[Vision2020] liquor insurance liability

[Mike Curley]

Mr. Hansen:
a.  the "public v. private education" issue has not been a 
debate in my opinion
b.  if it has been a debate, it is a debate that was 
conducted once, ad nauseam to many others on the list
c.  providing liquor at public events in public facilities is 
and has been an issue of not only public debate but city 
council consideration and vote (beer garden at 
Renaissance Fair)--thus, not only the authorization and 
insurance for such events, but their very propriety in 
public facilities, seems to me to be largely more relevant 
than a repetitious quarrel,  that was started (should 
anyone actually remember) by a post about an 
"interesting report" that wasn't (interesting) and provided 
nothing in the way of useable data except for purely 
rhetorical purposes.

But thank you for your reply.  It appears that my attempt 
to negotiate both issues off list has failed.  I have no 
interest in further burdening the list on either issue.

Mike Curley




On 11 Feb 03, at 9:00, Thomas Hansen wrote:

From:           	Thomas Hansen <tomh@FNA.fsn.uidaho.edu>
To:             	"'curley@turbonet.com'" <curley@turbonet.com>, vision2020@moscow.com
Subject:        	RE: [Vision2020] liquor insurance liability
Date sent:      	Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:00:51 -0800

Mr. Curley (and others) -

I fail to see your logic.  Public versus private education
is a debate that clearly has its pros and cons (on both
sides).  In that manner, it is a debate.

If I were to see logical pros and cons of providing liquor
with or without proper authorization/insurance, I could see
openly discussing this in this forum.

Tom Hansen

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Curley [mailto:curley@turbonet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:59 AM
To: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] liquor insurance liability



Mr. Hansen: 

...and, therefore, you and all those others interested in
continuing the sniping, repetitive, and increasingly
irrelevant diatribes about public and private education will
likewise continue off list? If you would agree to that
trade- off, I say this to Mr. Roderick: I think your
question expresses a concern and an issue that are 
properly
addressed on this forum. But, I would greatly appreciate it
if you would make this small sacrifice for the greater good.
And, I will participate with you off list to find the
answers to your questions. 


Mike Curley 


On 11 Feb 03, at 5:52, Tom Hansen wrote: 


Send reply to:         <thansen@moscow.com> 

From:         "Tom Hansen" <thansen@moscow.com> 

To:         <Cjsnightclub@aol.com>, <vision2020@moscow.com> 

Subject:         RE: [Vision2020] liquor insurance liability


Date sent:         Tue, 11 Feb 2003 05:52:27 -0800 


[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] 


I seriously believe that this issue would (and should) be 

better handled off list. E-mails to and from those 

individuals responsible for managing/sponsoring this event 

would better serve the intended purpose than to "air it" to 

everyone on the list serve. 


Thank you, 


Tom Hansen 

Moscow, Idaho 

-----Original Message----- 

From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com 

[mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com]On 

Behalf Of Cjsnightclub@aol.com 

Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 6:23 PM 

To: vision2020@moscow.com 

Subject: [Vision2020] liquor insurance liability 



I understand the Red Door is catering their liquor license 

to the event 

tonight at the 1912 building. I think it only appropriate 

that we all know and see a copy of the proof of insurance or


binder for liquor liability, "off premise" for tonight's 

event at the 1912 building or any other city/county 

facility. 


Phil Roderick 


_____________________________________________________ List
services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ