Will Josh Reed Step Down?
Josh Reed, student rep. on the Champaign Liquor Advisory Commission, has this to say about Scott Cochrane's removal from the Commission:
Cochrane's dismissal was shameful. If the mayor wants a rubber-stamp board (the message he is sending), I won't be a part of his political manuever. I have more important things to do than make sure Schweigart gets re-elected.
Does this mean Reed is going to step down from the Commission in protest of Cochrane's removal?
Mr. Reed seems to be all about making sure the bars are a safe haven for underage drinking. His apparent hero, Mr. Cochrane, has no intention of closely enforcing the drinking age in his establishments, and he will use the excuse that it's simply too hard to do so [see below]. Well, if it is, Mr. Cochrane, perhaps we should only allow people of legal drinking age into your bars.
Cochrane's dismissal was shameful. If the mayor wants a rubber-stamp board (the message he is sending), I won't be a part of his political manuever. I have more important things to do than make sure Schweigart gets re-elected.
Does this mean Reed is going to step down from the Commission in protest of Cochrane's removal?
Mr. Reed seems to be all about making sure the bars are a safe haven for underage drinking. His apparent hero, Mr. Cochrane, has no intention of closely enforcing the drinking age in his establishments, and he will use the excuse that it's simply too hard to do so [see below]. Well, if it is, Mr. Cochrane, perhaps we should only allow people of legal drinking age into your bars.
...Under the proposal, bars would violate the city's liquor code if, during a one-hour period, 12 or more underage youths, or 3 percent of a bar's licensed total occupancy, whichever is less, are ticketed for consuming or possessing alcohol. Youths found using illegal identification that appears real would not count toward the total.
One campus bar owner is calling the proposal "unrealistic...With 500 people, with 19- and 20-year-olds allowed in, I don't know if you can make sure that less than 12 people out of 500 don't have drinks. That's difficult to manage."
posted by Don at 8:30 AM
7 Comments:
you're misunderstanding my stance. Cochrane is not essential to my position. However, if the mayor further indicates that the commission's independent ideas are no longer welcome, I see little reason for myself to participate.
I mean, would you continue to serve on a board where you were forced to adopt the ideas of another?
There is a difference between being forced to adopt an idea and losing an argument. It seems to me that U of I students quit when they lose. Rohrscheib quit the DI when he disagreed with management. You'll consider quitting the LAC if it doesn't support your ideas about Unofficial. The students in the Senate quit a debate and ended a meeting when it looked as though the vote would go against their ideas. Quitting doesn't solve anything. It's little more than a melodramatic temper tantrum.
This isn't about losing. This is about ideas being welcome. I don't care if I lose on an issue - it happens most LAC meetings. I do care whether or not I am allowed to be independent.
I don't care if the rest of LAC supports my ideas on Unofficial. I do care if I am not allowed to present my ideas. See the distinction?
I have never stated I will step down if my ideas are not adopted. In making a claim, I find it's best to stick with facts.
"I don't care if the rest of LAC supports my ideas on Unofficial."
Heh, I do care, but not in the "I will step down" kind of way.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm proud that I appointed Josh Reed to the board, he consistantly represents the views of the student body. The point of the LAC should be having a broad dialogue, the Mayor should be able to change enough minds he can out vote Cochrane instead of trying to silence him. He's probably also the smartest guy in the room. I hope he doesn't quit, but if the LAC becomes a farsical body I can't blame him if he does.
You can say what you want about my decision to leave the DI. I stood with Acton because I thought the IMC board was creating a pretense for firing him. While I miss having a column, I do not regret that decision. I haven't "quit" working to break down policies obstructing free speech on campus, and that's what's really at stake w/ Gorton's firing.
The Student Senate hasn't quit anything. Calling quorum is very different than "quitting." We wanted time for additional dialogue. Quorum has been called twice this year, and one of the two times it was called by a faculty member.
Reed rarely contributes to LAC meetings. Have you seen the minutes? He certainly has not been an advocate for students! An advocate for students would look for steps to improve campus safety. An advocate for students would look for ways to reduce binging events like Unofficial. An advocate for students would come up with solid evidence before arguing that bars are safer places to drink. Reed hasn't done any of this. Instead, he talks a big game in the DI and says little at LAC.
As for Cochrane, the Mayor needed to get rid of him. Cochrane fought too hard for Unofficial. He made himself an opponent of LAC. Given the political pressure being put on the City, getting rid of SC was a logical step.
Post a Comment
<< Home