The Campus-Community Coalition for Change may not have the support it needs to carry its proposed restrictions on drink specials through the East Baton Rouge Metropolitan Council.
Many council members are remaining quiet about their thoughts concerning the proposal, although a few have come out against it.
The proposal would ban drinks sold under retail price, oversized drinks, “Ladies’ Nights” and two-for-one specials after 8 p.m.
The proposal has not yet been put on the council’s agenda yet because none of the council members have agreed to sponsor it.
“I don’t support the ban,” said District 9 Councilman Darrell Ourso. “It would unfairly target a business practice. We’d be telling a business what they can and cannot advertise.”
Of the 12 members, four – or one-third – have said they would have a difficult time supporting the proposal. One councilman said he would be “willing to entertain” the proposal, and seven have either declined to comment or did not return several phone calls for comment.
But Nancy Mathews, CCCC director, said she is confident the proposal will be supported by the council.
“We’re fairly confident, but we’ve not spoken with every member,” Mathews said. “We are still not sure who is going to take the lead.”
The proposal received the formal support of the city-parish Alcoholic Beverage Control Board at their Nov. 10 meeting.
While Mathews said she had the tentative support of District 1 Councilman Wayne Carter and District 3 Councilman Pat Culbertson, former University professor, neither of the councilmen returned repeated calls for comment.
District 2 Councilman Ulysses “Bones” Addison said he is waiting for parish attorneys to determine if the proposal is legally sound before he comes out in support if it.
“If it legally cuts the mustard, I’d be willing to entertain it,” Addison said.
The legality of the proposal seems to be an issue of some debate between Mathews and some members of the council.
Mathews said the coalition was careful to word the proposal so it would not unfairly target businesses.
“We were very careful not to target bars, except those who are irresponsible,” she said. “We’re targeting a practice, not a type of business.”
Ourso said he thinks the council is too stratified on alcohol issues for the proposal to have any affect on the drinking culture in the parish.
“We’re all over the place on alcohol issues,” he said. “We open bars on Sundays for benefits, and we’ve sold alcohol on Sunday’s for the Superbowl.”
Ourso said he thinks a parish-wide vote would be the proper way to address the recent community discussion about doing away with the parish’s blue laws.
“I’d like to put it to a parish-wide vote and let the voters decide across the parish and put blue law issue to bed forever,” he said.
District 6 Councilwoman Martha Jane Tassin also said she has a hard time supporting the proposal, but she is willing to speak with Mathews before making a final decision.
“While I understand the plight of the CCCC and Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, it’s a torn thing for me,” Tassin said. “I see it as interfering with businesses doing business the way they want. I don’t know where the fine line is between where the government can interfere and where businesses operate.”
Tassin said she thinks the problem of excessive drinking should be addressed by parents – not the council.
Tassin is the mother of a 21-year-old University student.
“The only way to do away with drunk driving is to do away with alcohol completely,” Tassin said. “I try as a parent to teach my son to drink responsibly.”
District 7 Councilman Byron Sharper said he thinks the council has more important issues to discuss before addressing the CCCC’s proposal.
“To be honest, I have way bigger fish to fry than the drinking ordinance,” Sharper told The Daily Reveille after the council’s Nov. 9 meeting.
The council also has a history of voting down drinking ordinance changes, especially when students have shown up at meetings to express their opinions.
On Feb. 26, 2004, more than 30 students voiced their disapproval of a proposed ordinance that would have prevented 18- to 20-year-olds from entering bars.
Mathews said she thinks it “would be fine” if students expressed their views at the council meeting when the drink special proposal was being discussed.
“I absolutely understand and respect the students’ need to voice their opinion, there is a community outside this University,” she said. “This isn’t a students’ rights issue; it’s a public health issue. To the students who think this is unfair, it doesn’t show much respect to the outside community.”
But as the semester draws to a close, students may not have many more opportunities to express their opinions, especially if the proposal makes it onto the agenda between semesters.
“We’re not trying to push the proposal onto the agenda at a time when students aren’t around,” Mathews said. “It’s not even our decision. That’s the decision of the council member who introduces the proposal. There is no intent on our part to be devious.”
Mathews said she thinks discussions about the proposal will only strengthen the University.
“In our opinion, this University revolves around intelligent discussion among students,” she said. “We encourage this kind of discussion.”