Image provided by: Clackamas Community College; Oregon City, OR
About The print. (Oregon City, Oregon) 1977-1989 | View Entire Issue (March 30, 1978)
opinion ¥? ••V IMCOMC l US/ÔM Vote 'yes' Passage of the April 4 budget levy for the College could have important implications for every school system in the State of Oregon. For the first time, the concept of the three-year serial levy, only recently approved by the state legislature, is being offered to voters as an alterna tive to a tax-base system or a yearly request for op erating funds. In the past, the College administration has had to spend a large part of every year preparing for, and convincing voters to approve, the yearly operating levy. This has been a frustrating and time-consum ing task which has left them with little time to deal with the .educational needs of the students. Many faculty members and students have ex pressed dissatisfaction with some of the policies and decisions of the present administration and some are contemplating withholding their votes or voting no on April 4 as a means of protest. We feel that this attitude could have serious re sults if it causes defeat of the budget. The .College needs the stability and security the guarantee of three years funding will bring. Three years will give everyone the time to deal with other problems and the freedom to make their dissatisfactions known without worrying how they will affect the budget election each year. Passage of the serial levy, with the attached bond measure, will also insure the construction of a.much needed science building. There is some indication that if the serial levy and bond measure fails this time, it won't be offered to the voters again this year. Instead, at the next election the College will ask for only enough funds to operate next year. We feel that it is to the advantage of every stu dent and faculty member at the College to vote yes next week. If there are problems with administra tive policies and practices, or if faculty and classes are disatisfactory, the budget election is the wrong place to try to solve them. After all, if the budgets don't pass and the college doesn't open, there won't be any place to enjoy the solutions to the problems anyway. FRANKLY SPEAKING Mtätö THE HIGE LEVELS campus A rchitects - V. Minors scheme to outwit OLCC 19600 S. Molalla Avenue, Oregon City, Oregon 97045 Offices: Trailer B - Telephone: 656-2631, ext. 259 or 278 editor Happie Thacker * news editor Cyndi Bacon * arts editor Lisa Chitty * sports editor Ann Breyne * copy editor Scott Starnes * photo editor Brian Snook * staff writers Randy Frank, Jim McCaffrey, Mary Madeland, Shawn Parkhurst * photographers Sam Baer, Ted McKenna * assistant photo editor Lorraine Strat ton * production manager Mary Cuddy * business manager Paul Byers * professional advisor Randy Clark * office personnel Crystal Tompkins, Tommi Davidson Opinions expressed in The Print do not necessarily reflect those of the CCC administration, faculty or the Associated Student Go vernment. Editorials, columns and signed letters reflect only the opinions of the editors and the persons signing them. Correspond ence should be addressed to the above address. The Print, a member of the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Asso ciation, aims to be a fair and impartial journalistic medium cov ering the campus community as thoroughly as possible. We en courage participation through letters, free lance articles and story ideas and suggestions. Deadlines are the Friday of the week prior to the Wednesday publication date. Page 4 Editor's note: This article was printed in the form of an editorial in the March 1 issue of the Daily Barometer, the student newspaper at Oregon State University. Ever since a nevi/ Oregon keg law came into effect last January, collegiate beer drink ers have been scheming. They have been devising ways to outwit the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC). Under the new keg law, persons who purchase kegs of beer must state in writing where the beer will be con sumed. The OLCC has access to such information and may use it in the investigation of beer parties. Why would an OLCC in vestigator want to check out a private beer party? Simple, to make sure that everyone present is of legal drink ing age. Regardless of the new keg law—or anything short of mar tial law—minors will keep at tending keggars. In this col lege community it is common place .for minors to live in the same places as adults. Minors and adults become friends, party together and drink beer together. But the fact that minors will continue to attend keg gars does not make it right. Until the law states otherwise it is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to consume alcohol in Oregon. The most reasonable course of action for persons under the age of 21 is to change the law. Part of the American way is to change laws that are improper or restrict personal freedom. Why not lower the legal drinking age? Since living groups ar| the most liable under the pre® system, it would seem] ta make good sense for living! groups to attempt to chaffl present drinking laws. Thra is a petition going aroffl proposing a lowered drinking age. The question is whethl the petitionswill have en® signatures to place the quel tion on the November ballot. Those who are worried • about the new keg law should try to eliminate it or lower] the drinking age so it no] longer applies to college» citizens. One living group council! has already proved there is] strength in numbers. Surely] the living groups' councils on campus could find sup» for lowering the ''inkingagel next November. Thursday, March 30, II
