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.