Henry H Perrit Jr.'s View on the Proposed Chicago Event Promoter License

An incredible supporter of the independent artist community Henry Perritt has asked everyone to help distribute his White Paper, "Why the Event Promoters Ordinance should be rejected".

Please read it, repost it and repost it again. ANY and ALL feedback welcome.

Why the Event Promoters Ordinance should be rejected
[27 May 2008]

• The proposed ordinance does not address any public need



• Often justified as a response to the 17 February 2003 stampede in the E2 nightclub, which killed 21 people, the proposed ordinance does not address the problems that led to that tragedy:



• Too many people (1100) were in a venue that could safely accommodate only 300



• The City of Chicago had not determined the safe capacity of the venue



• The City had not acted on known building and fire code violations



• The venue’s security staff did not respond appropriately



• The proposed ordinance does not strengthen the City’s inspection and enforcement resources, powers, and will to act; instead it indemnifies the City from liability



• The ordinances regulating places where food is offered for sale require periodic city inspections; neither the proposed ordinance nor the existing PPA requires inspections



• The proposed ordinance targets event promoters rather than venue owners, although circumstances leading to the E2 tragedy were within control of the venue manager and not third-party promoters



• Venue owners, not third-party promoters, are in a position to control everything that might jeopardize the health or safety of fans



• The proposed ordinance does not fit the realities of how some of Chicago’s best music is made and promoted



• The 2007 Chicago Music City report prepared by a group at the University of Chicago for the Chicago Music Commission concluded that music in Chicago generates a payroll in excess of $1 billion annually and fuels the overall economy in Chicagoland.
• Significantly, it concluded that Chicago offers more kinds of music regularly than anywhere else except Los Angeles and New York, mostly in small clubs



• Most of the small clubs are operated informally and present bands and other performers that operate on a financial shoestring, rarely earning more than a few hundred dollars for a performance, and rarely netting more than a few thousand dollars per year for their music



• These bands and performers and the venues in which they perform scramble to attract an audience, relying on the band’s circle of friends and an occasional part-time amateur street team to distribute flyers and generate word of mouth



• The proposed ordinance contains several provisions that would burden small venues and less-known bands disproportionately



• It defines the regulated activity ( § 1-157-010, definition of “Event Promoter”) to include advertising so broadly that it would include:
• Word of mouth generated by a band or its supporters
• Distribution of flyers or posters publicizing a performance
• Free notices of performances on websites such as MySpace music pages, while exempting paid newspaper advertising


• It imposes unnecessary insurance requirements on promoters who have no control over safety in venues and thus are unlikely to be liable for injuries



• It prohibits fans under the age of 21 from engaging in promotion activities, although younger fans other play a crucial role in encouraging turnout for performances



• It would intimidate fans and band members from promoting a performance by requiring them to be fingerprinted and to fill out burdensome forms and keep burdensome records



• Paradoxically, it would regulate promoters for events at small venues while leaving intact the existing exemption for the venues themselves (PPA § 4-156-305(c))



• It exempts instrumental performances by groups with fewer than eight pieces (§ 4-156-305(f)) while providing no such exemption for small groups performing other kinds of music



• It exempts large venues, where any risk to public health and safety is greatest



• The proposed ordinance is unconstitutional
• It violates the First Amendment by regulating speech in the form of advertising over-broadly


• It violates due process by excluding ex-felons who have paid their debt to society and persons convicted of petty theft; federal court cases require a rational relationship between regulation of entertainment and risks to public health and safety; there is no such relationship here



• It violates equal protection of minority groups by disproportionately burdening promoters from such groups



• The City of Chicago should be supporting and promoting its smaller venues and lesser-known bands, but the ordinance imposes burdens instead



• The City should publish and distribute to hotels and airports a directory of smaller venues and lesser-known bands



• - It should provide links on its websites to private websites that offer current information about scheduled performances



• - It should provide financial support to smaller venues and lesser-known bands

Henry H. Perritt, Jr.
Professor of Law
Chicago-Kent College of Law
Member of the Illinois Bar
hperritt@kentlaw.edu
(312) 906-5098

City of Chicago's Event Promoter License & Me

Ok, so what's the big deal about the Event Promoter License that the City of Chicago wants to enforce?

Here's the deal. I consider myself an Event Promoter. I might only put on 2 concerts a year and 1 dj night a month but that's considered an Event Organizer/Promoter.

So now, if this license passes I have to pay $2,000 a year in order to do what I like to do, at this point, as a hobby. Even though my events are within legitimate venues that have all the permits and licenses that are required. Even though I haven't made any money at all doing this in the past 2 years. In fact, I've given money away for these things to happen.

Technically, this effects every person that puts together any type of an event. A dj night, a concert, an art opening, any type of event that charges a cover at the door.

Well, they did change the terms of the license since last year.

Last year this license went all the way across the board. It effected every single person that ever put on a show. Here's one of the major ways it changed.

The license fee before was $2,000 for every 2 years, for everyone. For the little people like me all the way to the charity organizations and up to major organizations like, everyones friends, JAM Productions.

Here's how the license fees changed.

License fees, payable every two years, would range from $500 to $2,000, depending on the size of the venues in which the promoters operate. The city, non-profit organizations promoting their own events and promoters at "fixed-seating" venues with at least 500 seats, such as the United Center, would be exempt.

So here's a quick thought. Last year the license got shot down. You know why? Because places like the United Center, JAM Productions, the Rosemont and all the other major players said they'd take their business to the burbs. An action like that would culturally crush the city of Chicago. Not to mention the amount of money the city would lose out.

So now the city is listening to the major players and they decided that they shouldn't have to pay for this license. Even though, out of all the people that will be effected, the major players are the only ones that could afford such a ridiculous fee.

Here's another thing that I noticed from the Tribune's article. It's in regards to the E2 incident that happened almost 5 years ago.

Months after the stampede, an independent panel that reviewed the disaster and emergency response concluded that inadequate city inspection procedures and lack of city agency coordination allowed the club to stay open months after a court ordered it shut.

So wasn't it the city's fault that all this happened? Oh yea, the city doesn't do anything wrong.

If you want more information on this please follow these links.

Chicago City Council panel OKs licensing plan for event promoters
Chicago's promoter's ordinance: What the city wants, the city gets?
Jim DeRogatis' Blog
Chicago Music Commission's site
Rules inspired by E2 stampede approved


If you are an event promoter please contact your Alderman and express your concerns BEFORE Wednesday May 14th.. If you don't then don't feel bad that you have to leave the city to do the events that you like to do.

The floor at this meeting is not open to the public. It's a hearing for the Aldermen to vote on whether or not to impose the license.

This site will help you find out who your Alderman is and how to contact them.

http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/alderman/find.html

Go there, find them and contact them. Let them know your concerns and let them know how it will effect you.

If you can, appear at the hearing. Maybe if enough people show up to boo down the license they'll listen.

The hearing is on Wednesday May 14, 2008, at 10:00 a.m.

The City Council meets in the Council Chamber located on the Second Floor of City Hall, 121 North La Salle Street.

Chicago Music Promoters Ordinance Round 2

PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY

The Chicago City Council has fast-tracked its new version of a measure first introduced last year to greatly impede independent promoters attempting to hold events in the city. Under the proposed law, independent promoters would have to acquire a promoter's license at a cost of up to $2000 every two years, obtain liability insurance for every event thrown, even if the presenting venue already has liability insurance, be fingerprinted and background checked, and maintain extensive records of each event. The ordinance allegedly is intended to prevent disasters like the one that occurred in the E2 nightclub several years ago, but really would just put many small indies (not to mention non-profits that rely on events for fundraising, like CHIRP) out of business.


Jim DeRogatis has been following the story closely, so you can read further here:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/derogatis/

FYI, the ordinance exempts non-profits from certain portions of the rules (although not the extensive record keeping), but requires a group to have been in existence for at least three years, or to "be qualified for" 501(c)3 status. CHIRP, while non-profit, has only been around since August 2007, and is still being advised on 501(c)3 issues, a process that often takes more than a year from application to approval. This means events ranging from our Record Fair to dance parties at Town Hall Pub to speaking events by media activists might be out of our reach under the new ordinance...and if we cannot throw those events to raise money, there is no way to fund our organization.


If you value live music in Chicago (and the work of the Chicago Indie Radio Project), it's important that you make your voice heard. Call your alderman and ask him or her to oppose the Promoter Ordinance. Be polite. Tell him or her you support live music in Chicago, and feel this ordinance would kill many great events. Say you want venues to be safe, but this ordinance goes too far.


Your voice makes a difference. Place a call to your alderman's office today.


This page will help you find your alderman and give you his or her phone number -- quick and easy! It only takes a couple of minutes.

http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/alderman/find.html

And if you're able, come to the city council meeting on Wednesday, May 14 at 10AM in City Council chambers, and speak out against the measure.