Just before 9 am on the morning of December 13, 2007, I was driving
south on 99E, en route to a voting session at the Oregon Liquor Control
Commission’s headquarters. I hoped that the agency’s five
governor-appointed commissioners would do the right thing and approve a
set of widely heralded rule changes that would’ve significantly
increased teenage Oregonians’ access to live music [“OLCC,” Our Town
Could Be Your Life, Oct 25]. My car was filled to capacity with fellow
all-ages music activists who, like me, were guardedly optimistic, full
of righteous zeal, and proud that our local arts community had come
together—writing countless letters and giving hours of public
testimony over the past several months—to effect meaningful
change through this issue. We were listening to Fugazi. Such was the
mood.

So how did the vote go? Well, let’s just say that on the ride home,
instead of Fugazi, we opted to listen to Nick Drake. That’s how.

The result was a 3-2 vote against improving and modernizing our
state’s outdated, overly specific, and counterproductive rules
regulating minors’ access to music venues and art spaces that serve
alcohol—but are not primarily bars. The session was intensely
dispiriting for advocates of all-ages access to arts and culture,
proponents of a logical and effective approach to teen safety, and
believers in the power of reason to persuade and prevail. However, even
more than dispiriting, it was perplexing.

Why did the OLCC’s volunteer commissioners collectively disregard
the professional opinions of their agency’s own deeply knowledgeable
staff, who had not only carefully drafted the proposed rule changes,
but also endorsed their adoption?

What effect did the literally unprecedented volume of letters and
testimony from elected officials, educators, musicians, small business
owners, students, and parents—more than 92 percent of which
expressed favorable attitudes toward the revisions in
question—have on the commissioners’ decisions?

Strangest of all, why did the majority of commissioners decide to
vote the rule changes down, only to then add that they felt they needed
more information to make a responsible decision and that, consequently,
they would reinitiate the whole process of public comment and vote
again on similar revisions sometime in 2008?

Though I am tempted to speculate and get indignant about the first
two questions, to a certain extent the existence of the third makes
them moot. As promised, a new draft of the proposed changes to the OLCC
rules was issued to the public on February 1, 2008, and we, the public,
are now in the middle of our window of opportunity to express our
resolute support. The new draft is essentially identical to the one
considered in December. It establishes a new OLCC classification for
establishments like music venues, art spaces, movie theaters, and
bowling alleys—places where, even though alcohol is served,
drinking is not the predominant activity, therefore, it might be
appropriate for people under 21 to frequent. These new rules would also
have a stringent set of precautions designed to keep minors from
drinking or being exposed to a drinking environment. This would
translate to more all-ages shows in Oregon, giving teenagers safe, fun,
positive recreational options, and more opportunities to become active
members in their local music communities as fans, performers, and
organizers.

It is critical that we let the OLCC know that we still believe in
the value of these carefully considered, responsible changes. Send an
email expressing your support to the OLCC rules coordinator (jennifer.huntsman@state.or.us)
before March 7. Even if you already wrote the OLCC about this in 2007,
please take the time to write again, as the procedural slate is clean
and your previous comments no longer technically apply. A sample email
and more information on this issue can be found at pdxpopnow.com/olcc. The OLCC
commissioners are tentatively scheduled to vote on this matter in
mid-April.

I’ll see you there.