coming from?"; "why did you work to defeat previous smoking restriction bills which called for separate sections in restaurants" – marginalia says "reference the difference in previous legislation" and "Q. was eliminated by J.P." PM/RJR/TI Statement on Accommodation, Uniformity of Laws and the MRA: at the bottom of the statement the marginalia says "(We need a standby response addressing any relationship we have w/the association)" [Doc #2046114208-4211 is another copy of the same stuff]

December 1993: Report – "Massachusetts Restaurant Association Executive Summary S.458" [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2046114219-4222] Executive Summary: the MRA supports S.458, a "unified statewide smoking bill that allows restaurant owners the freedom to determine their own smoking policies that accommodate all of their customers and does not handicap some restaurants and give advantage to others"; "local smoking bans cost restaurants customers and revenue needed to survive in today’s competitive marketplace"; "S.458 will provide working guidelines for restaurant owners to create smoking and nonsmoking areas, addressing and protecting the rights of all potential customers"; "we believe S.458 strikes a reasonable balance between the concerns of our customers and the business concerns of our members" MRA Q&A: does not answer the question asking "are you being used as a front group for the tobacco industry" redirects focus to S.458; "is your whole effort being bankrolled by the tobacco industry? => no but we certainly would encourage and appreciate any support the tobacco industry or anybody else for that matter can provide to help us get this legislation passed"; against statewide smoking ban and, regarding separate section smoking restriction bills, "we are opposed to any kind of mandates" MRA Statement on S.458 and the Tobacco Industry: MRA initiating this legislation cuz members faced with real economic and competitive issues; members afraid they will lose customers cuz of local smoking bans; "We need a uniform statewide standard that is fair to all restaurant owners and does not permit local governments to handicap some businesses while giving an advantage to others."; not about smoking, about "preserving our members’ freedom to make their own policy decisions. If we lose the right to determine our own smoking policies, what’s next? We would encourage and appreciate any support the tobacco industry or anybody else can provide to help us get this legislation passed." PM/RJR/TI Statement on Accommodation, Uniformity of Laws and the MRA: support S.458 cuz restaurant owners, not localities, should determine smoking policies; we understand why the MRA would support this bill; we "recognize the danger of government intervention and understand the competitive issues they are faced with"; "S.458 sounds like common sense legislation that will simplify and unify state law while giving back policy making power to the private sector by preserving the restaurant owners freedom to accommodate both smokers and non-smokers in their establishments"

December 10, 1993: Press Release, ACS – "National Expert Slams Massachusetts Restaurant Assn. for Misrepresenting the Economic Impact of Smoking Bans and for Fronting for the Tobacco Industry" [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2046114189B-4190] Stan Glantz sent letter to Se. Lucile Hicks (R-Wayland) reporting his study results that found no loss of business was caused by smoke-free restaurant laws Hicks requested info cuz MRA and tobacco industry are "strongly pushing for an amendment offered by Senator Robert Travaglini (D-Boston) which would preempt local cities and towns from restricting smoking in restaurants" Written opposition to the amendment has been sent to the Senate from Glantz, ACS, ALA, MA Municipal Assn, and Tom Larsen (owner of Pillar House) Glantz studied restaurant sales from 1985-1992 in 13 CA and CO communities that prohibited restaurant smoking and compared them to 13 similar communities without the prohibition – "none of the areas surveyed had suffered adverse economic effects, even as long as seven years after passing the law" Glantz also alleged restaurant owners are fronting for tobacco industry and the six major cigarette manufacturers paid almost 100% of costs of ballot initiative to challenge LA’s smoking ban "Dr. Blake Cady pledged a ‘major effort to fight off the tobacco lobby’s efforts, under the cover of the Mass. Restaurant Association, to endanger the health of the people of Massachusetts by stripping away from local communities the right to act to protect their citizens – including children – from exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke." Marginalia: "Do we have anything in our arsenal to combat Glantz study? initials 12-28" and "Travaglini amendment re smoking file ok initials 12/16/93"

March 26, 1994: Boston Globe, by John Kennedy – "Smoke Ring Tightens Eateries, Bars, Hotels Hardest Hit [MRA: TI Docs; Doc #TIMN0055880] About a proposal by the U.S. Labor Department (which regulates workers, not customers) to give owners the choice of either banning smoking outright in their establishments, or setting up separately ventilated areas in which employees can smoke Roger Berkowitz, president of Legal Seafoods, said he and other restauranteurs approve of the measure, which he said would provide a level playing field cuz "it’s the patchwork that’s creating the problems" Cynthia Eid, director of gov’t affairs for the MRA, said "it hurts restaurants to be turning away these people, because they are really just in the business of trying to accommodate patrons" "For that reason, many restauranteurs will welcome a national smoking ban, if only because it will be uniform from town to town, city to city, state to state." Dick Daynard said, "the idea is not to ban it, the idea is to make sure that adverse affects don’t go spilling over to people who don’t want to be part of it. That isn’t Victorianism, that’s politeness, decency, whatever."

April 22, 1994: RJR Nabisco Interoffice Memorandum – "To Charles M. Harper, from M.B. Oglesby, Jr., Re: Biweekly Status Report" [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc. #512703807-3810] Smoking Restrictions/ETS: The Salem B of H is considering a proposal to ban the sale of cigarettes in the city MA Joint Health Care Committee approved legislation that would ban smoking in all restaurants and bars. "The legislation, which the Massachusetts Restaurant Association apparently has taken no action to oppose, will be assigned to a Senate committee."

June 29, 1995: Middlesex News Article – "Smoking in Restaurants: A Compromise" by Peter Christie [MRA: PM Docs; Doc#2061878482] On Senate bill 508, supported by Christie and the MRA as a compromise solution because it: 1) calls for restaurants to have at least 60% of seating in nonsmoking sections and allow smoking in no more than 40% of seating, while any restaurant could go smoke-free if their owner ("not the state or local health agencies") chose to do so; and 2) requires that any changes to the statewide uniform law be made only by city councils or township supervisors "as opposed to local boards of health across the state." Legislature is also considering a bill that would "pre-empt local decision-making authority by imposing a complete ban on smoking in restaurants" and would "take away the right of restaurant owners to make decisions on how to best accommodate their customers," 25% of whom are smokers and should, therefore, be considered when setting a restaurant smoking policy National research on localities with total bans show an average of 38% loss of revenues, which "would be devastating to most restaurants in MA and would likely lead to layoffs or even closings" 17 states including MD currently have legislation similar to S.508 and are thriving "If we must have a law dealing with smoking in restaurants and bars, MRA prefers the uniform compromise. It is far more rational and accommodating than an outright ban, and most importantly, leaves the decision up to the restaurant owner based on the needs of their customers."

1996: MRA Press Release – "New Study Shows Restaurant Smoking Bans Cost Jobs in Massachusetts Communities" by Bruce Potter [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2061878376-8379] MRA commissioned a study, done by D.C.-based InContext Inc, of 23 MA cities & towns that passed smoking bans between 1993-95, and looked at the impact of the bans on restaurant jobs in each community Peter Christie, Exec. Pres of MRA: "severe" or 100% smoking bans in restaurants resulted in a "significant decline in restaurant jobs" that averaged 21% in communities with strict bans Christie called for officials that have or are considering adopting strict bans to look closely at the MRA study because it shows that "jobs are down dramatically in most of those municipalities that have enacted severe smoking bans" therefore "an increasing number of our members are facing the implications of smoking bans and as a result are drastically reducing their workforce or going out of business all together" Few examples: Brookline & Wakefield, both severe ban localities, had 22% and 57% decline in restaurant jobs respectively while Falmouth, with a less restrictive ban, only had a 9% loss William Lilley III, chairman of InContext and co-author of the study: "In cities that have enacted less restrictive smoking bans, jobs have remained virtually unchanged or improved somewhat during the same study period"

1996: MRA Report – "Congressional Study Casts Doubt on Smoking Ban" [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2061878454] Local BoH in MA have used the EPA report linking ETS with lung cancer as a justification for stringent smoking regulations, "causing considerable harm to many local restaurants that are suffering from steep declines in business" New study by the Congressional Research Service ("an independent research arm of Congress") concluded that the "EPA study was seriously flawed and misleading" Sen. Wendell Ford (D-Ky) asked OSHA to reopen hearings on proposed smoking bans because the "report from CRS – a nonpartisan and objective organization – shows there is absolutely no scientific justification for smoking bans" CRS Report: "the statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking" and that "it is possible that very few or even no deaths can be attributed to ETS" "What it boils down to, minus the scientific jargon, is that the EPA has been taking the public for a ride." The EPA found no "statistically significant link between ETS and lung cancer" so it "lowered its standards for statistical significance in order to reach the government’s desired conclusion" Local officials in MA have used the flawed study to implement severe smoking restrictions or bans, so people drive to neighboring communities to "avoid unreasonable restrictions"

1996: MRA Press Release – "Congressional Research Service Study Casts Doubt on Local Board of Health Smoking Bans" [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2061878456] [Note: between header and title it says "CRS news release sent to 175 papers; also used for radio talk show pitch"] The CRS study, entitled "Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Risk" examined the same 30 studies that the EPA used in its report, but drew totally different conclusions: "the statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking"; "it is possible that very few or even no deaths can be attributed to ETS"; "it is clear that misclassification and recall bias plague ETS epidemiology studies" If lung cancer deaths do occur from exposure to ETS, they likely occur among nonsmokers who are subjected to "significant spousal ETS" The EPA found no statistically significant link between ETS and lung cancer when they analyzed the same 30 studies, so it "lowered its standards for statistical significance in order to establish a link" The CRS study "casts a dark shadow on the smoking ban policies being considered by local town officials" while the policy of accommodation "is supported not only by restaurant owners, but by the majority of all Americans according to a 1994 CNN/Newsday survey

1996: Press Release – "Cambridge Passes Smoking Accommodation in Restaurants", Contact: Peter Christie [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2061878481] Released day after the Cambridge City Council approved "a comprehensive public smoking ordinance which is being hailed as a model for smoking-related legislation throughout the Commonwealth." [hailed by whom, besides tobacco industry folks?] Helena G. Rees, director of public affairs for the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, which proposed the ordinance, said "we’re delighted with the vote. The ordinance is workable for all sides of the issue, it places regulations on smoking in restaurants and still protects the economic interest of the community. Restaurants will be able to serve all segments of their customers adequately." Peter Christie, exec vp of the MRA, "praised the City Council for its action. ‘Cambridge has taken a leadership role in maintaining the economic viability of its restaurant industry.’" "Unlike other towns, such as Northampton, Brookline and Sharon … Cambridge … took a more responsible approach in a reasonable public accommodation law. The ordinance does not require any restaurant to retrofit the premises with new ventilation systems, thus minimizing the economic impact on the local business. The legislation acknowledges Cambridge’s reputation as an ‘international city hosting foreign dignitaries, business people and other visitors from countries where smoking is more prevalent.’ Accordingly, the City Council recognized that courtesy and hospitality should not be compromised in the implementation and enforcement of this ordinance and therefore they reached a solution which accommodates all sides."

January 26, 1996: Daily Evening Item (Lynn) – "Study Casts Doubt on Smoking Ban" by Peter Christie [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2061878457] Due to EPA’s ETS report, MA Boards of Health in recent years have been "imposing stringent smoking regulations, causing considerable harm to many local restaurants that are suffering from steep declines in business" The Congressional Research Service calls the EPA study seriously flawed and misleading, and the CRS report "shows there is absolutely no scientific justification for bans" because "the statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking" and "very few or even no deaths can be attributed to ETS" "The EPA, which makes no secret of its anti-smoking agenda, wanted to provide government regulators with the greatest possible justification for lowering the boom on smokers" After finding no significant statistically significant link between ETS and lung cancer, the EPA lowered its standard for statistical significance in order to reach the government’s desired conclusion" The MRA fields calls from restauranteurs in communities with bans who report a 40% loss of revenues, and others are closing; some communities are "fighting back" by overturning BoH regulations in favor of "a sensible system of smoking and nonsmoking sections in restaurants and other public places" with such regs making particular sense in light of the CRS report, and is supported by a majority of Americans according to a 1994 CNN/Newsday survey "The CRS report should pave the way for sensible policies based on scientific evidence rather than political agendas and media hyperbole"

January 28, 1996: Middlesex News – "Is EPA Exaggerating Dangers of Second-Hand Smoke?" by Peter Christie and Edward Sweda Jr [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2061878459] Peter Christie: "New Report Show’s Agency’s Study was Flawed, Misleading" – virtually identical to doc#2061878457, just published in a different media outlet; some small differences of language exist, but both articles communicate the same information and state the same "facts" Edward Sweda: "Selected Passages from CRS Study are being Manipulated" – response to William Rusher’s 1/12/96 column "lambasting the ‘health fascists of the anti-smoking brigade’" Sweda says that the "pro-tobacco apologists" are trying to "deflect public awareness away from the central issue regarding secondhand smoke: should nonsmokers, adults and children, be forced against their will to breathe the poisons contained in secondhand tobacco smoke?" Sweda then makes a point-by-point analysis of Rusher’s comments, quoting pages from the CRS study that contradict what Rusher et al are saying that the CRS study says – for example, " on page 2 of the CRS study, the authors note that, based on data from a major study published after the EPA report, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) will ‘result in a range of 470 to 5500 annual lung cancer deaths in the US from ETS with a mean value of 2760. This compared to a mean value of 3300 calculated by EPA.’ In other words, there is disagreement about precisely how many non-smokers will develop lung cancer each year from ETS but agreement that exposure to ETS does cause lung cancer in non-smokers." ; and "The CRS recognizes, on page 6, that the ‘EPA report received wide-spread support from the public health community and from the larger scientific community. But it has been criticized by tobacco industry researchers and scientific consultants.’" but Rusher et al ignore these and later studies that link ETS exposure to lung cancer in "otherwise healthy non-smokers" as well as a link to a host of other health problems Sweda: "Keep in mind that some of the choice ingredients of ETS are phenol (a toilet bowl disinfectant); nicotine (an insecticide); carbon monoxide (car exhaust); benzene (a known human carcinogen); and formaldehyde (embalming fluid). It is no surprise that more and more businesses and public places are going smoke-free, thereby ending the practice of subjecting non-smokers to these poisons. That trend will continue despite the efforts of the tobacco industry and its apologists – including William Rusher – to confuse the public about how deadly secondhand tobacco smoke truly is."

February 27, 1996: Natick Tab – "Prohibition Proves Just a Smokescreen" by Peter Christie [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2061878458] Virtually identical to doc#2061878457, just published in a different media outlet; some small differences of language exist, but both articles communicate the same information and state the same "facts"

March 1, 1996: Memo – "Weekly Direct Report, To: Lance Pressl, From: Josh Slavitt, Date: 3/1/96" [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2045458609-8611] Review - Fiscal Issues (J. Dunham): "Met with Bill Lilley and Sharon Portnoy to develop a methodology for determining the economic impact of restaurant smoking bans. Gave Lilley suggestions for completing New York City study. This study will incorporate multiple data sources to show the effect of the ban in all of the city’s boroughs. Started work on Massachusetts restaurant ban study. "InContext" [did the 1996 MRA study of impact of smoking bans on MA restaurants] is mentioned throughout this doc as producing a number of different "economic impact" studies for PM in various states

March 8, 1996: Memo – "Weekly Direct Report to Howard Liebengood from Press/Issues Team" [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2046946028-6030] Review - Fiscal Issues (J. Dunham): "Continued to work with Bill Lilly on study showing economic impact of restaurant smoking bans. Met with Bill Lilly and Matt Paluszek to discuss similar study for Massachusetts." [also talk of job impact studies being conducted and distributed, but no direct reference to MA] "Conducted research for state excise tax battles in Alabama, New Hampshire and Massachusetts." Activity – Fiscal Issues: conference call scheduled for next Thursday with Matt Paluszek, Mass. Restaurant Assn, and Bill Lilly

June 20, 1996: Letter, U.S. Senate, Washington DC – "Roger Fiske, Staff Assistant, to Mr. Bruce Potter, MRA" [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2061878462] Diane Haas contacted Roger Fisk by phone to ask about the role of the Congressional Research Service, and Fisk wrote this letter as a follow-up to that conversation "The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a non-partisan research component of the United States Congress. It responds to inquiries from Congressional offices by providing statistical and historical research for the policy objectives of legislators. It is an independent branch of the legislature, with very strict rules about its non-partisan conduct and role. It responds to no exterior organizations or requests, and is accountable to the Government Oversight Committee. In this office, we use CRS for demographic snapshots, like tracking income trends over many years, or rates of employment and wage growth. I hope this is of assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact this office in the future."

October 24, 1996: PR from Natnl Licensed Beverage Assn – "Restaurant and Bar Managers Say Federal Smoking Ban Would Hurt Business, Force Layoffs" [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2061848136-8139] NLRA study released today of restaurant and bar owners/managers on expected impact of national workplace smoking ban. Study conducted by Roper Starch Worldwide, a polling firm, and results released in Washington D.C. "An unrestricted research grant from Philip Morris made it possible." Study respondents predicted there would be "major economic losses if a pending national workplace smoking ban is implemented by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) According to Debra Leach, exec dir of NLBA, "Under OSHA’s proposed Indoor Air Quality regulation, no one could smoke where they work, work where they smoke, or work where anyone else is smoking … the result would be a smoking ban for the hospitality industry. The majority of owners and managers of establishments that permit smoking or have smoking sections believe that this regulation will result in smoking customers patronizing their establishments less often and spending less money while they are there. … they also feel strongly that non-smoking customers would not come more often because of the proposed smoking ban, nor would the people who do come spend more money in their establishments. Bar and restaurant owners don’t like OSHA’s plan." NLBA President Jim Simpson said "A handful of anti-smoking activists are pressuring OSHA to issue far more sweeping regulations than are justified by science or our national ethic of promoting diversity and choice." Dr. Steve Barsby of Molalla OR analyzed Roper results in terms of actual sales and job losses. He estimated $3B loss of sales for restaurants, $1.6B for bars and taverns, and 138000 jobs will be eliminated. Associated industries will also feeling the impact of the losses, along with landlords that rent and govts that tax based on sales. [Note: this is an opinion poll, not a study of the actual impact of smoking bans on the hospitality industry. It uses the existing fears of rest/bar owners/managers and posits that these fears will become a reality - a self-fulfilling prophecy at best, and a totally baseless and useless pack of crap at worst. The MRA argued against OSHA and a national ban at this time; presently they are saying, instead of enacting all these local ords, let OSHA make its decree and we’ll abide by that cuz it’ll provide all restauranteurs/bar owners with a "level playing field." So which is it, eh?]

November 21, 1996: Report – "Weekly Report, Region I, Smoking" [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2061845631] Massachusetts – Falmouth: on 11/4 the BoH took a straw poll before their meeting which showed a 3-2 vote against smoking in restaurants. After the MRA presented info on the eco impact the vote at the end of the meeting was 4-1 to allow smoking in restaurants. The BoH chairman "was the only negative vote, and he resigned his position as a result of the vote." Massachusetts – Hopkinton: BoH passed a regulation on 11/19 banning self-service displays and phasing in a 100% restaurant smoking ban over 5 years

December 31, 1996: Publication – "It’s the Law We Do Not Sell Tobacco Products to Persons Under 18" [MRA: TI Docs; Doc #TIMN0384729-4730] Flyer produced by the TI and distributed to retailers for employees explaining the law, how to ask for ID, what to do if customer protests, etc; includes order form for materials (point of purchase signs and buttons) specific to each retailer’s particular state Cooperating Organizations: Coin Machine Industries of NE, MA Candy & Tobacco Distributors, MA Food Assn., MA Restaurant Assn., NE Convenience Stores Assn., NE Assn. Chambers of Commerce, NE Assn. Tobacco & Candy, South Shore Chamber of Commerce

1997: MA Op-Ed – "Restaurant Group Backs Uniform Legislative Solution for Non-Smoking and Smoking Clientele" by Peter Christie [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2061878381] The state’s current patchwork of laws regarding smoking in bars and restaurants is not working, and a total ban won’t work either because smokers make up 25% of restaurant patrons, and the restauranteurs can not afford to lose "any major portion of their customer base" Senate Bill No. 508 is endorsed by the MRA because it provides a good compromise: restaurant owners would have to establish non-smoking sections of at least 60% and smoking in no more than 40%, with any restaurant allowed to go smoke-free if the owner (not the BoH) chooses that route; would establish uniform statewide regulation that can only be further restricted by local elected officials (city councils or town supervisors as opposed to local Boards of Health), which is satisfactory to business owners in each community Senate also considering bill to totally ban smoking in restaurants and preempt local decision-making on this issue, and the MRA does not endorse this because it would "harm the restaurant business in the state and would take away the right of restaurant owners to make decisions on how to best accommodate their customers" Nationwide research on this issue shows that an average of 18% of revenues are lost in localities with total smoking bans, which would be "devastating to most restaurants in Massachusetts and would likely lead to layoffs or even closings" 17 states currently have legislation similar to S.508; MD is one state where the restaurant industry and legislature worked together to protect business owners and to accommodate nonsmokers and smokers alike "within reasonable guidelines" "If we must have laws dealing with smoking in restaurants and bars, MRA prefers the uniform compromise. It is far more rational and accommodating than an outright ban and, most importantly, leaves the decision up to restaurant owners based on the needs of their customers."

January 24, 1997: Ltr to Ed in "Business First" – "Smoking Bans Injure Restaurant Industry" by Philip A Craig, Exec Dir of OH Licensed Bev Assn [MRA: PM Docs; Doc #2061878371] OH tavern and restaurant owners concerned that OSHA’s proposed workplace smoking ban will have negative impact on their businesses Mesa, AZ: sales dropped 25-35% in restaurants and 40-50% in bars after passage of smoke-free ordinance; study done for city by Applied Economics MRA: studied 23 communities that enacted smoking bans from 1993-95 and found average of 21% loss of restaurant jobs in towns with strict smoking bans NYC: analysis of city’s smoking ban revealed 4% loss of restaurant job base from 1993-95 despite a rising economy Hospitality business owners "know their industry and their customers better than anyone else. We will continue to voice our opposition to OSHA’s proposal and attempt to ensure that our customers and employees see welcome signs rather than out of business signs at our establishments."

July 1997: Report by RJR – "Issues Update. July 1997. Legislation/Regulation" [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc. #517996439-6444] Updates on state and local tobacco-related legislation/regulations, lawsuits, and issues RJR currently has a total of 358 pending smoking & health suits; the Industry has 500 (including those to which RJR is a party) Several MA local activities: Falmouth B of H indefinitely postponed proposal banning smoking in smaller restaurants; Holliston B of H met on 7/7 to consider new public places smoking regulation; Wakefield restaurant owners want to change 2 yr old smoking ban, met with MRA on 7/8 to discuss alternatives to present to B of H; Worcester City Council voted to re-form tobacco advisory committee and re-refer to it a non-binding ballot question to ban smoking in public places and require restaurant smoking in designated areas only – "the antis aren’t satisfied and are pushing for something stricter" – Council has until 9/30 to decide on language for fall ballot

October 1997: Report by RJR – "Issues Update. October 1997. Legislation/Regulation" [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc. #517976643-6648] Boston City Council banned tobacco & alcohol advertising from taxis and tourist trolleys MA Senate passed bill (earlier approved by House & Gov said would sign it) requiring state retirement board to divest from tobacco; local govts are required to divest in five yrs Suit totals: RJR – 487 pending smoking & health, 41 are class-actions; Industry – 689 (including those to which RJR is a party) MA local retail and smoking issues: Foxboro B of H tabled display restriction proposal for re-draft (includes language on possession by minors and 10 ft display compromise); Groton B of H revising draft of comprehensive tobacco control regulations – bans restaurant smoking & self-service displays – hearing in October; Longmeadow B of H held public hearing 4/28 on proposal to ban tobacco ads, displays & promotions; Sudbury B of H had 8/14 meeting with 25 attendees, 8

October 1997: Report by RJR – continued (2) [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc. #517976643-6648] business owners, 1 citizen who spoke against restaurant & self-svc bans – Board asked for written testimony instead of hold another meeting; Winthrop B of H proposing ban on tobacco sales with first hearing held 10/14; Belchertown B of H will meet to discuss revising smoking regulations to ban smoking in restaurants and bars (allowed in bars after 9pm); Dracut B of H met 9/25to consider revising smoking regulations, lots of restaurant owner protest so may be revised again but self-service display language may not be revised cuz no retailer testimony – will meet again 11/13; Holliston B of H considering re-draft of smoking regs that currently ban smoking in most public places including restaurants; Hopkinton several restaurants approaching B of H for repeal of restaurant smoking ban on variances cuz experiencing losses; Milford B of H met 9/8 to discuss smoking ban similar to Holliston proposal & wants written comments by next meeting 9/29;

October 1997: Report by RJR – continued (3) [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc. #517976643-6648] Marblehead B of H met 9/4 to discuss possible new smoking restrictions but only said if they decide to move forward they’ll send draft to restaurants and schedule public hearing; Amherst/South Hadley/Northampton had regional meeting 8/19 to discuss including bars in smoking ban regulations but only Amherst will consider – met with bar owners 9/30 to continue discussions; Provincetown B of H considering ban on smoking in restaurants and public places with bars exempt, tabled until October, will discuss 10/7 forming a task force to recommend new smoking policy after first of the year; Wakefield restaurant owners met with MRA 7/8 to discuss alternatives to 2 yr old smoking ban to present to B of H; Worcester City Council approved language for non-binding fall ballot question on smoking in public places – now City Attorney is drafting actual question

April 17, 1998: Memo – "Robert J. Stone to David M. Powers, Re: CT, MA, & RI-week of 4/17/98." [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc #518477870-7871] AG’s office released proposed standards for sale & distribution of cigs & smokeless tob on 4/14/98 under MGL c.93A sec.2©-Consumer Protection. "We have distributed a copy to all coalition partners, TI, senior mgmt., and legal eagles for review. Please note that I believe that the penalty section was intentionally omitted due to the [fact that the] size and scope of fines would outrage the business community." Local activity: Falmouth - Town Mtg to take up citizen petition to ban smoking in restaurants – "our partisans are prepared to challenge the BoH with a series of questions and have speakers prepared to speak in opposition to the article, including restaurant owners, citizens, and the C of C." Arlington – Attorney Vance will send ltr on behalf of NE Wholesale Marketers Assoc to town counsel who will use it to advise the selectmen to pass over the citizen petition article that would limit advertising and the sale of product in this community. Worcester – City Council will hold public hearing on new restaurant smoking restrictions on 4/27 – "we are working with the MRA to notify all partisans of this hearing and a meeting on 4/21 at Tweed’s Restaurant to prepare for the hearing. MA summit mtg on McCain bill with coalition partners will be held at Sal & Vinnie’s Steakhouse in Norwood on 4/16 at which time materials will be distributed to leaders and association directors

July 1998: Report by RJR – "Issues Update. July 1998. Legislation/Regulation" [MRA: RJRT Docs; Doc. #516924607-4611] Suit totals: 574 pending smoking & health with 55 class-actions; the Industry has 803 suits pending (including those to which RJR is a party); 39 state Attorneys General cases, 62 union health & welfare funds, 5 Indian tribal suits, 7 asbestos contribution cases, 3 suits representing approx. 40 state Blue Cross/Blue Shield orgs; CT’s AG trial – U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear state’s appeal, allowing AG trial to continue in Federal rather than state court – "this is favorable to the industry because the chances of getting a fair trial are better in Federal court" MRA announced a lawsuit challenging the Boston Public Health Commission’s ban on smoking in restaurants NH bill on ingredient disclosure sent to Gov for final action – would direct PH commissioner to obtain from MA a public report on additives for each brand of tobacco product

July 16, 1998: The Banner – "MRA Names Donoghue President" [MRA: Fresina] Jim Donoghue appointed to one-year term President of Tweed’s Restaurants in Worcester & Northboro Joined MRA in 1982 & member of Board since 1989 "Founded in 1934, the MRA is a non-profit trade association with approximately 2500 members throughout the state. Its mission is to protect and preserve the food and beverage industry."

August 31, 1998: Email (9/3/98) – "MRA vs. Boston Public Health Commission" [MRA: Fresina] Hearing seeking a preliminary injunction against new ETS regulations MRA claims regulations are invalid because: 1) they are not "reasonable" under MGL 111 s. 31; 2) the Boston Public Health Commission considered economics when they only have the authority to consider health; and 3) they are "unconstitutionally vague."

September 25, 1998: Email – "Ruling Upon Plaintiff’s Application for Preliminary Injunctive Relief" [MRA: Fresina] Judge Mitchell J. Sikora, Jr. ruled on the MRA’s request Suffolk Superior Court ruled against the MRA, denying its application for an injunction against the Boston Public Health Commission’s restaurant smoking restrictions Smoking restrictions adopted March 19 and scheduled to go into effect September 30

September 29, 1998: Email – "ACS Press Release on Boston Restaurants" [MRA: Fresina] Issued after Sikora denied MRA’s request for an injunction against the Boston Public Health Commission’s restaurant smoking ban Called for the MRA to "sever all financial ties to the tobacco industry and put the health of their customers and patrons before the interests of Big Tobacco" to make smoke-free dining a "profitable and winning combination."