Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 17, 2000)
Tuesday. October r l compar il Dutch/Shell Groupari C — industry powerkf by recent mergers, rules of the game! matically since the firsts leals in 1998, when oil p| ng to their lowest level" fuesday, October 17, 2000 I' Page 11 THE BATTALION ADRIAN CALCANEO/Thk Battalion Av 'ars not responsible for death ofA&M student Businesses should be held accounta, STEVEN GILBERT iping Special! itz Big Print m Developing jpoo at any BryanCo)!*®* Statw amera Centw wtien dropoinj off • nun C-41 developing only. Not M M Crystal or Frequent Foto bowfft s work toad permita Olfasood ■mo CAMERA — <£ 1 HOUR BIG PRIIVT j|oupe De Vi lie's is a popu- J lar bar located in the North- Jgate district across from the Texas A&M campus. As a result of the Aug. 3, 1999, death of student Michael Duane ^agener, the Texas Alcoholic leverage Commission (TABC) is pursuing criminal charges against Toupe De Vi lie’s employees and [recommends “cancellation for cause” of the establish ment’s liquor license. Neither the bartenders at Coupe De Vi lie’s nor the mwner of the bar should be held responsible for this [incident. Wagener went to Northgate on the night before his |21st birthday. According to reports, Wagener began lillegally consuming alcohol long before midnight at [several nearby bars, including the Dixie Chicken and [Fitzwilly’s. After several hours of illegal drinking at both of [these establishments, Wagener arrived at Coupe De [Ville’s shortly after midnight. According to The Bryan-College Station Eagle, [“One of the bartenders [at Coupe’s] serving Wagener Irefused to serve him a shot prior to his leaving, ac- ; cording to witness statements.” “Michael Wagener walked into the bar and asked for his birthday shot. Several of the people he came in with ordered shots from the bar and took them back and gave them to Wagener. About 15 minutes later I Wagener approached the bar and tried to order a [drink,” said Roger Gordon, an A&M former student [who was at Coupe De Ville’s the night of the incident. Neither the bartenders at Coupe De Ville's nor the owner & S pd i of the bar should be held re- 77840 ( • Freeh Manicure I. • American Manicure 1 ■■ • Air Brush Design more than 5 10 purchase icttres naged skin nake-up artist ixpires: May 31, 2001 — 11 ie experiment Balance iotation I alignment 593-8575 sponsible for this incident. “When the bartenders realized what kind of condi tion he was in, they refused to sell him a drink and told him and his friends that it was time for them to ... I would say they were only there for about 30 minutes or so,” said Gordon. According to a Sept. 29 article in The Eagle, “A friend who stayed with Wagener to watch over him (the night of his death) said she could not awake the 5-foot, 10-inch, 170-pound Wagener at 7 a.m. when Wagener’s mother called to wish him happy birthday. Efforts to revive him were not successful: Wagener was dead.” Wagener’s autopsy indicated that he had a blood alcohol content (BAG) of .47, almost six times the le gal standard for intoxication. The amount of alcohol in Wagener’s blood stream at the time of his death was equivalent to the amount of alcohol contained in almost 2 gallons of beer or 23 one-ounce shots of liquor. The employees working at Coupe De Ville’s that night are being charged with selling alcohol to an in toxicated person, a charge that carries a fine up to il,000, up to one year in jail or both. The bar owner stands to lose his liquor license, thereby being forced out of business and leaving his current employees out of a job. The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (2.02.1) states that it is against the law to serve an alcoholic beverage to a person who is “obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presents a clear danger to himself and others.” It cannot be detennined whether the employees on duty that night could tell whether Wagener was “obvi ously” intoxicated or a “danger to himself’ when he first stepped up to the bar and ordered a drink. This is an assessment that required the bartenders a few minutes to make. According to Gordon’s account of the situation, • the employees at the bar were operating within the law. When they became aware that Wagener was rapidly consuming drinks that he did not purchase, they refused to sell him or his party any more alcohol and asked them to leave. The location of the incident is a factor in this case. There have been a rash of alcohol-related deaths over the past two years in College Station. According to a May 10 article in the Houston Chronicle, “Nationwide, 50 deaths were attributed to alcohol poisoning, three of them at Texas A&M Uni versity.” On Jan. 30, 1999, an A&M student with a BAC of .223 died after falling three stories down a stairwell in the Southside Parking Garage when returning from a party. Although alcohol was officially ruled out as a contributing factor in the 1999 Bonfire collapse, the incident brought much public outcry as the me dia highlighted the fact that alcohol was present at Bonfire. As evident in recent news stories, the knee- jerk reaction stemming from the tragedy and oth er situations at A&M and around the country has led to an increased focus on the rigorous enforce ment of alcohol laws in the Bryan-College Sta tion community. In the case of Coupe De Ville’s, however, it seems like the state is not searching for the truth, but a newspaper headline. The state cannot get credit for cracking down on alcohol violations if there is no publicity. There would be nothing better for the cause than a statewide news headline reading “TABC shuts down College Station bar.” It is unfortunate that a business owner and his em ployees who made every effort to operate within the law have been chosen as a community scapegoat for the alcohol incidents at A&M — but it is likely that is what is happening in this case. Coupe De Ville’s and the employees on duty that night were not the proximate cause of Wagener’s death. The bar and its employees are simply victims of circumstance. It is probable that the same outcome would have resulted if he had been at any other venue. The only good that can come of this unfortu nate situation is that members of the college com munity will learn a lesson about the deadly conse quences of alcohol abuse mixed with poor judgment. Steven Gilbert is a senior speech communication major. f ole.. nstallation >4 in TOWN! pour PART! Harvey Rd An antiquated system Electoral College obsolete, inaccurate measure NICHOLAS ROZNOVSKY O n Nov. 7, the votes will be counted and one man will be pro claimed the president-elect of the United States. Then on Dec. 18, the real election will take place. Never mind the teeming millions who took the time to punch their ballots the month before — only 538 votes count in this race. In a secretive ceremony, the members of the Electoral College will seal their votes and send them to Washington, D.C. Finally, on Jan. 6, 2001, Congress will count their votes and announce the next president of the United States. For a nation that claims to embrace change and social evolution, the United States has an outdated and redundant elec tion system. It is time for the Electoral College to go. Although America has changed a lot since 1789, the way it elects its presidents remains es sentially the same. It is a system that discourages citizen partici pation, minimizes the impact of third-party can didates and misrepresents the electoral balance of the states. In short, the Electoral College is starting to look a little shabby as the 21 st century begins. In states such as Texas, where the winner is plainly known to all months before the election hikes place, average citizens do not have any in centive to vote. There is little doubt that George W. Bush will receive all 32 electoral votes from Texas. When elections become foregone conclu sions, people stop voting. The single-vote-does- not-make-a-difference attitude, which is already prevalent in American society, is reinforced by the Electoral College system. Currently, only Nebraska and Maine do not use the winner-take-all system to determine their states’ electoral ballots. The remaining states award the whole enchilada to the candidate with the greatest popular vote tally. See Electoral on Page 12. ERIC DICKENS Wiiothing about the death ^ " of Michael Duane Wa gener is all that surpris ing — and that is perhaps one of the saddest parts of the tragedy. On the night of Aug. 2, 1999, hours before he turned 21, Wagener and friends went to Northgate to celebrate his birthday. Wagener’s friends said they started drinking beer at Fitzwilly’s and the Dixie Chicken be fore midnight. Shortly after midnight, Wagener and his friends walked to Coupe de Ville’s, they said. Over the next 30 to 40 minutes, police reports say, Wagener consumed between five and 10 shots, each containing four ounces of different liquors. By the time Wagener left Coupe de Ville’s, friends said, he was “stumbling drunk.” Friends brought Wagener back to his apartment, where he fell into a deep sleep, waking briefly be fore dawn to throw up. By the time Wagener’s mother called at 7 a.m. to wish him a happy birthday, her son was dead. Tests showed Wagener died with a blood- alcohol content of .47, .07 more than what offi cials deem lethal and nearly six times the legal limit. Taking friends to bars on their 21st birthdays is a frequent occurrence at colleges across the nation. Usually the festivities end safely, leaving the birth day boy or girl with a hangover the next day and repeatedly telling friends that he or she will never drink again. However, when the celebration goes too far and somebody dies, blame needs to be assigned. On one hand, Wagener’s friends hold some guilt. What they did was risky and letting the good times roll too far was a mistake. As one of Wagener’s roommates said when in terviewed by police, they “made him drink too much because they were f-cking stupid.” Knowing they helped cause the death of one of their friends should be only the start of their punishment. Then there is the culpability of the three bars. Like Wagener’s friends, the employees of Fitzwilly’s, the Chicken and Coupe’s all made a grave mistake. The only difference is, these employees are pro fessionals trained to handle such situations. On that August night, the employees failed to remember their training, and as a result, should be punished by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Com mission (TABC). Fitzwilly’s owner, Richard Benning, and Fred Davis, a Bryan attorney representing the Dixie Chicken, both say Fitzwilly’s and the Chicken should not be reprimanded. Davis told The Bryan College Station Eagle that Don Ganter, owner of the Chicken, feels he will be exonerated because the bar did not serve a minor, and it was Wagener’s friends who circumvented the rules. But by allowing minors to enter and not actively checking I.D.s of drinking patrons, the Chicken and Fitzwilly’s are knowingly taking risks. When somebody takes advantage of the bars’ lax polic ing of TABC rules, the bars should be the ones held responsible. The Dixie Chicken and Fitzwilly’s know the risks they take, and they know TABC’s laws. For not thoroughly enforcing TABC’s rules against underage drinking, the two bars should face the penalties before them. As Jim Kuboviak, a Brazos County attorney, said, policing underage drinkers is “a responsibility [bar owners] accept when they get a license to sell alcohol.” Coupe de Ville’s is facing stiffer punishment from TABC, including possibly losing its license “for cause.” According to Sgt. Laban Toscano of TABC, if an establishment loses its license for cause, the es tablishment is denied the right to renew its liquor license. Granted, it is unclear exactly who put the five to 10 shots into Wagener’s hand at Coupe de Ville’s. But whether Coupe’s bartenders sold the shots to Wagener or to friends and well- wishers who then handed the drinks to him is inconsequential. As a private business on private property. Coupe’s has the right not to serve anyone and not to allow others to buy drinks for Wagener. Wagener and his friends were drinking at 12:30 on a Tuesday morning. It is unlikely the scene at Coupe’s was so out of hand the employees were not able to keep track of Wagener’s drinking. Toscano said even though a person is legally al- Coupe de Ville's should have its liquor license revoked for cause for failing to uphold the laws it was trained to enforce. lowed to drink at 12 a.m. on his or her birthday, many bars use caution and do not allow customers to drink until his or her actual birthday. Coupe’s would have been wise to have exer cised such caution. The bartenders of Coupe de Ville’s were not Wagener’s baby sitter. However, they are li censed and TABC-certified servers, and with that license comes a responsibility to uphold the law. Coupe de Ville’s should have its liquor license revoked for cause for failing to uphold the laws it was trained to enforce. To let the three bars off without punishment is to undercut the authority and necessity of TABC laws. Those laws are not in place just for instances like Wagener’s death. They are there to prevent such tragedies. When the laws get broken or blatantly ignored and a young person’s life is ended so abruptly, stiff punishment must follow. There is a lesson in responsibility to be learned. Eric Dickens is a senior English major.