Legislative Update

Donate To GopherHole
G

GoalLineClub

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
231
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Still not word on when the conference committee will meet, but that is secondary right now. The Senate has done all it can do, if you want to contact them to thank them for their support on this issue go ahead but lobbying them isn't necessary. This is now all about Rep. Rukavina, but contacting him is pointless unless you or someone you know has a significant personal relationship with the guy, if every Gopher fan in the country contacted him in support of repeal it wouldn't matter. He's dug in and at this point not concerned about what the only people affected by this issue actually think. We have one chance left as Gopher fans to get this fixed this year and fix this silly law that puts all Gopher teams at a competitive disadvatage with the rest of the Big Ten. We need these two people to realize how out of touch with the will of the people Rukavina is on this deal and that it is inappropriate that his singular passion on this issue is allowed to control the entire legislature.

Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher - 651.296.0171 - [email protected]

Majority Leader Tony Sertich - 651.296.0172 - [email protected]

Wouldn't hurt to also contact the Kelliher for Governor campaign to let them know how out of touch with a sizeable block of people their candidate appears to be on this issue.

[email protected] or 651-746-8911


Good luck.
 

GoalLineClub said:
Still not word on when the conference committee will meet, but that is secondary right now. The Senate has done all it can do, if you want to contact them to thank them for their support on this issue go ahead but lobbying them isn't necessary. This is now all about Rep. Rukavina, but contacting him is pointless unless you or someone you know has a significant personal relationship with the guy, if every Gopher fan in the country contacted him in support of repeal it wouldn't matter. He's dug in and at this point not concerned about what the only people affected by this issue actually think. We have one chance left as Gopher fans to get this fixed this year and fix this silly law that puts all Gopher teams at a competitive disadvatage with the rest of the Big Ten. We need these two people to realize how out of touch with the will of the people Rukavina is on this deal and that it is inappropriate that his singular passion on this issue is allowed to control the entire legislature.

Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher - 651.296.0171 - [email protected]

Majority Leader Tony Sertich - 651.296.0172 - [email protected]

Wouldn't hurt to also contact the Kelliher for Governor campaign to let them know how out of touch with a sizeable block of people their candidate appears to be on this issue.

[email protected] or 651-746-8911


Good luck.
Click to expand...

They vote was 111 to 18 (!) against the bill in the House. It would probably be a damn good idea to contact the House Minority Leader Marty Siefert also.

E-mail: [email protected]

Even though Siefert voted for the bill he certainly didn't bring a lot of his colleagues with him the first time around.!
 

I talked to my rep, and it sounds like she is comfortable with the lose / lose law. The people who want to have a beer are out of luck. And the people who are just interested in more revenue for the Gophers are out of luck.
 

It's a bit confusing, but the language passed in the Senate never received a vote in the house. There was bit of circus that resulted in a somewhat misleading 111-18 vote. The amendment offered by Rep. Kahn followed the reasoning of an amendment that Sen. Tomassoni offered in the Senate, simply correcting what the senator described as the “unintended effect” of last year’s bill on liquor service in the club rooms at Mariucci and Williams arenas. It also dedicated the funds reinstated by Rep. Kahn’s amendment to athletic scholarships. The Kahn amendment did NOT include the Senate repeal language. It was thought that even Rep. Rukavina would accept or at least not fight this modest amendment. Instead he railed against it and asked for a no vote, and on deals like these the person carrying the bill gets what he wants. While ranting against the amendment Rep. Rukavina incorrectly stated that Michigan sold alcohol in their main bowl and then mentioned he wasn't even sure whether Michigan was in the Big Ten or not. Wow. If he had supported this very modest amendment it would have received 100 votes in favor. Many House members who support fixing this rule somehow voted against the Kahn amendment for a variety of reasons.
 

And we wonder why we as a state and country are in trouble. Reading bills would help, not just listening to what they are told.
 


THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTITIVES COULD VOTE AGAIN.

GoalLineClub said:
It's a bit confusing, but the language passed in the Senate never received a vote in the house. There was bit of circus that resulted in a somewhat misleading 111-18 vote. The amendment offered by Rep. Kahn followed the reasoning of an amendment that Sen. Tomassoni offered in the Senate, simply correcting what the senator described as the “unintended effect” of last year’s bill on liquor service in the club rooms at Mariucci and Williams arenas. It also dedicated the funds reinstated by Rep. Kahn’s amendment to athletic scholarships. The Kahn amendment did NOT include the Senate repeal language. It was thought that even Rep. Rukavina would accept or at least not fight this modest amendment. Instead he railed against it and asked for a no vote, and on deals like these the person carrying the bill gets what he wants. While ranting against the amendment Rep. Rukavina incorrectly stated that Michigan sold alcohol in their main bowl and then mentioned he wasn't even sure whether Michigan was in the Big Ten or not. Wow. If he had supported this very modest amendment it would have received 100 votes in favor. Many House members who support fixing this rule somehow voted against the Kahn amendment for a variety of reasons.
Click to expand...
As I wrote in a different thread, the House could vote on the Kahn amendment again, or substitute the milder language from the Senate amendment, if a House member who voted against the Kahn amendment were to change his or her vote and request a new vote:

"Here is the link to the names, district numbers, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and House office numbers of all of your Representatives. It is not too late for another vote. Any Representative who voted against the amendment on the first vote, may request a new vote. At the Legislature, it is never too late, and a bill is never dead until everyone has gone home. The Representatives:

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/mem...usemembers.asp "

If what you wrote is true, that the House members would support the milder Senate language, find a House member to change their vote on the Kahn amendment, request a revote, substitute the Senate language, pass that amendment, and you do not need a Conference Committee, anymore, because the House and Senate language will be identical. Now all you need is the Governor's approval. No problem.
 

GoalLineClub said:
While ranting against the amendment Rep. Rukavina incorrectly stated that Michigan sold alcohol in their main bowl and then mentioned he wasn't even sure whether Michigan was in the Big Ten or not.
Click to expand...

Oh my.

We need to find a way to put video of this on YouTube. I don't know the context of his statement, but this could prove to the beer-loving sports crowd he's claiming to champion what fraud this well-groomed-porn-stached, drunk-driving fool really is.

I know many of you are all about trying to make nice with Rukavina, so he drops his crusade. But I doubt he can be reasoned with, and I would rather the public learn the truth about him.
 

Goldmember said:
Oh my.

We need to find a way to put video of this on YouTube. I don't know the context of his statement, but this could prove to the beer-loving sports crowd he's claiming to champion what fraud this well-groomed-porn-stached, drunk-driving fool really is.

I know many of you are all about trying to make nice with Rukavina, so he drops his crusade. But I doubt he can be reasoned with, and I would rather the public learn the truth about him.
Click to expand...

Here is a link.

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/programa.asp?ls_year=86&event_id=2467

Fast-forward to about 51 minutes in for this amendment.

Oy, this was hard to watch. First, Rep. Kahn is about the last person who should have offered this. She obviously knows little about it, doesn't like sports, and let it turn into a pissing match about whether the people who go to Northrup auditorium should be able to drink, but the 'hooligans' who go to the football games should not. I applaud her for being willing to do it, but she did a poor job.

Rukavina is a total blow-hard. He kept referencing 'discrimination' and did insist that Michigan sells it everywhere, which is blatantly false. Kahn, having no clue, apologized and accepted this as fact. As for him not knowing if Michigan was in the Big 10, it was fairly obvious he was being sarcastic.

Bottom-line is that the only two who spoke were Kahn and Rukavina. I would say that 80% of the people were not paying attention and were going to vote however Rukavina wanted. I hope they try again with someone sponsoring who has a clue what they're talking about and will put this moron in his place. At minimum, there's no reason not to put Mariucci and Williams back where they were for the last several decades.
 

I'll never understand this. Is it really more important that everyone has equal access? This isn't a moral issue or one of fairness. This is about an entity that needs money being deprived of the opportunity to earn it. How do you think the U will end up recouping (sp.?) its losses? If you're a student at the U, prepare for another steep tution increase. It's coming.
 



the communists

Run this state and the republicans are blind to that fact.
 

They are talking about the Omnibus Higher Education Policy bill right now.
 


bankonit said:
who cares, drink your beer at home
Click to expand...
Until this program starts winning, it needs all the help filling those suites that it can get. Telling John Q. Businessowner that he has to entertain potential clients by offering them stale Old Dutch popcorn, Gardetto's Snack-ens and watered-down Country Time lemonade isn't going to cut it.
 



Breakin' The Plane said:
Until this program starts winning, it needs all the help filling those suites that it can get. Telling John Q. Businessowner that he has to entertain potential clients by offering them stale Old Dutch popcorn, Gardetto's Snack-ens and watered-down Country Time lemonade isn't going to cut it.
Click to expand...

Forget if we're winning or losing. With their high price the suites will always be primarily purchased by businesses. Businesses do it to entertain clients. And clients expect free booze.
 

My wife is an event planner for a company that entertains many clients at venues across the cities and country for that matter (I got to go with her to the Rose Bowl in 2008).....they won't even consider a U of M event due to not being able to have alcohol in the suites.

I'm making an educated guess that they're not the only ones who think that way.
 

I still feel like the University could be more creative and find a way to get booze to the pretty people in the suites as well as making it available (but not overly so) to the unwashed masses.

When all of this was coming around the first time last summer, I seem to remember a number of folks here, including me, suggested having a beer garden set up on the plaza area at the open end of the stadium. It could be a fenced in area with limited capacity serving beer only. It probalby wouldn't have a very decent view of the field and if they said you weren't allowed to leave the area with a drink, it would probably minimize the number of people that would leave their seats and stay in the beer garden for the game and get smashed. Its location would also make it a pain for students to walk all the way around the stadium just so they could have the "privilige" of slamming an overpriced beer before they left to go back to their seats.

Does anybody see any obvious reason a setup like this wouldn't work to meet the legal requirements and minimize the risks at the same time?
 

HopHead said:
I still feel like the University could be more creative and find a way to get booze to the pretty people in the suites as well as making it available (but not overly so) to the unwashed masses.

When all of this was coming around the first time last summer, I seem to remember a number of folks here, including me, suggested having a beer garden set up on the plaza area at the open end of the stadium. It could be a fenced in area with limited capacity serving beer only. It probalby wouldn't have a very decent view of the field and if they said you weren't allowed to leave the area with a drink, it would probably minimize the number of people that would leave their seats and stay in the beer garden for the game and get smashed. Its location would also make it a pain for students to walk all the way around the stadium just so they could have the "privilige" of slamming an overpriced beer before they left to go back to their seats.

Does anybody see any obvious reason a setup like this wouldn't work to meet the legal requirements and minimize the risks at the same time?
Click to expand...

At this point its not really about whether these other options will work I don't think. The U has made up its mind. Either the bill gets repealed or the suites stay dry. They've decided that the principle of not serving to students trumps all.
 

GoAUpher said:
At this point its not really about whether these other options will work I don't think. The U has made up its mind. Either the bill gets repealed or the suites stay dry. They've decided that the principle of not serving to students trumps all.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the U would do if the legislature reversed their decision and said that booze was allowed in the suites and some rich, trust-fund student wanted to buy a suite for the season. Would they allow alcohol to be served to a student in that case?
 

GoAUpher said:
At this point its not really about whether these other options will work I don't think. The U has made up its mind. Either the bill gets repealed or the suites stay dry. They've decided that the principle of not serving to students trumps all.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any doubt that a beer garden would work with Rukavina. But, based on several public comments made by Bruininks during the last year, I have a hunch that he and several members of the Board of Regents like the idea of having TOTALLY DRY athletic facilities. The lost revenue is a secondary issue for them.
 


Bayfieldgopher said:
Here is the latest boys and girls regarding legislative controll over can I have or beer or not at TCF.!

http://www.startribune.com/politics...8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr
Click to expand...

Oh jeebus. This is how you know the whole thing is a populist joke. So now its ok to serve it in the premium areas so long as 1/3 of the general seating can have it too? And how do they think the U should identify the lucky 1/3? And what about Joe the Average Fan? Where's the fairness? Now the fat cats between the 20's can have it along with their seatbacks. Blah, blah, blah...
 

The world is ending, I have to go without beer for 3 hours on a Saturday morning. If you need your booze that bad stay home and drink your pabst blue ribbon in your underwear and watch the game on TV. A business can't "entertain" without alcohol?
 

bankonit said:
The world is ending, I have to go without beer for 3 hours on a Saturday morning. If you need your booze that bad stay home and drink your pabst blue ribbon in your underwear and watch the game on TV. A business can't "entertain" without alcohol?
Click to expand...

Now now, lets not drag PBR into this. It won its blue ribbon fair and square and deserves your respect. :D

Also, yes, a business cannot entertain without booze. Clients get it free everywhere else and they expect it. If the businesses have as many preferred seating choices as they do in the Cities then they can afford to put there money into a place that gives them what the market demands.
 

Only in Minnesota after a slew of horrific traffic accidents killing teenagers does the legislature do anything they can to promote alcohol for as many people as possible. Do we have our priorities backwards? Will we be the first on-campus stadium to have beer in general admission areas?

I'm all for extra revenue from the suites for the non-revenue students but this "compromise" is ridiculous. I say give all of the "premium" suite owners the rights - that would give them extra reason to kick in extra money - but only allow people to drink in some small room under the stadium. I'd much rather have people come to the stadium to watch football versus just get plowed.
 

GoldInDirt said:
Only in Minnesota after a slew of horrific traffic accidents killing teenagers does the legislature do anything they can to promote alcohol for as many people as possible. Do we have our priorities backwards? Will we be the first on-campus stadium to have beer in general admission areas?

I'm all for extra revenue from the suites for the non-revenue students but this "compromise" is ridiculous. I say give all of the "premium" suite owners the rights - that would give them extra reason to kick in extra money - but only allow people to drink in some small room under the stadium. I'd much rather have people come to the stadium to watch football versus just get plowed.
Click to expand...

at Wisconsin, they serve beer at the Student Union, right out by Lake Mendota. AND they serve it in the suites at Camp Randall as well, but I don't think they do in general seating, but the Student Union sale of beer trumps that, imho.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom