Chris-You rock!! :)


At 01:40 PM 3/31/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>