Social Event Management Procedures

Click here to see: Letter from Jim Larimore to the SEMP Committee

Social Event Management Procedures Review Committee Report

March 2005

Committee's Charge

In October 2004, Dean of the College Jim Larimore convened a group of students and administrators and charged them to review and assess the section of the College’s alcohol policy that outlines social event management procedures (SEMP). Specifically, Dean Larimore asked the SEMP Review Committee to:

Familiarize itself with Dartmouth’s Alcohol Policy, applicable New Hampshire State laws, and the current SEMP training.
Review the current trends at our peer institutions with regards to social events with alcohol and review current Dartmouth research data.
Solicit feedback and input from the campus community on suggested revisions to SEMP.
Consider the proposed revisions both in terms of New Hampshire state law and the College’s ability to better look out for the well being of members of the campus community.
Make recommendations to Dean Larimore early in both the winter terms of 2005 and 2006 for possible implementation for the following academic year.

Meeting the Charges

The Committee met regularly from October, 2004 to April 2005 to address the charges put forth by Dean Larimore. These meetings lasted approximately two hours each. The Committee also participated in a day-long intensive review session (please see addendum I for the topics covered during that session).

In order to understand Dartmouth’s policies and practices, New Hampshire state law, and relevant trends and data, (Charges 1 and 2), the committee reviewed written materials, many of which were compiled by Ryan Travia, Coordinator of the Alcohol and Other Drug Education Program (see addendum II for list of materials). John Pryor, Director of Undergraduate Evaluation and Research, presented the Committee with data from Dartmouth’s 2004 Alcohol Survey which helped the Committee understand Dartmouth-specific issues. Additionally, Committee members attended a SEMP training workshop in order to observe first-hand the management procedures that are shared with students and to hear students’ reactions to this information.

Dean Larimore had asked that the Committee’s work incorporate feedback from the campus community (Charge 3). The SEMP Committee designed a website so that it would be convenient for community members to provide comments and suggestions (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sao/semprc.html). This website specifically provided a template for such feedback and was announced through emails to student leaders, to groups who registered events and to the public via the Student Activities website and forums held by the Committee.

Knowing that not everyone would use the website, representatives from the Committee attended a meeting with leadership from the Coed, Fraternity and Sorority system (CFS), hosted a Community Hour, and attended an Open Forum hosted by Phi Delta Alpha. The Dartmouth reported on the Community Hour and Open Forum; copies of these articles, as well as other related articles are included as addendum IV to this report.

Additionally, the Committee felt it was important to reach out to non-students as well as students. They solicited input from Linda Kennedy, Director of Student Activities; Eric Ramsey, Assistant Director of Student Activities; Officer Ted Willey, Department of Safety and Security; and several Coed, Fraternity and Sorority house advisors.

Throughout the process, Committee members made themselves available and encouraged members of the campus community to speak with them directly. They also accepted email suggestions from the community. The outreach to the campus community resulted in the Committee receiving six proposals from students, staff, and student organizations including the Interfraternity Council and Panhellenic Council.

Once the Committee received the recommendations from the community, they met once a week for seven consecutive weeks to consider the proposed revisions and deliberate on which recommendations or portions of recommendations would be most effective in ensuring the health and well-being of members of the campus community. They also discussed how to make the registration process more efficient (Charge 4). This work was completed in March in order to meet the first phase of Charge 5. The Committee understands that this work is ongoing and that recommendations will be reviewed and assessed during the 2005-06 academic year.

Committee's Recommendations

The Committee’s recommendation fall into two categories: those that will make events safer and those that will make the registration process more efficient. The Committee recognizes that this categorization is somewhat artificial, because improvements in one category will surely have a positive impact on the other. However, in order to reflect the community discussion, we have maintained this distinction in the recommendations listed below.

A. To make "Open Even" registration more efficient, the SEMP Review Committee recommends that:

There should no longer be a requirement to use a computer with Kerberos to register an event
Student Activities will have walk-in registrations during regular Monday and Thursday afternoon registration times
Student Activities will allow for event registration appointments to be scheduled on-line (similar to Dick’s House flu appointments)
There should be a web-based calendar that lists all registered social events.

The overwhelming feedback from student organizations was that they wanted the registration process to be more efficient and "user-friendly." These four recommendations address many of the concerns that the Committee heard.

To eliminate Kerberos, the SEMP web site will likely have to be moved so that it is hosted on the Student Activities' web page instead of on Safety and Security's.

The purpose of the web-based calendar is to assist student organizations in both their planning and their promotion. The hope is that the calendar will help student organizations, especially CFS groups, communicate what date(s) they are planning to host events so that other groups can plan accordingly. This would be particularly beneficial on big weekends such as Homecoming, Winter Carnival, and Green Key Weekend.

B. To make social events with alcohol safer, the SEMP Review Committee recommends that:

Social Event Management Procedures should require that hosting organizations adopt a written statement of responsibility regarding the provision of alcohol at any events held by that organization. In addition, each organization must adopt written internal management procedures in order to host events at which there will be alcohol present.

If this recommendation is accepted, members of the SEMP Review Committee will draft language outlining the expectation that members of a hosting organization will keep the health and safety of their members and guests paramount whenever they are hosting an event at which alcohol is present. The Committee would also work to develop a template or sample internal management procedures document. Each of these could be adopted and/or modified by individual student organizations in order to meet this new requirement. Additionally, support and consultation would be available through the Office of Alcohol and Drug Education, Safety and Security, Dartmouth Alcohol Peer Advisors, and the recognizing departments in the development of each organization’s written internal management procedures.
The SEMP policies should be revised to create three categories of events:
a. Members-only
b. Closed events
c. Registered events
These categories are defined and further described in C of this report.
The minimum number of College trained student monitors for registered events is five (5). Organizations, in consultation with Student Activities, may determine that more monitors are needed to effectively manage their event. The Committee suggests that student organizations strive for a ratio of 1:25 – one monitor per twenty-five guests.

The Committee recognizes that, while five student monitors may be sufficient for some events, often additional student monitors would benefit both those managing and attending the event. Many factors contribute to determining the appropriate number of student monitors, including the number of people in attendance, the quantity of alcohol, the layout of the event space and the number of entrances and exits. The Committee proposes the 1:25 ratio (one monitor for every 25 expected guests) as a guideline to assist student organizations in their planning and in their discussions with Student Activities. The purpose is to focus the planning discussions on the appropriate number of student monitors to effectively manage the event and not on a minimum needed to comply with SEMP.
The length of time alcohol may be served shall not exceed five (5) hours at any event. The length of the event, however, may be longer than five hours.

The length of an event is one factor in the equation used to determine the quantity of alcohol approved for an event. The Committee learned from students and staff that some student organizations were lengthening the duration of their events to increase the quantity of alcohol allocated. Often times, the length of the event was actually shorter than the length of time stated when it was registered.

In reviewing the matter, the Committee felt that rarely does a student organization host an event where alcohol needs to be served for more than five hours. Additionally, most organizations do not have sufficient numbers of trained and dedicated members to host an event with more than five hours of alcohol service.

Again, the Committee would like to emphasize that in planning their events and in their discussions with Student Activities, student organizations should focus their attention more on managing their events well and less on manipulating the equation to get more alcohol.
Student organizations may not host another closed or registered event within 12 hours of the conclusion of their last closed or registered event.

The Committee makes this recommendation to close a loophole that the previous recommendation could create. That is, if a student organization was attempting to receive a higher allocation of alcohol by lengthening their event, even after the length of time alcohol may be served at an event is limited to five hours, an organization could get around this by registering two back-to-back events (Example: a closed event from 5:00-10:00pm and an open event from 10:00pm-3:00pm).

Social events can occur between the hours of 5pm and 1am Monday through Thursday, between 12 Noon and 3am on Friday and Saturday, and between 12 Noon and 1am on Sunday.
Hard alcohol would not be permitted at "closed" or "registered" events without an exception. Hard alcohol would be permitted at "members only" events. Exceptions to this policy can be requested in advance from the Dean of Student Life or his/her designee. Hard alcohol must also be addressed as part of organizations’ written internal management procedures (i.e. – plans for when hard alcohol is served and the precautions the organization will routinely employ to manage the service of mixed drinks, etc.).

After reviewing peer institution policies and considering incidents at Dartmouth, the Committee agrees that there is an increased likelihood of negative outcomes at events with hard alcohol compared to those with beer and/or wine. There are, however, some student groups that have a solid track record of hosting problem-free events with hard alcohol, most notably senior class councils and the Alpha Theta coed organization. The Committee anticipates that these groups will likely request an exception to this policy and, as long as they continue to manage their events well, such requests would likely be granted.
Drinks should be measured, poured and mixed in front of the individual who is being served the drink.

The best way to ensure that members of the community are aware of what they are drinking is for them to observe the drink as it is poured or mixed. This helps to protect both the student organization that is serving the drink as well as the individual consuming it.
The College shall provide bottled water for Registered Events. Initially, the quantity of water should be one 16-20 ounce bottle per person. The quantity can be adjusted as the need is evaluated.

During the fall term, Student Activities provided bottled water to a few student organization events to gauge the response to this proposal At these events, bottled water was as popular, if not more popular, than the beer being served. At Dartmouth, like most college campuses, bottled water is a socially acceptable beverage at a party. Additionally, from a health perspective, alternating between an alcoholic and a non-alcoholic beverage is one of the most effective steps an individual can take to reduce the likelihood of negative physical consequences while consuming alcohol.

C. The Three Proposed Categories of Social Events:
In recent years most student organizations have managed social events in accordance with the existing Social Event Management Procedures and have adapted systems for maintaining social environments where student hosts and monitors keep the health and safety of their peers as paramount concerns. Student feedback to the Committee often focused on what the appropriate number of individuals should be to trigger required registration for a social event. There was strong interest in creating options that would enable groups to host events with all their members present when the organization’s size was greater than 40. Another request from students was for instantaneous or "on the fly" event registration. In exploring the question of instant registration, the Committee deemed there were significant barriers to routinely offering such an option for all open social events, but that it might be feasible if used for a different category of event. This resulted in discussions of the different types of social events being hosted by student organizations and ultimately to the Committee making the recommendation that the SEMP policy should recognize three categories of events: members-only, closed events, and registered events.

The Committee discussed at great length, how options could be created for organizations while continuing to emphasize student health, safety, and student host responsibility. Each of the three categories would require organizations to have internal management procedures as well as a written statement of responsibility thus providing the organization with a blueprint for appropriate event management. The Committee acknowledges that student organizations have been hosting events with alcohol that are not currently registered, and aims to create a means to recognize smaller unregistered events so that students will be able to request medical or other assistance without fear of unreasonable judicial action. Student health and safety should always be the primary concern and focus of the College’s Social Event Management Procedures policy.

The goals of creating three categories of events are: First, the change should increase the likelihood that students will look out for the health and well-being of other students and request assistance when needed. Second, the categories should strengthen the working relationship between each student organization and the College, especially with Safety and Security, Student Activities, and the Office of Residential Life. Finally, student organizations should develop stronger internal management procedures that increase organizational accountability and responsibility.

Events with fewer than 40 people would continue as they have in the past. Organizations are encouraged to use their internal management procedures in hosting these smaller events but are not required to register or provide notice about such events.

The three proposed categories are:

Members-Only Events are only open to and attended by student members of one recognized student organization. Because members of the organization would likely know one another, the expectation is that students are more apt to recognize when a friend may have consumed enough or needs assistance. Each organization’s internal management procedures would include their specific plans for managing members-only events.

Further, the Committee recommends that these events would not require any prior notification or registration and there would not be any walk-throughs or wrist bands. Due to the small, informal nature of such a gathering, kegs would not be permitted. Promotion of the event would be limited to announcements to the student membership only.

Closed Events are only open to and attended by members of one recognized student organization and their invited friends and guests, not to exceed eighty (80) people. The Committee’s intention is to provide legitimate options for a student organization hosting a small, planned social event or a small, impromptu gathering of friends in an organization’s social space.

An impromptu event that begins to grow and exceeds 40 people should be treated as a closed event. Or, a planned event with a guest list of 80 or fewer might also be considered a closed event.

The introduction of non-member friends and guests to an event calls for greater precautions by the hosting organization. For this reason the Committee is recommending the following:

That each organization develop and adopt its own internal procedures for managing "closed events" and that as part of these procedures, student organizations should have a minimum of three (3) student monitors responsible during the duration of the event.
That student organizations notify Safety and Security when they are hosting a "closed event." This notification would be electronic, similar to the form that is used for registering events.
There would not be walk-throughs for "closed events." However, Safety and Security conducts safety walk-throughs every six days for CFS residential organizations. During safety walk-throughs, Safety and Security can check to make sure that organizations are properly managing their "closed events."
A single keg would be permitted, but keg tags and wrist bands would not be necessary. Only one source of alcohol would be permitted (i.e., keg beer, can beer, wine, etc.). If a keg is used, it must be removed by 6:00 pm the next day. Promotion of the event would be limited to announcements to just the student membership or the guest list with up to 80 people.
The Committee heard and received requests for "registration on the fly." In considering these requests, it became apparent that the primary concern was for what is being proposed as "members only" events becoming "closed events." For this reason, the Committee is recommending instantaneous notification or "on the fly" registration for closed events. Student organizations notifying at the time of the event will merely need to call Safety and Security dispatch. To ensure that student organizations are not misusing this type of notification, each organization will be allotted one "on the fly" notification. Once the notification is used, the student organization president or social chair will meet with Safety and Security and the recognizing department (i.e., ORL) to determine if the "on the fly" notification was properly used. If it was, the organization will be allocated another "on the fly" notification. Thus, making the "on the fly" notification renewable. If it is not renewed, the organization will have to wait for a period of time before they receive the privilege again. For "on the fly" to be effective it will require educational efforts by the College cooperation by student organizations. This form of notice or registration is in response to student requests and will need to be evaluated by the next committee.
Finally, the Committee is recommending that when student organizations are hosting events where attendance is limited to the members of the organization and parents, faculty, and/or staff, that these be considered closed events. These events usually take place earlier in the day than typical student events and usually do not need walk-throughs or wrist bands.

Registered Events are open to the campus community and/or have eighty (80) or more people. All other current SEMP practices would still apply to registered events.

Registration "on the fly" was not extended to this category because the Committee recognizes that open parties require more advance planning and the controls that stem from having shifts of assigned hosts and monitors. That said, the Committee would encourage the next committee to look at ways to encourage student organizations to request assistance from Safety and Security any time their closed event attendance reaches eighty or more people.

A grid is attached (addendum III) to aid in easily viewing the definition and procedures the Committee is recommending for each event category.

Conclusion

Given the scope of the charge from Dean Larimore, the Committee was cautious about how much they anticipated they could accomplish in less than two terms. However, the excellent input from the community enabled the Committee to make substantive progress in revising the SEMP procedures. The Committee was very pleased with the thoughtful proposals submitted by both students and staff members as well as the individual input that was offered. We also especially valued the open and honest dialogue between Committee members and with those who took the time to meet with us. If the recommendations are accepted, the Committee has agreed to assist with both the implementation of the recommendations and the training and transition of the new student Committee members.

Addendums

I. Agenda from Sunday, November 14, 2004 training retreat

II. Table of contents from SEMP Review Committee manuals

III. Recommendations (spreadsheet)

IV. Copies of articles/ads that appeared in the Daily Dartmouth and Greek Times

V. Student Assembly Resolution, April 12, 2005

VI. Open Forum, CFS Advisors Rollout

Note: For a complete copy of this report including the addendums, please contact Kim Hanchett in the Office of Student Activities at 646-3399.