[Imc] Alcohol-What Is and What Isn't Policy

[Mike Lehman]

I had hoped that we could at least begin to address some potential
concerns about this issue at today's Steering group meeting so that
Space could begin considering whether any changes need to be made to the
current policy on alcohol use and possession. I was intending to
proactively bring up this subject myself anyway, so let's get started.

I put it in those terms for two reasons. The first is that we already
have a policy that was consensed to previously and which is that alcohol
can be possessed on IMC premises as long as it involved some sort of
group event (show, meeting, construction party, etc.), that the persons
involved can otherwise legally possess it (for starts, be old enough),
and that they behave themselves. This seems to have worked well, without
any incidents attributable to alcohol in a year, AFAIK.

Second, there have been rumblings all of the sudden that there is either
no alcohol allowed or that it somehow presents a problem at the IMC.
These concerns need to be addressed, but I would suggest that any
changes must forge a new consensus, rather than undo an old one.

I heard Carl E. state on NFN Sat. morning that the IMC Music Fest was
all-ages and thus alcohol-free. I'm uncertain where that
misunderstanding arose from. It does point out the need to define the
situation better so that people's expectations will be met. All-ages
technically means all ages can legally be in the building at the show.
That is the case at the IMC, but it does not mean that there need be no
alcohol present, only that we are not a bar or other such establishment
that has legal restitcions on entrance age due to the SALE of alcohol.
Granted,the definition is variable and we should perhaps better define
what it means in our case or use different terminology. I would NOT
suggest that we start printing "alcohol allowed" on our advertising, as
that would tend to attract the sort that might not have the respect for
our facility that we have had so far.

We are, however, advertising much more than we have been previously,
which is necessary so that the venue is a success. This will bring in a
number of new people, which is one of the overall objectives of having
the facility in any case. Those people will not be aware of our present
policy and will need to somehow be informed of the expectations involved
by it.

There are several options, but first let me state plainly that our
present policy is wholly within the law. Urbana's (and the state's)
regulations about liquor sales do not apply to us because we are not
selling liquor. Sales is the salient point in this, i.e. No sales-No
need for a license-No need to legally restrict entrance age.

The first option is to leave things as they are, with the addition of
signage or some other way of conveying what the policy and expectations
are, plus the understanding that if IMC staff has any concern about
someone's age they can be asked to produce proof of age. So far, we have
had no problems with the present policy and my suggested amendments
should help minimize the chances that problems will arise in the future.

The second option is to restrict alcohol possession to members of the
IMC only. This would have several advantages. One, more people might
become members. Those who are members would also then fall under our
already existing policies on conduct. There are also drawbacks. Would
people have to show membership cards or wear badges to designate who was
allowed to drink? How about when people have friends who come to town.
Would the visitors not be allowed to drink at the show, while their
member/hosts could? Maybe we could have guest passes in such a
situation. I think this plan is a possibility, but it sounds too
cumbersome without more need for change than has so far been documented.

What about the comment the Steering group received today in a note that
the IMC should be alcohol-free? As I mentioned, such a proposal does not
occur in a vacuum. A new consensus would have to be forged to create
such a policy in order to overturn existing policy. I personally don't
see that happening. We are, even those of us who are not of age (who
AFAIK, have been respectful of the rules on this issue), a mature group
as a whole and thus should be treated like adults, rather than people in
need of control and supervision.

However, I do understand the desire, and even need, on some people's
part for a alcohol-free atmosphere. I would suggest that the IMC could
accomodate such desires by designating one night a week to be open for
such events, if the people interested in such events wanted to organize
them.

One issue that is on the minds of some people is liability insurance. I
have no objections into checking into that. I would expect such
insurance to be out of our price range, even without the issue of
alcohol, simply because of the nature of our facility. If it was members
only that would be different, but it is implicit in our mission that the
public have access and that is the real determinant of the cost of
insurance.

We discussed this issue previously and I believe it was in the context
of when we orginally established the present alcohol policy. The IMC has
minimal assets and would make a poor (literally) target for a lawsuit.
We do need to conduct ourselves properly, enforce reasonable standards
of conduct on guests, and maintain a safe facility. We have operated
safely and without significant problems for a year. I see no real
difference at this point with the opening of the grand ballroom. And I
speak here as one of the handful of members with even a limited
liability for the IMC as one of the directors of the IMC non-profit
corporation. I'm comfortable with this and don't see any reason on this
basis for others to be uncomfortable with it.

We can discuss this further at the emergency Space meeting on Wed.,
although we have other business then that MUST be resolved as a
priority. It is on the agenda of next Sunday's Steering group meeting
for those who are interested in commenting on it then or comments can be
directed to me or another member of the Sapce group to bring to the
Steering group. This note is to clear up some of what seems to be
growing confusion about what the policy is. If someone has a different
understanding than I do about what IS the policy, please speak up, but
be clear about the difference between what IS and what you may be
wanting it to be.