However, I recently discovered how asinine ResLife’s regulations can be. After no more than half an hour at SHS, I emerged to find my bike, which I had left locked to the railing on the wheelchair ramp, was gone. So too were the bikes of two other people who left at the same time, one of which had been left attached to a light post. After much confusion, we discovered that ResLife had sent someone to cut the locks off our bikes and cart them to a storage facility in Mudd House.

Perhaps the most annoying part of this was that when I finally showed up at ResLife’s offices, the woman on duty insisted that the policy was posted on their website. The relevant part reads, “Bicycles should be registered with University police and secured to bicycle racks outside the residence halls. Do not lock bikes to fences or handrails.” First, this makes no mention of the many bike racks not outside residence halls, which should be equally fair game for shear-wielding ResLife employees, but more importantly, it makes absolutely no reference to what happens if a bicycle is attached to anywhere but a bike rack. In my experience, WUPD would leave orange notifications on offending bicycles giving their owners something like a week to move them. ResLife did put up signs at the beginning of this year, but only on the South 40, and only for a couple days. This is not remotely helpful for anyone who does not live on the South 40; one of the people whose bicycle ResLife removed was a graduate student at the George Warren Brown School of Social Work. And it is certainly important enough that if ResLife is going to make a huge deal out of it, it should at least be online.

What ResLife also fails to mention is that not only will your bicycle be removed—incidentally, with no sign that ResLife took it—but it will be damaged in the process. My bicycle was covered in scratches and the chain was hanging off the gears. Another student has experienced similar but less superficial issues—her seat was damaged. Had my bike been run-down scrap metal, I wouldn’t have been peeved, but it was less than two weeks old and cost $550. Now, it’s banged up, and the chain creaks as it goes around the gears. It protests violently if I try to shift the big gears.

The policy also isn’t equally enforced. When I went to collect my bicycle, the man responsible for cutting the lock met me outside Mudd. Standing a foot away from him were three bicycles, all attached to the bench. I wouldn’t advocate that they be removed, but to take a bike that’s attached to a lamppost and then to stand within reach of three bicycles that are all attached to a bench is hypocritical enough to send anyone into an apoplectic fit.

One would hope the rationale for this would be reasonable. The ResLife employee I asked told me that it is against Clayton’s regulations for bikes not to be attached to racks and that if Clayton police sees bikes not on racks, Wash. U. gets fined $20 a bike. However, when I called Clayton police, the officer I spoke to had never heard of such a policy and told me that it was “probably a scare tactic” on the part of ResLife to make sure students locked up their bikes appropriately. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the ResLife employee lied to me—I’m sure she was just misinformed—but her misinformation does suggest that there is no legitimate reason for ResLife to be so ridiculous.

I have never been upset with ResLife before this. I never understood the exodus from campus that occurred after freshman year, and I’m immeasurably happy about the housing I was assigned for this year. But this policy leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It is unfair to students, whom ResLife ostensibly exists to serve, has no good reason for existing and needs to be removed.

The Office of Residential Life does not provide wireless Internet services in its off-campus apartments and does not permit students to set up their own routers.

Off-campus residents are expected to use Ethernet cables to access the Internet from their rooms, restricting where they can use their laptops.

Following continued student discontent, off-campus apartments Residential College Director Ashley Swanson-Hoye sent out a survey in order to collect student feedback about the current state of off-campus Wi-Fi, though the findings are not being released.

Hoye could not be reached for comment.

The results will be used to help Information Services & Technology (IS&T), which oversees University technology, see where students stand on the issue.

The University does not let students use their own router systems in order to preserve the University’s secure Internet connection and to keep students from disrupting the network if the router is connected incorrectly. Still, many students do install their own routers.

“In the beginning of the year I tried to set up my own router system and wasn’t able to,” junior Alex Padovano said. “It is an inconvenience to only have Internet access through the router systems. I wish the administration would provide Wi-Fi access in our buildings.”

Other students said that they are only able to plug one computer at a time into the Ethernet boxes in their rooms.

“I think that it is inconvenient but not terrible. The Internet is a little slower than it is on campus as well, and that is sometimes a pain. Overall it isn’t terrible,” junior Abby Traub said.

Junior Mamatha Challa, a Residential Advisor on University Drive, noted that many of her residents are displeased with IS&T’s off-campus offerings.

“Off-campus wireless Internet is something that people really want, especially because they specifically put money into living with Wash. U. Residential Life,” Challa said. “It’s especially inconvenient for students because technically they’re not allowed to have their own wireless.”

Internet access has been an ongoing issue on the Danforth Campus. Over the past year, the University has been working to improve the Internet on campus. One recent improvement is the addition of more routers in the dorms.

IS&T is currently focused on improving existing on-campus Wi-Fi, said junior Vinoo Ganesh, an SU Senator who serves on the Student Technology Advisory Committee.

“While the school recognizes the issues off campus, it is dealing with a lot of Internet improvements on campus and on the South 40 at the moment,” Ganesh said. “[Off-campus Wi-Fi] is something Wash. U. may consider looking into, but right now we can’t say yes or no.”

The administration does not currently have any specific plans to provide Wi-Fi off campus.

“Wi-Fi on campus is still not working perfectly. Therefore, the school recognizes the issues off campus but is dealing with a lot of Internet improvements on campus at the moment,” Ganesh said.

According to Ganesh, this problem is not going to be resolved quickly. Significant amounts time and money would be required to provide Wi-Fi off campus.

“It takes a lot of manpower to go in and renovate buildings. During the school year this would be difficult to do while people are living in the off-campus buildings,” Ganesh said.

The decision would have to be a joint effort by both ResLife and IS&T, according to Ganesh.

“IS&T is the overarching technology body on campus. ResLife doesn’t really have control over adding access points, but they are in charge of paying for it,” Ganesh said. “IS&T just released their priorities list [and off-campus Wi-Fi] wasn’t on the list that we saw.”

This is a change from the new ResLife policy that was announced on April 13.

The new policy requires students to tell ResLife in advance the hour that they will be leaving campus, during which time resident advisers will do a sweep of their rooms before checking them out.

The decision to allow students who live in campus apartments to choose whether or not to meet with their Residental Advisors (RAs) during checkout was made by the Residential College Directors (RCDs) of the on- and off-campus apartments, Stephanie Milner and Ashley Swanson-Hoye, respectively.

In an email sent to the residents of those residential areas, Milner and Swanson-Hoye both said that residents had voiced concerns about the new checkout policy.

Milner declined to comment, and Swanson-Hoye was unavailable for comment.

According to Mary Elliot, the associate director of ResLife, the RCDs wanted to make the final weeks easier on graduating seniors. Because the on- and off-campus apartments house the most seniors, the RCDs decided that students should be allowed to choose whether or not to comply with the new checkout procedures.

“I think the move out will be a pain, so anything to make it easier is appreciated,” said senior Reuben Karchem, who lives in an off-campus apartment.

Even students who aren’t graduating are glad that they will be able to check out without waiting for an RA.

“I’m glad I won’t be confined to my suite at a specific time on leaving day. That would be stressful,” said junior Ally Onken, a resident of Millbrook.

Elliot said that ResLife wanted to be flexible with this policy and do what was best for students. She also said that this year is only a trial of the new policy.

According to Tim Lempfert, the associate director of Residential Life, the office will be meeting with all of the students who have not been assigned to find housing for them. They may not be placed with the people they originally filed the petition with, or in one of their preferred dorms.

Housing is assigned in three rounds: the Residential College round, the North Side round and the South 40 round.

Lempfert says that some students have been placed since round three assignments were released last week.

Still, many students who were not placed in Round 3 are still waiting for their housing assignments and are looking for alternative housing options.

Sophomore Taylor McCain applied for housing in Round 2, and was denied. He subsequently applied for housing on the South 40 in Round 3, and was again denied.

ResLife told the members of his petition that they were guaranteed housing, but would likely be broken up.

He is now searching for an off-campus apartment with his friends while awaiting his ResLife assignment.

“It has been really frustrating. I don’t know what the school could do to fix it but it’s obviously not the best outcome,” said McCain.

Sophomore Sophia Hirsch is also awaiting news on her housing assignment after being rejected in Round 2 and 3.

After realizing that there are few apartments still available off campus, her suite decided to remain on campus. She said that she expects her suite to be broken up by ResLife.

“Its incredibly frustrating. I was never informed that it would be so difficult to have housing. I assumed after Round 2 I would be able to get housing in Round 3,” Hirsch said. “You assume when you are told you are guaranteed housing you are actually going to get housing.”

Some students who were rejected in Round 3 have already been assigned alternative housing by ResLife.

Freshman Greg Porter originally hoped to be placed in a four-person traditional suite on the South 40.

After he was not assigned in Round 3, ResLife placed his suite in Hitzeman, and is assigning two random students to the six-person suite.

Despite the difficulty, Porter still credits ResLife for finding him housing

“They’ve been really helpful, it’s not their fault that there are too may people here,” Porter said.

According to Lempfert, students were not placed because more three and four person petitions were submitted than there were suites available.

He said that all students who submitted a contract will be placed in ResLife housing, either on or off campus.

He also said that this housing situation is not unusual, and that a number of students are rejected in the initial housing rounds every year.

Rutledge and Myers, which were slated to close last year, but were instead kept open due to the large freshman class, will remain open to provide additional housing for the upcoming year.

“Fortunately this year like every other we will provide housing for all students who have a contract with us,” Lempfert said.

Now, students will have to tell Residential Life (ResLife) the hour during which they plan to leave campus for the summer. A Residential Advisor (RA) or Residential College Director (RCD) will come to their room at that time to pick up students’ room keys and to do a sweep of the room to make sure nothing is left behind.

ResLife may fine students who fail to list their departure times by April 22, although students will be able to change the times after the fact.

The plan may save students from the fees that ResLife charges for leaving a mess or trash in rooms after leaving.

Many students say that despite ResLife’s good intentions, the policy is inconvenient and stressful.

“I don’t like [the policy]. It seems like it has a lot of hoops. I just want to hand in my key when I’m ready to go,” junior Degian Ghebermicael said. “My flight’s usually right after my final exam, and I’m ready to leave and I’m rushing.”

ResLife employees hope to make the checkout process more efficient in an effort to turn rooms over to summer residents more quickly.

“We wanted to make it more streamlined for students. When [RAs and RCDs] are going around [to check rooms], we’re hoping students are gone when they say they’ll be gone,” Mary Elliott, the associate director of ResLife, said. She also pointed to the increasing popularity of summer programs as part of the reason the checkout process needs to be expedited.

In the old checkout process, students dropped their keys off at ResLife as they were leaving campus. RAs and RCDs did sweeps of the rooms on every floor and building after the residents left.

Some RAs are concerned about the policy, which requires that they check rooms throughout the days during finals week.

“When they introduced this to us there were some questions, but it was like, ‘so that’s putting a lot of pressure on us,’” one junior RA in the College of Arts & Sciences, who wished to remain anonymous because he is a ResLife employee, said about a meeting in which the policy was announced. “There was a sense of quiet outrage because it means we have to do a lot more work during the most hectic time of the school year.”

RAs were not consulted before the policy was announced to the student body.

Although many students think the policy is inconvenient, some do support the financial aspect of this policy.

“I think it will definitely give students a heads up for potential fees,” sophomore Vinoo Ganesh said.

Ghebermicael was concerned that even with the sweep, he would leave something in his room and be unable to get back in.

Elliott says that if students have delayed flights or other last minute changes, ResLife will be flexible. She advises students to contact their RCDs if such a circumstance occurs.

In Round 2 of this year’s housing lottery, less than half of approximately 90 four-person petitions were approved for housing. We believe that if the University wishes to continue promoting superior housing to potential students, it should work to remedy the serious gaps in its system.

As a response to so many students not getting housing, ResLife sent an email to Round 2 petitioners informing them that some would be offered housing in Rosedale and University Terrace (ResLife’s buildings farthest from campus) while others would enter round three for the South 40. Even though these students will still be housed by ResLife, these options are less than ideal, especially for rising juniors who had expected to live on the North Side and not be exposed to the potential dangers of living off campus or the hassle of commuting without a car.

This year, ResLife encouraged underclassmen to live in Village BLOCs, creating an increased interest in priority housing, but also leaving an abnormally low number of four-person suites available for Round 2 petitions.

Considering these developments, we urge ResLife to increase its awareness of the effects of its decisions and to prepare to remedy the problems it has created. Last year, Rutledge House was going to be shut down because of Clayton restrictions on the maximum number of beds on campus. Despite these plans, the dorm had to be reopened because of overenrollment of freshmen, who are required to live on campus. This problem will persist until the Class of 2014’s graduation, unless fewer students are admitted each year. Even if these complications were inadvertent, they are serious; before we experience a housing problem of unseen proportions, ResLife should work to solve the current one.

ResLife failed by giving students the perception that they can live wherever they want after freshman year. Its housing policies, including the three-round lottery system, need to be explained from the outset of the process, so that all undergraduates comprehend the housing options and are prepared to move to off-campus properties if they want to keep their group together. Increased transparency has the potential to erase most student frustration directed at the housing process. This transparency is unlikely to deter prospective students. Very few students choose their college based on housing alone.

Whether it is with the suggestions provided here or a creative fix yet to be devised is not important. ResLife should only continue to promote its housing options so long as they don’t create unrealistic expectations and unsustainable demand for their services. ResLife’s impractical presentation of housing availability annually creates frustration with the system. This is a problem that must be remedied. Unavailable on-campus housing cannot continue to be the status quo.

Genevieve Hay | Student Life

Students gather in College Hall to kick off the Green Cup. The competition pits residential colleges, fraternity houses and the North Side against each other in various sustainability-promoting contests.

Erin Mitchell | Student Life

In response to Marcus’ first point, I completely agree that we should not attack the eight student Event Assistants. They have done nothing wrong in pursuing a leadership opportunity on campus. It is the exorbitant compensation for this position from an already strained ResLife budget that is the problem. No one should be attacking students for taking a well-paying job that gives them valuable leadership experience.

Regarding other fees on campus, Marcus is correct that there are new, less-contested fees that have been implemented in the last few years for services that were once free, such as increased printing charges and the new five dollar fee for each official transcript. Printing and transcript fees are not analogous to fees for Residential Life premier spaces, however.

Unlike printing an official transcript, which only benefits the individual student, the use of premier spaces is mutually beneficial to the groups that put on events, the other students who attend and the university administration. When students are able to have large, visible events in Residential Life spaces, it enriches the community as a whole. This not only makes students’ lives better, but also makes Wash. U. a much more attractive university, something that the administration should value. This is the crucial concept that Residential Life has failed to understand. These spaces aren’t just a service to make students happy; they help define the Wash. U. experience.

Marcus’s second argument is also problematic because it assumes that SU would directly subsidize the cost of room rentals for student groups or Treasury would fund all appeals to pay for the room fees. It would cost about $32,000 a year for student groups to use the ResLife spaces they had used for free in years past. It’s doubtful there’s room in the SU budget for a $32,000 direct subsidy to make the rooms free for students, and it’s equally doubtful that Treasury would fund all room rental requests from the appeals budget. The end result would, indeed, be no new money. Instead, cash-strapped student groups would be forced to change the location of events to spaces that are less prominent and less attractive. Such a move would almost certainly have negative consequences on the success of these events, the well being of the groups and our community as a whole.

Marcus’ argument is also flawed because it assumes that the only affected parties are SU student groups. Although student groups are the predominant users of these spaces, other organizations have already been affected by the fees. Furthermore, these organizations would see no relief from an SU-funded remedy to the fees. As Marcus correctly stated in his defense of the eight students who work as Event Assistants, SU Senators represent ALL students. This includes those in organizations not affiliated with SU. Greek organizations, specifically fraternities, are one group that have been negatively affected by the fees. Many chapters hold recruitment events in Ursa’s or elsewhere on the South 40 as part of their recruitment schedule. This location is ideal because it is so visible to freshmen on the 40. These fees put a strain on chapters’ recruitment budgets, which unlike most other chapter spending, benefit students outside of the chapters. Recruitment begins with open events, which are completely free for all Wash. U. males and give them the opportunity to see what the Greek community has to offer. The new Residential Life fees are a problem that extend beyond just SU and its student groups.

Hopefully, this resolution will serve as an impetus for effective dialogue between Residential Life and students in which both sides can negotiate a solution to this problem. While I am against the fees, I would certainly prefer a cost structure that better meets students’ needs than a continuation of the highly flawed system currently in place.

Johann Qua Hiansen | Student Life

Student Union senators vote on a resolution to promote action against room reservation fees on Wednesday.

The resolution passed 21-1-0 and serves as the latest measure by Senate to reverse the room rental fees.

Junior Betel Ezaz drafted the document, which urges students to “engage in civic activism” should ResLife continue to refuse to engage in “productive dialogue.”

The resolution comes on the heels of a new ResLife policy that charges student groups for the use of seven premier spaces located in residential areas.

In an interview, Justin Carroll, vice chancellor for students, voiced disappointment with SU’s choice to threaten civic activism.

“Apparently I failed to convey the need for room rental fees because I think if they had understood that, then they wouldn’t have made that decision,” Carroll said.

He added that student input has in fact been taken into account.

“I feel like we’ve already made some changes,” Carroll said. “We took one of those spaces originally intended to have a fee and postponed that fee. Certainly for this semester we’ll review all our policies and practices, and I’m sure that things will evolve or be tweaked.”

SU primarily protested the room fees because they were instated without student involvement, before notification of SU or adequate consideration of student group budgeting. At the meeting, Carroll acknowledged that student input on the fees’ imposition was negligible.

“I can’t say that we specifically had a focus group with students, the only perhaps insulator would have been indirect, probably too indirect to be specific with,” Carroll said.

While discussion at the joint legislative session focused on using the resolution to spur conversation, student group leaders have already begun discussing possible forms of protest.

Proposed options ranged from a student petition; to a cappella practices in ResLife offices; to boycotting spaces.

Several culture-based performance groups have already started discussing a unilateral boycott of Celebrations Weekend, a possibility considered to be a last resort.

Students also expressed resentment over the fees themselves. For several of the charged locations, student groups must pay to rent the space for an entire night regardless of whether their meeting lasts closer to an hour and a half.

Carroll argued that the fees were necessary in light of more higher-quality spaces and less University funds to maintain them.

ResLife, along with every other department of the University, has seen smaller budget increases over the past year than usual.

While ResLife budgets are not publicly available, SU members noted that the creation of the Event Assistant Program proved funds were not out of supply.

ResLife’s eight event assistants (EAs) are provided free housing, up to the value of a modern single room—a cost that senior Eliot Walker, SU vice president of finance, evaluated as approximately $64,000 in lost payments to ResLife.

The program is expected to expand for next year, with three or four new members being added. ResLife will continue subsidizing housing for current members but will only fund half of new members’ housing.

According to senior Daniel Fishman, a senator, the payment is completely out of line with other student workers, especially the event assistants at the DUC who do similar work. Fishman calculated that at 15 hours of work per week, the EAs were making anywhere between $17-22 per hour, compared to around $8 per hour for other students involved in work-study programs.

Treasury member Joseph Marcus, a junior, disagreed with SU for singling out a group of eight students who have only performed their assigned jobs.

“We’re empowering student groups over student workers,” Marcus said. “We should not be protesting in any way, shape or form to room rental fees, because if we did, why aren’t we protesting transcripts, or DUC fees that are more expensive? It seems pretty arbitrary, and like a very, very strong stand that doesn’t have any foundation.”

According to Ezaz, however, the resolution is not intended to call students to mobilize against ResLife but to compel ResLife to discuss the fees.

“Whenever we write a resolution, we really hope to focus on the ‘so what’ and the ‘why.’ A lot of groups are affected by it, and we want to make sure they have agency,” Ezaz said. “ResLife throughout the entire process was not considerate of how it would affect student groups and their budgets. We want to give student groups the means to show their position on the issue.”

Ezaz added that the resolution was not calling for protest but for a solution to keep the issue from escalating to that extent.

“It’s conditional; it’s not saying that after tonight we’re going to have protests every day outside of Brookings, it’s that if these steps are not followed through and we are not given the accordance we should have, there are steps that we as students can take against the issue,” Ezaz said.

Editor’s note: Daniel Fishman is a staff columnist for Student Life.

Student Union ought to be commended for addressing the policy change. The room fees will cut into the operating budget of many student groups, and we encourage members of SU to continue pushing for a reversal of the new policy.

In his response to SU’s appeal, Justin Carroll, associate vice chancellor for students, cited budget cuts and diminished resources as causes for the charges, saying that ResLife would continue to charge for seven of the eight ResLife-controlled spaces.

We feel that Carroll’s reasoning raises a few questions. If ResLife is truly operating on an increasingly tight budget, we wonder why event assistants—students hired to monitor events in certain ResLife spaces—are compensated with free ResLife housing. We recognize the usefulness of having event assistants for student groups putting on events; however, we feel that their level of commitment to this position would be more appropriately compensated with a part-time wage than with the more than $8,000 that Washington University charges for housing.

We would also like to reiterate that ResLife’s decision to spring the room reservation policy on students last fall, after budgets had already been allocated for student groups, was particularly unfair. The new policy puts an extra burden on groups to divert existing funds to room reservation fees or to spend extra time appealing for reservation-specific funds that SU may or may not grant. Smaller and newer organizations, many of which are performance-based, are put at a particular disadvantage.

While the push to have student groups rely on the DUC for larger meetings is positive, spaces are limited. One could recommend the studio spaces in the Women’s Building for the groups that require numerous dance rehearsals, but the policies in these spaces prevent coordinators from scheduling rehearsals very far in advance. This can be incredibly detrimental to the members of volunteer performance groups, like those performing in one of Carnaval’s twelve dances, who rely on consistent rehearsal times. Even with these groups paying for ResLife spaces, it is difficult for them to gain consistent access to rehearsal space.

Should this problem not be resolved, we encourage SU to provide as much assistance as possible, as easily as possible, to groups that will require unexpected additional funds to reserve these spaces. And if ResLife is insistent on the policy change, we feel that its implementation should be pushed back to the fall of 2011. Pushing it back would allow groups the rest of the spring to create new budgets with full awareness of the new policies, and it would give the University time to transition into the change.