General Assembly
Minutes from October 12th, 2005
Download Word File: Minutes 10/12/05
General Assembly Meeting
October 12, 2005
Johnson 200
Notes by Kenna Cottrill
Matt Kuzio, Interim Co-Chair, called the meeting to order at 5:48 PM. He introduced himself and Kara Abelson, Interim Co-Chair, and described the purpose of the General Assembly.
“Ladies and Gentlemen, It is our pleasure to welcome you to the inaugural meeting of the General Assembly. The General Assembly is the official student forum of ASOC and is a place where all students are welcome to address campus policies, raise student issues, and begin the process of developing comprehensive solutions to student concerns. It is also a place that recognizes that the student body is one of many groups that help to form the community of Occidental College. In this respect the General Assembly is a tool of the entire community to begin dialogue and the collective process of working together to solve problems. In other words, it is a forum for students to communicate and work with students; it is a forum for students to communicate and work with the administration; and it is a forum for the administration to communicate and work with the student body. Finally, the General Assembly is a place that recognizes that the people who make up the Occidental community very greatly in perspectives and ideals. For this reason the General Assembly will operate as a forum that encourages dialogue and debate, but will under no circumstances become a forum for personal attacks, hate speech or disrespectful conduct."
Matt explained that the purpose of the first General Assembly Meeting was to address the alcohol policy and ask any questions of the administrative guests: Joseph Martinez, Mid-Campus Area Coordinator, Holly Nieto, Director of Campus Safety, and Barbara Avery, Dean of Students.
About 60 students, including all Senators except Teddy Zou, were in attendance.
Amy Laslett, Sophomore Class Senator, introduced a Resolution to the General Assembly:
As a student of Occidental College, I would like to propose a resolution to begin a committee to review the alcohol policy and its accompanying disciplinary procedures. The proposed committee shall consist of at least one ASOC senator, four other students, Dean of Students Barbara Avery, and one Res-Life Coordinator. Students on the committee shall be nominated by senate. The committee will actively investigate how other liberal arts colleges shape and carry out their alcohol policies. From this information and collected input from the Occidental Student Body, the committee will work with Dean Avery, Res-life, Campus Safety and the College’s legal council to revise and possibly reform the policy and disciplinary procedures. The revised policy should be presented to the General Assembly by no later than February 8th 2006.
Matt and Kara asked if any student would like to support this Resolution. A majority of the students present, over the 5 needed for a Resolution to be official, agreed to support the resolution.
Ken Smutny, sophomore, asked what would happen now with the Resolution and how the Resolution could be changed. Matt and Kara clarified that this meeting would provide a forum to discuss the issue and potential changes to the Resolution could be made at the next General Assembly Meeting.
Joseph Martinez clarified that there is no Residence Life policy about alcohol. They follow the College policy.
Devon Puglia asked about the policy of obtaining IR’s and Campus Safety reports regarding the incidents in question before a judicial meeting. Joseph noted that students have “reasonable access” which is interpreted as a summary of the incident, but not the actual IR. Holly Nieto noted that as a victim or a participant, students have a right to get a copy of a Campus Safety Report. They do need to go to Campus Safety and show an I.D.
Ken Smutny then asked about the Claremont McKenna policy. Matt noted that they had been in conversation with the Dean of Students at Claremont and found out that they cannot use student fees to buy alcohol. Instead, the Associated Students runs a convenience store and takes profits from vending and laundry services to purchase alcohol for the students. Matt also noted that the Red Cup Policy, in which Campus Safety Officers cannot look into a students’ red cup, does not exist. Finally, Matt noted that Claremont is undergoing problems with the alcohol policy. It’s a matter of student freedoms infringing on college policy. Also, community and parental concerns are being brought up and the College is addressing those. Joseph Martinez noted that sometimes what students talk about is not written down. Also, the implementation of policy at Oxy is written down and followed.
Kara noted that the current alcohol policy follows California law, which does not allow anyone under 21 years old to drink. She mentioned that the school could lose its federal funding if it broke the law. Devon Puglia asked what federal funding was being referred to. Barbara Avery noted that the federal funding refers to financial aid.
Holly Nieto admired the students’ interest in refreshing the alcohol policy. She also reminded them that their decision should address the needs of the entire student body and campus community. She said that it would be good to compare against other schools like Oxy that have alcohol policies for the entire college, not just a “student policy.”
Ken Smutny also noted that the catering policy should be addressed in the General Assembly. Holly Nieto noted that Amy Munoz should be here if that is the case. Kara then clarified the process for brining a resolution to the General Assembly—that any student could bring an issue to be discussed and if 4 other students wanted to support the concern and make it a resolution, that could occur at the General Assembly meeting.
Returning to the topic of the alcohol policy, John Marshall, sophomore, asked if there had been fewer alcohol poisonings at other schools with less strict alcohol policies. Holly Nieto reminded the group that it is reported alcohol poisonings. Alcohol poisoning can be a very underreported incident, because it is often embarrassing for the student involved. She noted that there have been fewer reported this year, and she’s hoping that’s because there have been fewer incidents of alcohol poisoning in general.
Matt referenced a book, "Binge: Campus Life in an Age of Disconnection and Excess" by Barrett Seaman, that researched binge drinking. The book finds that students “frontload” by drinking heavily in their rooms when colleges limit alcohol at parties. Matt suggested that the committee that is formed could look at this book as part of their research.
A student (Student #1) asked what exactly the students would be able to change about the policy. Matt noted that it might be primarily disciplinary. He gave the example that if he and Kara were drinking, and she passes out, and he goes to an RA for help but is intoxicated, the RA must write him up as well. The fact that he went for help will be taken into account in both his and Kara’s disciplinary hearings, which Joseph Martinez verified. The committee could look at that kind of situation. Holly Nieto noted that the alcohol policy itself does not impose sanctions, that it’s the judicial process that imposes sanctions.
Brett Safford, sophomore, asked about the difference between Campus Safety and the RAs. He noted that the RAs were required to write a student up for alcohol but that Campus Safety had been known to just make a student pour out the alcohol. Holly Nieto noted that Campus Safety does document those situations. Campus Safety is not planning to adopt a new policy different than what they have at this moment. The major difference between Campus Safety and the RAs is that Campus Safety can give out citations.
Ken Smutny clarified that under California law no one under 21 years of age can drink. He wondered if the California law also described penalties that colleges had to give. Holly Nieto noted that if a student under 21 could technically be arrested for a Minor in Possession (MIP) charge because it is a misdemeanor. However, LAPD has a lot of other things to do and they usually just issue a citation. Instead of turning students over to LAPD, Campus Safety can issue citations and there is a school policy in place for dealing with alcohol violations. Additionally, she noted that if a student who is over 21 gives alcohol to an underage student, the student over 21 could be cited for a misdemeanor as well. A student asked about the range of punishments—such as confiscating alcohol and conversations. Dean Avery noted that the sanctions can range from a conversation to something more serious, but that it was up to the institution. Joseph Martinez noted that it could be a conversation, censure, probation, and expulsion.
Devon Puglia noted that Oxy is different in punishments not in the policy from other schools. He felt that these punishments lead students to drink quietly in their rooms. Ken Smutny noted that he was still confused and clarified that no state law determined the penalties for policy violations. Dean Avery repeated that it is up to the institution. Joseph Martinez clarified that since the institution has and follows policies that are in line with state law, law enforcement agencies will allow the institution to have control of their policy and penalties. Holly Nieto reminded the students that the college submits information to an annual federal report called the Cleary Report which reports the number of alcohol violations and other crimes committed on campus. Thus, this information is being monitored on a federal level as well.
A student (Student #2) had an issue with the entire conversation. He noted that it was necessary to recognize that the students cannot change the fact that people under 21 cannot drink . He also noted that the college policy is much more lenient than the LAPD. He asked what exactly are people proposing to solve? Do they want to make the policies more lenient? It’s an extremely sticky situation, and he’s not hearing progress in the conversation. What do students hope to achieve? Kara reminded the group that this was a space to bounce ideas off each other. She said that the committee could look at what other schools are doing as well.
Joseph Martinez agreed that the students might not want to change the policy, that they might want to change the sanctions. He also said that the thought there were misconceptions about what happens. For him, the first time a student comes to his office, they get a warning and have a discussion. An official note is placed in the file. If there are multiple offenses at once, in one weekend or in one semester, then a student could be placed on censure or probation. There is an educational piece to the sanctions as well. Sanctions are not punitive in terms of asking students to pay money. Perhaps it’s necessary to look at more educational sanctions as well.
A student (Student #3) asked what they hoped to accomplish with the discipline. Joseph Martinez clarified that he hoped students would gain a sense of responsibility—that the college has let a student know that this is the policy and you have a responsibility to follow it. The educational piece is about exploring a student’s habit and understanding the policy. The question is: How can the student better show the college that he/she understands the policy and this is how it is being enforced?
Ali Raymond, sophomore, Campus Wide Senator, asked about violations in a short amount of time and how that was handled. Was the process shortened and were student automatically placed on censure. Joseph Martinez noted that there is no automatic sanctions. He did note that if three incidents occurred in one weekend, for example, all three incidents would be looked at at one time.
David Marsh, Senior, ASOC President, asked if any adjustments could be made to the resolution now. Matt noted that the changes could be made later. David then noted that it might be important to look at the drinking scene on campus to determine how big the scene is. When and why are people drinking? Maybe there is room to figure out how to make alternatives, such as more social activities. Don Johnson, sophomore, agreed with David. He said there is a difference between legal practices and the culture that exists. He said it might be important to work to change the legal/policy practices that lead to a culture where students leave campus to drink.
Student #1 asked if the number of alcohol poisonings in a year is related to the strictness of the policy enforcement. For instance, does Campus Safety or Residence Life tell their officers/RAs to be more strict if there are more alcohol policies and less strict if there aren’t as many? Holly Nieto said that Campus Saftey responds to every incident. She noted that some officers just stumble upon alcohol poisonings but it’s the same intensity if it’s the 1st alcohol poisoning or the 15th. She said there was no quota system, like “Okay guys, get me 7 alcohol poisonings this weekend!” Joseph Martinez noted that there is an adjustment if there is a large amount of alcohol poisonings. Last year, when there were a lot of alcohol poisonings, Joseph encouraged his staff to encourage the residents to come for help. The rationale there is that he would rather be talking to a student in his office than have them not be here at all. The RAs are not asked to “crack down”, but respond to what they are drawn to. Often the RAs are drawn to someone who is passed out, asks for help, has an open container, or if a room is noisy.
Dean Avery noted that it would be important to deal with the climate on campus, as David suggested earlier. It might be important to explore the ramifications of drinking, such as assault or property damage. It’s not about writing people up. But, if a student is drinking every weekend, that issue is bigger than the alcohol policy, it’s about a student dealing or not dealing with an issue. Owen Thomas, junior, clarified that if a student is drinking every weekend, there is a difference between binge drinking and having a beer and shooting pool. There’s a spectrum of drinking, even though legally there’s not really a spectrum. If a student is 19 and drinking a beer, it’s not okay. Dean Avery noted that this is a difference between policy and implementation. Holly Nieto noted that it might be important to look at excessive drinking and that every college and university is talking about this issue. In over 90% of incidents, alcohol is a contributing factor. Alcohol affects the personal and community health.
Ken Smutny then brought of the issue of funding. Right now, student fees cannot be used for buying alcohol. Why is that? Is it an administrator or student decision? Can it be changed? Holly Nieto suggested contacting the Chief Financial Officer of the college regarding that question. Patrice Hall, sophomore, Sophomore Class Senator, encouraged students to look at this issue from the perspective of the first 3 years of being in college. The money would be spent on things/events that you, as an underage student, cannot participate in. David Marsh noted that student funds should be used for events that are inclusive. Events for students under 21 are not inclusive. Ken clarified that his question was about the students’ agency to change the policy. Dean Avery said that she did not believe that student fees have ever been used to buy alcohol. She noted that at the various colleges and universities she’s worked at, student fees have never been used to buy alcohol. She also noted that students have sued schools for funding clubs that they did not agree with. Matt told the group that the alcohol policy states that funding cannot be used to buy alcohol. Joseph Martinez reminded the group that current college policy supersedes all other policy; if the college policy was changed, the funding policy could be changed.
A student (Student #4) then asked who pays for Not Unhappy Hour. Anders Engdahl, senior, Senior Class Senator, noted that while ASOC funds are used to pay for food and facilities, the alcohol is not purchased using student fees. A student wondered if the school could allow students to decide how much, if any, of their student fees went to alcohol. Holly Nieto said that the college’s General Counsel, Sandy Cooper, should be involved in this discussion as well. It was noted that Not Unhappy Hour is not open to everyone on campus. A student (Student #5) noted that the Not Unhappy Hour event was not about excluding everyone, but was about targeting certain groups of people. David Marsh asked how the event could be at all inclusive if Campus Safety was at the door checking I.D.s? At this point, Matt reminded the students to keep the discussion on topic and respectful.
Ken Smutny asked if they could be creative with programming. If there was something for students under 21 to do, would that be okay. For instance, students over 21 could drink alcohol and there could be a playground for students under 21. Joesph Martinez noted that this was how Toga worked. There was a designated drinking area and there are ways to designate who is over 21.
Don Johnson stated that he had known of close friends who are over 21 and still had their alcohol poured out, and he wondered why that was. Holly Nieto noted that the issue is geographical. There are certain locations on campus that you cannot drink—it doesn’t matter if you’re 21, 51, or 71. Those places include the quad and the open areas in the residence halls. Joseph Martinez also noted that if the door is open, it is a public space.
Student #2 noted that no one is going to stop college student from drinking. The question is whether the alcohol use is hurting others or the student him/herself. It’s a matter of reporting alcohol poisoning, destroying property, or hurting others. If students are in their rooms not hurting anyone, then this shouldn’t be seen as a problem. Joseph Martinez noted that he agreed. He also wondered what we could do that is less than a warning. In many cases, students only get a warning. He wanted help finding something he could do that is less than a warning.
Reed Mettler, junior, asked if a residence hall room is considered public when the door is open and how space is determined public or private space. Holly Nieto said that if the door is open, there is no reasonable expectation for privacy. She noted that the public spaces that were okay for drinking depended on the event. For events in Sycamore Glen, there is a clear beer garden. Reed also asked about having the door closed and could students keep the door closed when Campus Safety came to the door. Holly noted that if Campus Safety comes to the door, student must open the door. To acknowledge Campus Safety’s presence, it is not enough to just talk to them through the door.
Devon Puglia returned to Joseph Martinez’s question about what is less than a warning. He noted that the RA position could be given more leeway as leaders. They have a difficult position as mentor/friend/advisor and enforcers of policy. Could the policy be that the RAs always make the student pour out the alcohol and that’s it? He also wondered when a warning becomes a censure. He also questioned the disciplinary process: if there are three violations in one weekend, there is no time to understand the policy, which then undermines the disciplinary process. Joseph noted that legally, it would not be enough for the RAs to just pour out the alcohol. Holly Nieto noted that at one point the RAs did just pour out the alcohol. However, they suffered so much abuse and decided they were not paid enough to deal with the abuse and asked that the policy be more strict than that. Dean Avery noted that some schools have begun using graduate students to enforce the alcohol policy because it is so difficult for RAs to enforce policy with their peers.
A student (Student #6) understood the door being closed, but asked about windows be open. Does that fall in to the reasonable expectation of privacy? He felt that Campus Safety is looking in the windows and catching students drinking that way. Holly Nieto assured students that if Campus Safety is drawn to a scene, because a law is being broken, someone is in distress, or there is a facilities issue, they have the right and obligation to address it. However they are not looking in the window trying to catch people.
Matt then recognized that the General Assembly meeting had to come to a close because another group had the room reserved at 7 PM. He thanked everyone for coming and reminded them to come to the next meeting on Tuesday, October 18 from 12:30-1:30 in Johnson 200.