Alcohol policy

[Burke McCrory]

>Encoding: 57 TEXT
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0
>Date:         Thu, 3 Jul 1997 11:01:00 EDT
>Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list <SCAGC-L at LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
>Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list <SCAGC-L at LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
>From: Steve Muhlberger <STEVEM at EINSTEIN.UNIPISSING.CA>
>Subject:      Alcohol policy
>To: SCAGC-L at LISTSERV.AOL.COM
>
>Morgan suggested that there is a topic affecting much of the Society that
>might be worth our discussion.
>
>That is the policy recently enacted and only now being publicized forbidding
>the sale of alcohol by SCA groups in the USA and its territories.
>
>Please do not comment on the policy before reading this whole message.  I
>think this topic, like the banishment one, could easily degenerate.  I have a
>proposal of something useful we may do that is unlikely to happen on, say,
>the Rialto.
>
>First, here is what Andrew Smith, the Executive Assistant to the Board told
>me about the policy.
>
>>>>>>
>
>At the April Board meeting, the following motion was made and passed:
>
>"Motion...to prohibit the use of any SCA funds for the purchase of
>alcohol, in the United States and its territories."
>
>This was done for insurance liability reasons.  There are two types of
>liquor coverage: Host Liquor and Liquor Liability.
>
>Host Liquor provides coverage, for example, if you bring your own booze
>to a tourney, get drunk, and damage another person or another's
>property.  We do have this coverage.
>
>Liquor Liability provides coverage for those who are selling alcohol.
>We do not have this coverage.
>
><...>  If we "sell" <he means in selling in any way, not just at a bar>
>alcohol, we need Liquor Liability coverage.  We cannot afford it.
>
>>>>>
>
>I suggest that we begin our discussion by having each US member of the GC go
>to a selection of recent autocrats and find out what effect such a policy
>would have on the normal functioning of events in their area, and how
>difficult it will be to adapt to such a ruling.
>
>For instance, in Ontario, BYOB is illegal in many contexts.  If the ruling
>applied to us every feast in a rented hall would have to be dry.  Only
>camping events would likely be exempt.  Fortunately, Ontario is not in the
>USA.
>
>Are there states or other jurisdictions where there would be a similar
>effect?
>
>I believe if we collect such information, and do it carefully, we may provide
>a service not likely to be provided elsewhere.  Let's see if we can avoid
>ranting, and do some work.
>
>I hope this suggestion finds favor with the Council.
>
>Finnvarr
>
>