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