Welcome
Subscribe to our RSS feeds.

Get involved by joining our mailing lists.

Submit a news story to uwstudent.org.

Submit an event to uws' calendar.

Read what's hot on uwstudent.org.

Want to know more? Read our Frequently Asked Questions.

Check upcoming events on the calendar

The links on our links page point to interesting things.

User Functions
Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

Sections
Home
Announce -- Feds
News
Not uws news
Reader-directed content
uws archive
uwstudent.org
Warrior Sports Reports

Support uws ?
In Association with Amazon.ca

K-W weather

uw411
search the uw phone directory by name, department, location + more





Question of contracting out not decided: AGCO (Ryan Chen-Wing)

This is an archived story posted by Ryan Chen-Wing. You can view the original here.

Feds have said that the main issue in the bars shutdown is "contracting out," which is prohibited by Liquor Licence Act regulations. It is not clear, however, if the Feds-UW relationship was contracting out.



"We believe, as outlined in our statement of claim, that the core issue that led to the closure was the fact that the university -- which holds the liquor licence -- has been in non-compliance with the Liquor Licence Act for many years by contracting out the sale and service of liquor," said Feds Vice President Administration and Finance Chris Di Lullo at the news conference on Tuesday.

Subsection 15 of regulation 719 says, "The holder of a licence to sell liquor shall not contract out the sale and service of liquor."

Ab Campion is a spokesperson for the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario. He said that they are still looking at information regarding the situation.

He said, "From our perspective, all I can tell you is two things. We are taking a review of the police reports around the incident on NYE to see whether or not there were any offences in relation to the liquor licence act. And the second thing is that we are reviewing the contractual arrangements between the university and the student union."

Campion also said that they haven't yet determined whether or not the relationship between Feds and UW was contracting out.

"The university has a lawyer, the students have a lawyer, and we have our own legal department [which] is also involved in this. As you know and I know, if you want to get three lawyers together they each have their own particular interpretation of the fact and incidents that are going on -- so what were trying to do is sort all that out so it's not that easy saying is someone wrong or not," Campion said.

At the forum for students, Feds liquor lawyer Jerry Levitan suggested that the AGCO would prefer that Feds have a liquor licence.

"Call up the alcohol and gaming commission and ask for the Director of Licensing. Ask what he has to say about whether students should have their own licence or whether they should operate as they did in the past. I think the answer your are going to get is that there's no problem with students having a liquor licence," Levitan said.

When asked that question, Campion said, "We have no comment on whether or not they [Feds] should have a liquor licence."

When asked what would prevent a student organization from getting a liquor licence Campion said, "Nothing."

"I mean, a student organization can make an application the same as anybody else. Under the liquor Licence Act people are entitled to receive a liquor sales licence provided they meet all the criteria under the licensing process." He also explained that two things that they look at are the past conduct of the organization and whether or not a liquor licence in the public interest.



Question of contracting out not decided: AGCO (Ryan Chen-Wing) | 227 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
A lesson for the campus tories (gadfly)
Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, March 06 2003 @ 08:15 PM CST

This is an archived comment posted by gadfly. You can view the original here.

He also explained that two things that they look at are the past conduct of the organization and whether or not a liquor licence in the public interest.

See, someone other than WPIRG uses the term "public interest"!

Unless maybe the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario is another lefty fifth column? :)

[ Parent ]

Interesting... (Matthew Campbell)
Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, March 06 2003 @ 11:34 PM CST

This is an archived comment posted by Matthew Campbell. You can view the original here.

It is not clear, however, if the Feds-UW relationship was contracting out.

1)It's interesting that no one noticed this earlier if it's true.

2)If this was Admin's real motive, I find it hard to see how sympathizers of the university will be able to portray them as crediable and honest any more.

3)Someone else posted here earlier that the Admin's motives (at the time) could very well be unknown. Who knew?

[ Parent ]

Imprint Article (Chris Di Lullo)
Authored by: uws archive on Friday, March 07 2003 @ 09:19 AM CST

This is an archived comment posted by Chris Di Lullo. You can view the original here.

Today's Imprint, front page story by RCW,


Martin Van Nierop:
"...the university had given Feds a proposal for joint bar manangement a week earlier"

To Consider:

-Why has the University not also discussed the contents of said proposal? Why have they not made it available for students or the media to view?

Martin Van Nierop:
"We thought we had a very good offer to them on that and the alcohol and gaming commission thought it was a good one too."

To Consider:

-Why don't they state who they have spoken to at the AGCO and what that person's comments were? They seem to forget to mention the Deputy registrar of the AGCO believed this "deal" was contracting out.

[ Parent ]

www.levitanlawyers.com (f)
Authored by: uws archive on Friday, March 07 2003 @ 09:19 AM CST

This is an archived comment posted by f. You can view the original here.

wow

[ Parent ]

www.levitanlawyers.com (f)
Authored by: uws archive on Friday, March 07 2003 @ 09:19 AM CST

This is an archived comment posted by f. You can view the original here.

wow

[ Parent ]

www.levitanlawyers.com (f)
Authored by: uws archive on Friday, March 07 2003 @ 09:19 AM CST

This is an archived comment posted by f. You can view the original here.

wow

[ Parent ]

Confusion, assumption, action, retraction (mark)
Authored by: uws archive on Friday, March 07 2003 @ 03:20 PM CST

This is an archived comment posted by mark. You can view the original here.

"The University seems to be saying that undergraduate students at Waterloo are somehow less capable, less responsible, and should be treated differently than their counterparts at York or McMaster or Carleton, or the Waterloo Graduate Students' Association."

This statement confuses me. So I have some questions:
1. How exactly is the university saying that?
By refusing to let us apply for a liquor license?

2. When exactly did we ask for a liquor license and when did they refuse? Or is this lawsuit the first time we're actually requesting our own liquor license?

3. When exactly did the FEDS ask ME if they could sue the university?

Personally, I think the Feds are pissed off by their lack of control and are lashing out in a very childish way. Do the Feds actually think this lawsuit will make the university respect them more? I think the effect will be quite the opposite, especially WHEN THE FEDS LOSE!!! I guarantee it. If anything, this lawsuit shows that the Feds do not respect the university or its students.

Think of it from an impartial bystander's point of view (if that's possible).

1. Did the university act legally?
2. Did the university act reasonably?
3. Did the Feds act reasonably?

Retract the damn lawsuit and sit down at the bargaining table with a qualified mediator. The entire university's reputation including that of the Feds, who supposedly represent me, is in jeopardy because of the hasty actions of a few.

Both sides are making too many assumptions here and jumping to conclusions, without actually bothering to find out what the other side is saying.

The university assumed that because there was a fight, that there was a problem. Give me a break. As stated several times before me, the on-campus bars are among the safest in all of KW. Even so, FIGHTS HAPPEN IN AND AROUND BARS! Does this mean that the Fed Hall staff is incompetent? No. You can do everything short of hiring 100 bouncers and positioning them all over the entire campus, and a fight can and will happen if some idiot wants it to happen.

The Feds are assuming that the university doesn't respect them.

One other thing, I'm going to jump to my own conclusion and say that I would bet money that this whole liquor license issue was not even a problem before this situation arose. The university shut the doors. The Feds got pissed off (not to mention the students including myself). The Feds found out that they have really no power when it comes to the on-campus bars. The Feds got more desperate and pissed off. Then they happened to come by this whole liquor license thing... So without really thinking, they just went ahead with the lawsuit.

[ Parent ]

Change the licensee, not the management (Captain Obvious)
Authored by: uws archive on Friday, March 07 2003 @ 11:25 PM CST

This is an archived comment posted by Captain Obvious. You can view the original here.

Wtg FEDs.

Since the arrangement employed for the last 25 yrs is illegal, it makes sense for the liquor license and associated liability to change in name to the managers and tenants of the bars, not for the management to change.

Students paid for the bars, so own them (or atleast the right to their use). I want my bars to be run by students.

The university suggested there was ambiguity over the legality of the arrangement under which the bars were previously open; they implied they'd been informed it might actually be legal. Weren't they the ones who originally declared it illegal? Regardless of this mixup, clearly FEDs lawyers think it's illegal and they said they've spoken with important people in the AGCO who agree. If there is ANY doubt, FEDs needs its own license so this bar closure doesn't happen again. I want MY bars to be 100% legit so I don't get screwed out of a term or entertainment (and of profits) again in the future.

Why won't admin agree to treat us like other schools? I'm sick and tired of our own administration saying we're responsible and competent externally, to co-op employers and Macleans, and then treating us like children internally, on our own campus. We pay the bills around here so we should be heard!

[ Parent ]

UW pubs still in deep freeze while taps flow at other schools (Barbara Aggerholm, Record Staff (not actually...))
Authored by: uws archive on Saturday, March 08 2003 @ 07:33 PM CST

This is an archived comment posted by Barbara Aggerholm, Record Staff (not actually...). You can view the original here.

(Note, this is cut and paste, not actually the author posting. Hooray for copyright infringment!)

It's common for Ontario universities to hold the liquor licences for on-campus pubs run by students, a spokesman for the provincial liquor licensing body says.

The arrangement works at universities such as Wilfrid Laurier University. The university holds the liquor licence and the student union manages Wilf's and the Turret Nightclub, Ab Campion, spokesman for the Alcohol and Gaming Commission, said yesterday in an interview.

"We have no problems there," Campion said.

However, down the road at the University of Waterloo,the same arrangement is under scrutiny by the commission. It is also being challenged by the UW Federation of Students, which says it's against the law.

Campion said he doesn't know what the difference is between UW's and WLU's arrangements with their students. But the degree to which a licence-holding university oversees the bars is important, he said.

And that's what the commission is examining at UW.

On Jan. 20, the university withdrew the liquor licences for Federation Hall and the Bombshelter Pub, effectively closing both down. The licence withdrawal happened three weeks after the vicious beating of 23-year-old Ramsey Hanlon, of Kitchener, in the parking lot of Fed Hall, where he had been attending a New Year's Eve party.

Four Mississauga men and a third-year arts student from UW face charges of aggravated assault.

This week, the Federation of Students, which represents UW undergraduates, launched a lawsuit against the university seeking $11 million in damages for the university's decision to withdraw the liquor licence from the student-run Fed Hall and the Bombshelter Pub.

The federation claims that safety concerns were not the university's primary reason for turning off the taps. The core reason was because UW, as licence holder, has been in non-compliance with the Liquor Licence Act by "contracting out the sale and service of liquor," the federation says.

The federation wants to apply for its own liquor licence or become a co-licensee, an arrangement it says has been used by at least eight other post-secondary institutions.

"The university seems to be saying that undergraduate students at Waterloo are somehow less capable, less responsible, and should be treated differently" than their counterparts at other universities, said Chris Di Lullo, the federation's vice-president of administration and finance.

Meanwhile, officials at other Ontario universities are watching the case with interest.

At Brock University in St. Catharines, a fight in the parking lot outside the student-operated bar on Feb. 13 has similarly put the spotlight on bar operations there. The fight resulted in bloody noses.

But, unlike at UW, the students' union there holds the liquor licence for the 900-person bar, which is a university building, Brock University president David Atkinson said.

At Brock, a memo of understanding lays out the management issues. Atkinson said he has warned the students' union that the liquor cabinets will be locked if there are any more fights. The bar can be open, "but there will be no more alcohol," he said.

"I simply indicated to the students' union that there will be zero tolerance . . .We're a university, not a vacant lot underneath the overpass.

"Subsequently, the students' union at Brock increased security at the bar.

"For the most part, it has worked very well and students have been very responsible," Atkinson said.

WLU, meanwhile, says it had already asked the Alcohol and Gaming Commission to review the agreement with its students' union long before the New Year's Day assault that took place at UW.

"It's been a very co-operative process with students and we feel we're fully compliant with all the liquor requirements, but certainly we've left our processes open for inspection," said said Jim Butler, WLU's vice-president of finance and administration.

"We have an oversight process and policies."

WLU has an alcohol-on-campus committee that oversees the bars.

[ Parent ]

Story Options
  • Mail Story to a Friend
  • Printable Story Format


  •  Copyright © 2008 uwstudent.org
     All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.

    Powered By