BILL ANALYSIS
----------------------------------------------------------
|Hearing Date:May 8, 2000 | Bill No:SB 2184|
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
Senator Liz Figueroa, Chair
Bill No: SB 2184Author:Soto
As Amended:May 2, 2000 Fiscal: Yes
SUBJECT: Concerts: emergency medical plan.
SUMMARY: Prohibits a facility from conducting a concert
unless the appropriate permits have been secured from the
responsible local agency and requires local agencies to
approve an emergency medical services plan for concerts as
part of their permitting process.
Existing law:
1)Authorizes each county to develop an emergency
medical services (EMS) program, and requires those
counties that develop an EMS program to designate a
local EMS agency.
2)Regulates the provision of accommodations for
physically disabled persons at concert halls and
other venues, including meeting fire and safety
requirements.
This bill:
1)Defines "concert" as a public performance of music
or public playing of recorded music.
2)Provides that no facility shall conduct a concert
unless appropriate permits have been secured as
required by the local agency responsible for
granting permits.
3)Requires local agencies to approve an emergency
medical services plan (plan) for concerts and
specifies certain criteria to be included in the
plan.
4)Requires the plan to be posted in the facility's box
office and management office.
5)Requires all concert staff to be made aware of the
details of the plan and the location where the plan
is posted.
6)Requires the plan to be updated annually.
7)Requires all facilities holding permits to conduct
concerts, issued prior to January 1, 2002, to have a
plan in place that has been approved by the local
permitting agency.
8)Requires local EMS agencies to adopt guidelines, and
submit them to the local agency responsible for
granting concert permits by July 1, 2002, for the
level of care at concerts, commensurate with the
event and certain specified criteria.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
1.Bill Intended to Create a Safer Concert Environment.
According to the author, this bill would create a
safer concert environment by requiring facilities
that conduct concerts to submit a multifunctional
emergency medical plan in conjunction with a local
agency's permitting process.
2.Background. On April 9, 1999, 14 year old
Christopher King attended a concert at the
Masterdome in San Bernardino, California.
Christopher was being carried over the heads of
other concertgoers (this is known as crowd surfing)
when he fell to the floor, injured his head and lost
consciousness. According to police accounts, the
crowd picked him up and passed him around again
before they realized he was in trouble. Apparently
no medical technicians were on-site to respond to
the injury. Security guards tended to Christopher
before paramedics arrived. He died the next day at
the hospital without regaining consciousness. It
appears that the author introduced this bill at the
request of Christopher's mother.
3.Concert Terminology.
a)Body passing or crowd surfing is when an
individual is horizontally passed overhead, hand
by hand, by the crowd around the room.
b)Crowd diving is when an individual dives or drops into
the crowd from a high place in the arena other than
the stage (i.e., building supports, bleachers,
crossbeams, catwalks, speaker stacks, or walls).
c)Moshing is intense crowd dancing with physical
contact. The entire crowd moves together, bumping each
other and spinning and bouncing off each other.
d)Mosh pits are the areas or circles that separate in
the crowd when individuals begin to slam dance
intensely.
e)Pit diving or stage diving is literally the act of
diving into the crowd from the stage by the fans
and/or band members. The idea is for the crowd to
catch the individual and body pass them toward the
sound board.
f)Slam dancing is a spontaneous and energetic
outburst that creates an open space or circle in
the crowd. Dancers hurl themselves through the
circle, bouncing off and body checking other
dancers.
1.Arguments in Support. The California District of
the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP-CA)
indicates that immediate care can greatly increase
chances of survival and full recovery for serious
injuries and trauma. AAP-CA states that at dances
and concerts, particularly where underage youth may
attend, there is often inadequate or unreliable
transportation and access to timely emergency
medical treatment. According to the Emergency
Medical Services Administrators Association of
California, medical coverage of events such as
concerts is vitally important to public health and
safety.
2.Does an Absence of Injury Information Equate to an
Absence of Injuries? While there is not a lot of
information available regarding concert injuries, it
is unclear whether the lack of information is due to
a lack of incidents, a lack of reporting or the lack
of an entity responsible for compiling this type of
information.
3.Does The Bill Go Too Far or Not Far Enough?
a)Bill Intended to Only Apply to Concerts . While
the bill only applies to facilities that conduct
concerts, the bill's definition of concert (a
public performance of music or public playing of
recorded music) is broad enough that it could be
interpreted to include a symphony, musical,
dance, sporting event, and even a family picnic.
While this broad coverage does not appear to be
the intent of the author, it is a reasonable
interpretation. On the other hand, if safety is
the main concern, perhaps the bill should be
amended to address all public gatherings.
b)Bill Intended to Only Apply to Facilities . The bill
requires facilities to submit a plan in an attempt to
ensure greater compliance since it appears that local
agencies already require facilities to obtain a permit
prior to holding a concert. For example, the City of
Sacramento requires facilities, such as Arco Arena, to
obtain a dance/concert permit. However, some
individuals believe that the bill should also apply to
promoters . Who is in a better position to ensure
compliance with the provisions of this bill, the
facility, promoter or both? Also, is the term
facility too limiting? Would it be better to refer to
a broader term such as an event center ? The Health
and Safety Code defines event center as a community
center, activity center, auditorium, convention
center, stadium, coliseum, arena, sports facility,
racetrack, pavilion, amphitheater, theme park,
amusement park, fairgrounds, or other building,
collection of buildings, or facility which is used
exclusively or primarily for the holding of sporting
events, athletic contests, contests of skill,
exhibitions, conventions, meetings, spectacles,
concerts, or shows, or for providing public amusement
or entertainment.
c) Bill Intended to Only Apply if the Local
Agency Requires a Permit to Hold a Concert . It
is unclear how many local agencies require a
permit to hold a concert. Should the bill be
amended to require a permit for concerts?
1.Is there a Penalty for Failure to Comply with the
Bill's Provisions? The original version of the bill
provided that each violation of the bill's
provisions was an infraction punishable by a fine of
$500. Was the penalty provision inadvertently left
out of the current version of the bill? If the
author wishes to add a penalty provision she may
want to be more specific as to when it applies and
to whom.
2.Noble Goal with an Unworkable Approach? In addition
to the comments above, there are a number of other
outstanding issues relative to the plan. For
example, does the bill require 2 permits (concert
and emergency medical) or 1 (concert which requires
a plan prior to approval)? Additionally, is a
separate plan required for each individual concert,
or only 1 permit for concerts in general? Also,
while the intent of the bill was to connect the plan
with a permit so that facilities would be on notice,
it appears that this would only apply to facilities
that have not yet applied for a permit. Should the
local permitting agency be required to notify the
relevant facilities that a plan is required? The
bill requires the plan to be updated annually. Does
this mean that the facility has to submit an updated
plan to the local permitting agency? Does it mean
that the facility has to post an updated plan in
their box office and management office? And, or,
does it mean that the facility has to inform their
staff of the updated plan? Additionally, the bill
requires concert staff to be informed of the plan
but the bill does not say who has to inform the
staff or which staff are supposed to be informed?
Finally, does the bill infringe upon local
sovereignty and are the locals in a better position
to determine if there is a need to regulate this
issue?
3.Technical Amendment. The bill adds Chapter 31
(commencing with Section 22950) to Division 8 of the
Business and Professions Code. Division 8, entitled
Special Business Regulations, regulates a potpourri
of businesses, from athlete agents to tickets
sellers. Therefore, it appears that Division 8
might be an appropriate area for the regulation of
concerts. However, there is already a Section 22950
of the Business and Professions Code (Division 8.5,
the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement Act,
22950 et seq.). Therefore, at some point the author
may want to address this conflict.
4.Double-Referral. The new amendments are within the
jurisdiction of the Senate Local Government
Committee due to their impact on local EMS and
permitting agencies. The bill should be re-referred
to the Rules Committee in the event that the bill
passes the Business and Professions Committee.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support (to measure as introduced):
California District of the American Academy of
Pediatrics
California Professional Firefighters
Crowd Management Strategies
Emergency Medical Services Administrators
Association of California
San Mateo County Emergency Medical Care
Committee
Opposition (to measure as introduced):
North American Concert Promoters Association
Consultant:Kristin J. Triepke
SB 2184
Page 7