was the main ideal held by those who closing of the building for Oktoberfest.
objected
to the
Telegdi has said that other buildings were considered as possible sites for the event, because of the above considerations. For one reason and another, no other building was deemed suitable. At this point there were two alternatives short of canning the whole idea. One was to revise the form of the festivities, such that the building would not have to be closed-this would have necessitated running it on a somewhat smaller scale. The other was to reverse the campus centre open policy for the period of the event, in which case objections from the CC Board would have to be faced. It was the latter course which was chosen. University of Waferloo Wuterloo, Onfufio volume 74 speciul edifion wednesduy, October 70, 7973
chc fter five years of commercial
A
,munity, Oktoberfest -a similarity with the German funny clothes - has finally - --
the
success in the K-W corncultural tradition whose only original consists of beer and to the University m of - come -
etting Oktoberfest through the board wasn’t as difficult G as it might have been under other circumstances. In the first place, Telegdi was already a board member, and, by the time the issue came to debate, Art Ram and Phil Lanouette [also on the Board of Entertainment] had also managed to obtain seats. Secondly, the amount of planning and organisation required if the event was to go through necessitated that approval be given during the early summer, several months before it was actually scheduled. The campus centre board has twelve members. During the summer, most of these members were off campus, and of the five remaining, the federation members had a clear majority. When Ram introduced the motion to approve Oktoberfest, therefore, it was carried immediately and without difficulty, with the debate focusing on three main points. Opposition came initially from the turnkeys, who apparently disapproved of Oktoberfest in principle, but were willing to go along with it if some of the proceeds could be appropriated for turnkey salaries, as insufficient funds had been allotted for this purpose in the campus centre budget. The turnkeys were asking for a lump sum of $5,000 or 25 per cent of the net profit. The federation people found these terms unacceptable. David Assmann, disagreement with
a federation council the Oktoberfest idea,
member stressed
in the
positions on the federation, and their. endorsement of Oktoberfest in that capacity. It was soon discovered, however, that no CC Board policy existed on conflicts of interest, and, despite the moral indignation of some present, a motion approving Oktoberfest in principle was eventually passed. [Conflict of interest was raised again in subsequent meetings, but became so embroiled in procedural hassles that no real discussion ever took place.] Telegdi has argued that the Campus Centre Board is not supported by student interest, most of its members having been acclaimed. He feels that, because of this lack of interest, it can not truly be considered representative, and since he had solicited and obtained the support of the societies on campus for Oktoberfest, that he was justified in manipulating the board in the manner he did. It can only be conceded that Telegdi and Ram went as far as they could to determine if student support existed for the Oktoberfest scheme. What can be argued, however, is whether such support was sufficient basis for going ahead with the project, particularly when something less grandiose could easily have been organised with inconvenience to and objection from no-one. he Chevron feels that in bringing Oktoberfest about, too 1 many innocent toes were stepped on, too many moral issues were skirted; at every juncture, Ram and Telegdi ignored criticism and ignored the negative aspects of their plan Oktdberfest sets a dangerous precedent for use of the campus centre; the spirit in which the campus centre was won five years ago is threatened by its current closure. The campus centre is a building-the controlled by students; as such it has as a physical focus for coordinated activity. When this building is closed being misused, and its purpose jeopardized, particularly when backroom manipulation are involved.
only buildingthe potential to serve and positive student to some students it is and usefulness are power games and
We hope that students will become upset enough at what is happening to react in some way to the campus centre/Oktoberfest situation: by talking about it, by writing
Waterloo. Ine bramcnud ot tne Federation or Students board of entertainment under the leadership of chairman Art Ram, Oktoberfest has generated wholehearted support from some segments of the campus community, and vehement criticism from others. Its supporters Telegdi -point whooping it up band and say,
among them to the several nightly to the W’s what the
federation president Andy hundred students who are strains of an oom-pah-pah students want.”
Detractors are not primarily interested in the concept of Oktoberfest itself, though most tend to see it as a culturally bankrupt exploitation of a German custom. Their objections focus mainly on the fact that, because of the event, the campus centre must be closed for a period of ten days except to those willing to put forward the two dollar admission fee, as well as some of the political circumstances surrounding the manner in which the decision to hold Oktoberfest in this form was made.
B
efore its “liberation” in 1968, the campus centre was run directly by the university, under the managership of administration appointee Paul Gerster, whose word was god. Thanks largely to Brian Her, then-president of the federation, Gerster was physically ejected from the building, which was then occupied by students until the administration acquiesced to the indirect control which it now wields. Since then-until Oktoberfest-the campus centre, under the direction of the board which was set up to administrate it, has maintained a policy of making the building open to all members of the on and off-campus communities at no charge. The campus centre has also provided a pub area, space for the federation of students and some services, as well as areas where various groups can hold meetings and run events.
Admittedly, the campus centre has never been used to its fullest potential. Too often it has been nothing more than a place to sit and talk, and-for some-to sleep when there was nowhere else to go, although these are important functions. But the fact that it was there, that students could congregate or aggregate there if they wished -this
This special issue of the Chevron emerges from a dusty battlefield, stained with the blood of alain pratte, don ballanger, nick savage, Susan johnson, george kaufman, dudley Paul, john keyes, john broeze, dale and Chris, and andy telegdi. I
-II--Y-I--III* from the
--==-===aI
turnkeyigiidl
some
observers
1.
. . . . . . . .
prese:t
IL-lllll
UiFrtie
meeting* The final point of contention concerned “conflict of interest,” which would have appeared to be a very real issue Ram and Lanouette’s concurrent in view Of Telegdil
iiincil arisen.
6
reprYsei:iiive
u~uu~~r~3/
the
aIm4
serious
uy questions
lam311m5
yuum tri;’
have
We would hate to see the Campus Centre-which serves a unique function -become in any sense an imitation of, or substitute for, off-campus commercial enterprises.