We had originally planned for an editorial that would encourage the student body to go to tonight’s City Council meeting to show their support for a proposal from Ald. Bryon Eagon, District 8, which would mandate a student-voting member on the city’s Alcohol License Review Committee.
This newspaper has admittedly made a lot of noise regarding this proposal. We do this because we believe student input on this issue is essential. Alcohol policy directly affects UW students as downtown residents — more so than any other constituency in this city.
But the story changed Monday afternoon following a meeting between Mr. Eagon and Mayor Dave Cieslewicz, in which the UW senior said he was backing off the guaranteed student-voting seat in favor of a different plan.
This compromise, to go in front of the council tonight, only suggests that the mayor appoint a Madison college student to the seat. Mr. Cieslewicz has promised to Mr. Eagon and us that he will appoint a student, and we take his word for it.
But the proposed seat would come into question after the three-year appointment is up, at which point a new, less student-friendly mayor could keep us from having our say on one of the city’s most powerful committees.
When asked, both Mr. Eagon and Mr. Cieslewicz said this was not a political deal — that the mayor would have appointed a student to this seat even if Mr. Eagon attempted to push the guaranteed seat through the council tonight.
So we have to ask: Why would the student alder give up so easily? It is not as if Mr. Eagon stands to lose anything by keeping the language and seeing the council’s reaction. Several influential alders seemed to have shown a considerable amount of support for the plan, and a good showing from students tonight could have swayed the final few.
We want our seat at the table to be guaranteed beyond Mr. Cieslewicz’s tenure. That said, what Mr. Eagon currently has on the table seems to be a victory in the interim and we (modestly) applaud him for that.
But this fight is not over. If the council does not support language that would recommend the mayor appoint a student, the mayor has said he will do it anyway.
Even then, if the council is not convinced that a student deserves to have a say in the city’s alcohol policy, the council could veto the mayor’s appointment, and we’d be back to where we started.
Furthermore, this debate has revealed the deep-seeded opposition of certain parties (most notably the Tavern League) to any student voice on the matter. Their poorly reasoned, vague arguments failed to sway our stance that this measure was proper, and their vehement dismissal of students’ rights and competency made us certain this measure was necessary. Now, more so than two weeks ago, the need for a protected, permanent student position on the ALRC is even clearer — which is precisely what makes Mr. Eagon’s compromise so frustrating.
It is still on the student body to show up at the City-County Building tonight at 6:30 p.m. and let the City Council know we want a say on the committee. This was never meant to be the end of student input on city issues. Instead, we must use this opportunity as a platform to present a strong, unified voice to the rest of the city that is only destined to grow with time.
That, and maybe give Mr. Eagon the stink eye on your way out.