County to Try Out Voluntary Smoking Rules for Businesses

After an emotional, often confusing public hearing, the Orange County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday narrowly rejected strict limits on smoking in private workplaces and moved instead toward an experimental, six-month voluntary program.

Acknowledging at times during the meeting that they did not understand what they were approving, the supervisors also voted 3 to 2 to strengthen the county’s 1975 anti-smoking ordinance, which banned smoking in all areas frequented by the public in county-owned buildings except where specially designated.

Amendments Being Drafted

Supervisors agreed in principle to amendments still being drafted that would extend the anti-smoking rules to work areas in all county buildings, whether frequented by the public or not.

The board directed County Counsel Adrian Kuyper to return in two weeks with the necessary amendments involving the county’s 12,000 employees.

As part of the same vote on Tuesday, the board accepted an offer from the Orange County Chamber of Commerce to develop a work plan within 90 days for voluntary compliance among private employers as an alternative to mandatory regulations. The vote also included provisions for a board evaluation of the voluntary effort within six months, with the supervisors threatening to impose a strict smoking ban if they are not satisfied.

Reversing his previous insistence on a strict anti-smoking ordinance for private workplaces, Supervisor Bruce Nestande led the majority vote in favor of an experimental voluntary approach. Joining him were Supervisors Roger Stanton and Harriett Wieder. Board Chairman Thomas F. Riley and Supervisor Ralph Clark dissented, saying they favored tough regulations.

Only last February, Nestande generated headlines by proposing rules limiting smoking in private offices, restaurants and other workplaces. When a county appointed committee recommended specific guidelines for anti-smoking areas but failed to provide any enforcement mechanism, Nestande sent a blistering letter to his colleagues, stating:

“Where is the logic to segregate smokers in public workplaces and not in private circumstances: Is that to suggest that one smoking situation is more or less of a health hazard than another? It doesn’t make sense to protect one class of citizens (public employees) against the health hazard of smoke and ignore another class of citizens . . . .”

Didn’t Back Down

However, Nestande argued Tuesday that “the private sector can satisfactorily resolve the issue if the motivation exists.” Nestande said Tuesday the ordinance recommended by the committee would have specifically exempted all firms with fewer than 10 employees, or about 80% of all the businesses in the county’s unincorporated territory.

“I have not backed down on my commitment to a smoke-free environment,” Nestande insisted in an interview following the board meeting.

Nestande pointed out that the 1975 ordinance required restaurants and theaters to create non-smoking areas but said the county has failed to enforce those provisions. Nestande argued that the ordinance should have been enforced before the board considered extending its provisions.

Nestande, who plans to run for lieutenant governor, acknowledged that he had deliberately manipulated the business community into proposing its own voluntary plan and had positioned himself as its champion.

“That’s precisely it,” Nestande said. “Because they weren’t going to do anything, and now they are . . . and if it works, then more power to me.”

Too Little Too Late

Riley took issue with Nestande’s approach and complained in an interview that the business community has done too little too late.

About two dozen people testified on the issue at Tuesday’s board meeting, all but five in favor of extending strict anti-smoking rules to private workplaces.

Chamber of Commerce Chairman Robert Waller, a Nestande campaign contributor who spoke against the proposed mandatory rules, was pleased with the board’s response and left before the vote was taken.

But Hoda Anton-Guirgis, who spoke in favor of strict regulation, was angry.

“The board has obviously decided to accept the offer (to develop a voluntary effort) from the Chamber of Commerce before we got there,” said Guirgis, an associate professor of epidemiology at UC Irvine. “The chamber has known since February that this issue was coming up, so why didn’t they come to the meeting today with a voluntary plan already worked out? Why do they need 90 days?”

The American Tobacco Institute had worked the board behindthe scenes, using two former board aides as lobbyists to oppose any mandatory controls on smoking.

But supervisors said they were not influenced by the lobbying effort.