The Dean of Students Office and the ASSU sponsored a town hall meeting last night to allow students the chance to share their views about the Office of Student Activities (OSA), Old Union and Tresidder Union.

The meeting started with moderator Rev. Joanne Sanders, administrative dean for the Office of Religious Life, asking students to name the strengths of the OSA. After more than a minute of complete silence, ASSU Senator Sarah Golabek-Goldman ‘10 ventured a response.

“I think they make parties more safe,” she said. “Exotic Erotic is much safer because of the regulations they implemented.”

“So, they help you plan parties and get the kinks worked out?” Sanders asked.

Kat Kershner ‘08 interjected, offering a different opinion.

“While they make you plan parties in advance,” she said, “I wouldn’t go so far as to say they help you plan them.”

This exchange set the tone for the 90-minute feedback session in which about 20 students expressed widespread discontent with what they described as systemic problems in the OSA.

One of the most prominent concerns of the assembled group of senators, Row house financial managers, chairs of Greek organizations and student group presidents, centered around what they characterized as a lack of both transparency and accountability on the part of the OSA.

“There’s a huge sense that the OSA is judge, jury, and executioner,” Kershner said. “The same person hears a complaint against your organization, presses charges, decides your punishment and tracks how that punishment is carried out. When you need an objective voice, there is no one to go to.”

ASSU senator Luukas Ilves ‘09 agreed, citing the need for an appeals process for students unhappy with OSA decisions. Ilves also criticized the “inconsistency and capriciousness” of OSA decisions.

“It seems that, when they are faced with similar scenarios taking place only a few weeks apart, they give very different decisions,” Ilves said. “I wouldn’t say their decisions are biased because there’s nothing systematic [about the process], but the inconsistency makes it extremely difficult for student groups to plan events.”

Other students disagreed with Ilves’ assertion that the OSA was unbiased. They contended that student groups with a history of good management build up more credibility with the OSA, and receive faster responses to phone calls and emails which would otherwise be left unanswered for weeks.

“I feel that there’s definitely institutionalized resentment on the part of the OSA,” Kershner said. She criticized the OSA for failing to recognize the turnover that occurs within student groups, and for holding grudges against groups for the mistakes of their predecessors.

All of the assembled students agreed that the lack of transparency within the OSA encouraged obfuscation on the part of the student groups and Greek organizations attempting to navigate the OSA’s bureaucracy.

“The whole thing reeks of legalese and bad faith,” said one student, who identified himself only as “a member of a Row house who’s had a lot of trouble with the OSA this year.”

“There’s a huge incentive to hide possibly dangerous things,” added Ben Trombley-Shapiro ‘07, citing the example of an resident assistant who might decide not to call an ambulance for a resident with alcohol poisoning because it would incur OSA bias and make it harder to plan parties and events.

Eric Boromisa ‘08 suggested that the OSA “focus not on present failures but on best practices.”

The rest of the group agreed, proposing a number of ways to make the OSA the resource its administrators purports it to be. The majority of their suggestions centered around ways to expand the department, which they agreed was problematically understaffed.

The group recommended that the OSA hire different staff members to field the concerns of students planning different kinds of events: one specializing in social events, a second specializing in academic and cultural events and a third to help students handle the logistics of reserving space for conferences and panels. They also recommended that the OSA hire student consultants to incorporate student input and expertise into the OSA.

Along with staff expansion, the group unanimously agreed that the OSA needed to do a better job of making resources available to student groups, many of which experience similar, recurring problems. Suggestions ranged from a checklist for party planners to a calendar in which registered heads of student groups would be able to list parties and events, so that multiple parties would not occur on the same day.

The final half hour of the meeting tackled student concerns about Old Union and Tresidder Union. The main concerns surrounding Old Union in particular were similar to those of the OSA, with students again citing lack of transparency and availability of information about the renovation process. They were also particularly concerned about the scarcity of good dining options on campus outside a very limited set of hours.

The meeting ended on an uneasy note. When participants asked Sanders what the University would do with their feedback, she gave only a vague reply.

“I wish I could give you a direct answer, but I can’t,” Sanders said. “All I can do is pass along this information and say that it was raised a number of times, and that students want to know where this goes from here.”

The email advertising the event said that the Dean of Students Office would use the information to reform its various departments over the summer. However, after the meeting, most students remained skeptical, expressing concern that changes made over the summer would be implemented without further input, since most students will be off campus.