The students and alumni of Queen’s University can say goodbye to the first student-run bar in Canada. After 30-plus years of continuous (and admittedly sometimes rocky) operations, one of the best live music venues in eastern Ontario has as much chance of reopening as the Queen’s Centre does of being completed on time. The Engineering Society engaged a task force of students to review the necessary steps for reopening the bar. The subsequent reports can be described at best as inadequate.
When you close a bar and fire 40 people based in part on “financial irregularities” the ensuing report should have some information about what went wrong with the finances or how to improve them. But rather than summarize the independent accountant’s report (which the EngSoc executive refused to make public) or offer suggestions on what similar businesses use for their financial policies, the report suggests it will cost engineering students as much as $120,000 to reopen the bar, and after over a term of fundraising they’ve got less than two per cent of the necessary capital.
The task force’s marketing report is failing not only in its depth of research but also in the shockingly simple assumptions it makes, which demean not only the intelligence of Queen’s students but the integrity of the entire “task force” process. The report suggests Clark should encourage more all-ages events; something Clark used to do but was told by the liquor licence-holder in the 2004-05 academic year were to happen no more. It suggests placing posters in Goodes Hall to appeal to commerce students—something that has been done for the past two years.
Further exemplifying a lack of research, the programming report assumes Clark was the prime hangout location for engineers across campus. Rather, from first-hand experience I can say that outside of Ritual Clark’s customer base was approximately 75 per cent non-engineers. The pub’s evening programming was dominated by smokers and fundraisers for non-engineering groups and in the last few years engineering students, groups and services had largely abandoned the bar as a venue for their events.
The last time Clark underwent a significant revisioning process, six years ago, there was a diverse group of individuals consulting with students and professionals to ensure the future of the bar could be preserved. Despite the success of the previous process, which yielded a year-over-year increase in revenue, Macnamara fails to mention the five-to-10 year planning process, which set the bar on its current course as an events-based bar, moving away from an engineering focus and adopting the previous branding strategy. Macnamara stresses the need for Clark to be fiscally and legally responsible, implying but not clarifying that laws had been broken. The task force reports, however, suggest committing potentially illegal acts such as discounting drinks. Macnamara’s suggestions, in addition to the committees’ recommendations, demonstrate an unwillingness to work with the framework he developed. Why not take his suggestions to the committee to review? Why not bounce them off the people supposedly doing the research? A sounding board becomes especially necessary when suggestions include having Gaels and ArtSci frosh tour the bar, something SOARB has traditionally tried to shy away from.
Students should be concerned about Macnamara’s plans to dedicate $53,000 of student fee money (through loan forgiveness and re-launch grants) to reopen a service that didn’t need to be closed in the first place. Students should be concerned about proposals to hire one or two permanent staff members, a pre-condition for reopening the bar, and the increase in student fees that will inevitably result. By closing the bar “on their own terms” the EngSoc executive has unfortunately opened the doors for the University administration to force changes in the bar and the society’s operations.
The Science Constable service, which served the engineering student community inside and outside the bar, will be no more. Macnamara’s proposal to have a Chief Constable but to use the existing AMS Student Constables for staffing is flat-out moronic. Not only does this build in an extra cost to engineering students, it creates confusion and layers of red tape for what already can be a challenging process. If there isn’t going to be a SciCon service, then there’s no need to have a Chief. What’s most disturbing is a trend towards the contracted-security model the AMS runs. While they seem to think it works flawlessly, the integrated SciCon/Clark staff had significantly less calls to campus security for assistance and an increased level of ownership and co-operation between those enforcing the rules and those serving liquor. By keeping the services integrated (like every other establishment in Kingston) rather than contracting out, you create a cohesive staff under a consistent management mandate to ensure patrons have an enjoyable and safe experience.
After much research and debate, Macnamara came up with the groundbreaking conclusion that more work was necessary to determine EngSoc’s stance on incorporation. What’s most upsetting is that he explains how incorporation will have implications for the other decisions being made in the report, yet it’s briefly mentioned at the end. Worst of all, the decision on whether to incorporate would drastically change the operations and structure of the society, yet it doesn’t seem to push back any of the timelines for opening the pub or implementing the financial accountability measures mentioned elsewhere in the report. This degree of shortsightedness reveals Macnamara’s inability to foresee his actions’ consequences and has dire implications for the class of Science ’11 and beyond.
——————
Tom Woodhall was Clark Hall Pub’s business manager in 2004-05. He was also a student constable from 2002-07, EngSoc archivist in 2002-03. external communications director in 2003-04, AMS representative in 2004-05 and is president of the class of Sci ’05.
EngSoc’s Clark Hall Pub report can be read here.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.
