SGA-
        Thanks to Bridget for the background, accuracy is important. And yes,
even more important is that we conduct ourselves in a credible manner.
However, it is important that we do not lose sight of some underlying
issues here, because what requires our attention most of all is the
sentiment being expressed in this legislation and the precedent it sets -
not the logistics of its passage.

What does this resolution say?
This resolution represents the latest attack on students in Burlington, and
this one goes straight to our rights as adult citizens. It effectively
relegates us to a secondary status as members of a certain AGE GROUP.


How does it say it?
This resolution, having been passed by the City Council with only two
dissenters, professes to represent the will of the people of Burlington (a
group we are apparently excluded from) to discriminate. Furthermore, given
those origins, it says that the Council has the RIGHT to do this - a
dubious position indeed.


What does it mean for us?
As students we must see this not only as a suspension of our downtown
rights, and the rights of private businesspeople, to conduct ourselves as
we see fit and appropriate. It is imperative that we instead look at this
as a dangerous and threatening PRECEDENT for further infringements upon
student's rights.


What are we (can we) going to do about it?
I think our current course of action (letters & petitions) is acceptable.
We should be careful people don't get carried away though (quick story:
last year we spent a few days protesting the launch of the Cassini rocket
by NASA because it contained plutonium. an accident would have been
catastrophic, and they do happen. we conducted our efforts and
demonstrations very professionally and respectfully. the next day i woke
up to hearing a local radio hack making jokes about a group protesting the
same thing that took over Jeffords' burlington office, spray-painting
walls, urinating in stairwells, etc... even though we were not aligned
with the other group, we lost all credibility in an instant - we were a
joke). What we are raising our collective student voice against here is
not this resolution ITSELF, as much as everything it represents (precedent
& sentiment). We should be sure to present it as such.

        The message we send by responding in a "united as students" way will be
that they should not expect to be able to pursue policies such as this and
not hear about it from the students and their representatives (us). I
couldn't agree more with Christy and Bridget that we need to know our s**t
going into this but let's keep a proper focus - this is bigger than this
resolution. Even if they repeal this restriction, which will take some
pressure to be sure, ours is an important message for them to get loud and
clear.
        Sorry I keep writing essays, I'll try not to anymore:-) Do call Tom Smith
if you want, but from what I've been told to expect, you'll have
significantly less luck with Curley.
-Chris A.
Rock The Vote!

At 12:05 PM 3/31/99 -0500, Christy L. Boucher wrote:
> I am glad to see such support for an issue close to the hearts of
>students, a social life. This is essential to the life of our campus.
>However, to remain respectable and have validity in the city we must have
>accurate facts. I encourage you to analyze the facts and then pursue the
>issue.
>
> Bridget (Thanks) did some research and so here are some more facts
>to ponder:
>
> * The original recognition of this legislation was Dec. 7th.
>
> * Any new club recognized after this date can not have 18+
>nights with alcohol. This applies to Club Extreme and Bottleneck.
>
> * All clubs will be up for relicensing on May 1st and will
>have to go under this legislation.
>
> * Contacts: Kevin Curley and Tom Smith
>
>
>
>