On March 29, students in all University of Dayton housing received an e-mail from Christine Schramm, Director of Residence Education, that generated a reaction from some students.

The e-mail stated that due to concerns over 'unauthorized spring festival parties,' the university would be enforcing the 'Party Policy' and had amended the disciplinary predetermined appropriate standard sanctions (PASS) for a variety of disciplinary issues. The e-mail emphasized that students hosting any events resulting in 'crowd control problems' or other safety issues would be held responsible for these problems.

The e-mail also stated that due to the 'special risk' of certain behaviors associated with past events, the PASS had been amended, doubling fines for citations such as underage consumption, drunken/disorderly behavior and kegs, and issuing suspensions for vandalism, physical abuse and resisting arrest.

Some students responded angrily to these new sanctions, and Drew Navolio, president of the SGA, found himself being blamed for the amended PASS.

'It was assumed that we kind of let this happen and didn't put up much of a fight,' Navolio said.

He said that in fact, he and the rest of the SGA received no information about the amended sanctions prior to the e-mail that was sent to the entire student body. In an e-mail to Dr. William Schuerman and the members of Student Development, Navolio said he wanted the student body to know that 'SGA did not let these changes happen, but this was a decision made by Student Development without the input of SGA.'

One of the SGA's main concerns, Navolio said, is that the university administration has always involved the SGA when making decisions that will affect the student body, but did not do so in this case. In a recent resolution passed by the Student Senate, it is noted that there has been 'successful communication for past year's unrecognized festivals, St. Patrick's Day 2005, Alumni Winter Weekend, and other gatherings of which the University has been apprehensive.'

Navolio said he is concerned that the SGA was not consulted before the sanctions were amended.

'We knew this would have a kickback from students' he said. 'We want to be included in those conversations so we can let the university know where they're going to see kickback.'

Dr. Schuerman clarified in an e-mail sent to Navolio and Bridget McIlwee (SGA Vice President) that the PASS had not been changed, but rather the administration planned to 'take 'administrative disciplinary action' in the form of double or increased sanctions for any offense related to an unauthorized 'fest' party.'

'Since these sanctions are not in keeping with the PASS, students will be provided the opportunity to appeal and challenge these sanctions as 'too harsh,'' Schuerman explained in the e-mail.

In a second e-mail, Schuerman explained that the SGA was not consulted because the administration 'understood this to be an 'underground' event which a number of residents of Lowes Street were determined to sponsor regardless of any university regulations or threats it posed to the community.'

'I did not consider this to be a matter involving the interest or support of SGA in any manner,' Schuerman said in the e-mail.

Schuerman apologized for failing to recognize that students might hold SGA responsible for the changes. He stated that the administration had attempted to meet with residents of Lowes Street about concerns regarding 'Lowesfest' but had only one student attend the meeting. The administrative changes were a result of 'no one on Lowes Street being willing to step forward and take responsibility.'

'We have a duty to provide reasonable care and protection for the university community,' Schuerman explained.

Navolio is unsure, however, about the intent of the amended sanctions.

'I don't necessarily think that the sanctions were to make students safer,' he said, noting that the increased police presence on Lowes Street took away police from other streets in the student neighborhood.

While Navolio said that he believes the goal of the sanctions was to stop the event from happening, he thinks they acted only as 'a deterrent for keeping Lowesfest from getting out of control.'

'Raising fines and changing policy a week before things happen doesn't necessarily stop anything from happening,' he said.

McIlwee said that she is concerned by the apparent administrative idea that students cannot control themselves without heavy sanctions.

'There seems to be an attitude that students cannot possibly be responsible enough for their own actions,' McIlwee said.

While Navolio and McIlwee expressed their belief that no UD students acted in a violent manner during this year's Lowesfest, Schuerman explained that incidents during past years' events gave the administration reason for concern, prompting the changes.

The behavior of past years that he cited in his e-mail included 'rocks and bottles thrown at university staff, grounds personnel, public safety officers; yard and street fines; reports of sexual assault; out-of-control binge drink[ing] and blatant disregard of the Ohio statutes regarding underage drinking; property damage; and numerous criminal violations.'

An e-mail sent on April 3 by UD Public Safety stated that there were 46 student citations issued during Lowesfest, as well as 32 people either arrested or issued criminal citations, 19 of whom were not UD students. One incident cited in the e-mail involved 'non-UD intruders into a house party carrying a loaded and concealed weapon and pushing drugs.'

The e-mail stated that 'the vast majority of students were cooperative during Lowesfest' and included a warning to monitor parties for unknown guests and avoid advertising social events to the public.

The recent resolution passed by SGA as a result of this situation emphasizes the need for improved relations between the university administration, UD Public Safety, the SGA and the student body as a whole.

In addition to requesting that the university revoke citations 'improperly issued' on April 1 and 2, the SGA resolution requests that the university 'engages SGA specifically in future conversations over student safety and university responsibility' and 'communicates to the student body'its understanding of the direction of life on campus, and specifically policy decisions in the student neighborhood.'