Within a six-day span, Student Government Association senators reacted to, and eventually supported, one of the most dramatic changes in housing policy at Saint Louis University.

The events leading up to last night’s conditional support of a freshmen center began months ago but came to a head last week. It was then that DeMattias Hall Senator Nick Sarcone discovered that plans for a freshmen center, an all-freshmen dorm, were further developed than he and his committee had believed them to be.

“On Friday, I learned through various sources that this (freshmen center) was in all likelihood more than just an idea being discussed,” Sarcone said.

Sarcone chairs the SGA Residential Affairs Committee, which had been actively discussing the idea of freshmen housing for several months. Prior to last week, Sarcone was under the impression that the idea of a freshmen center was a “long-range plan for the University.”

He explained that Argyle Wade, director of housing operations, and Shawn Swinigan, director of residence life, had approached him early in the semester to get feedback from his committee.

After several meetings, Sarcone asked Wade and Swinigan to bring more concrete proposals to the committee for debate. “We had just been throwing ideas around. It was purely conceptual,” Sarcone said.

From that moment in early November, Sarcone became slightly more suspicious after Wade and Swinigan canceled several meetings because they weren’t prepared. At one point, Wade told Sarcone that they could not meet because Kathy Humphrey, vice president for Student Development, was “sitting on it.”

Sarcone noted, “That was my first alert that this whole discussion was more than just an idea.”

Upon learning from his various sources that the proposal for a freshmen center was more developed than he expected, Sarcone gathered a group of senior senators and his committee on Saturday to decide what to do.

“We decided that there were too many problems with implementing this next year,” Sarcone said. He suggested the administration may have been waiting until after the governmental and media cycles ended with the last SGA meeting and last issue of The University News for the semester.

In legislation drafted Sunday, the group of senators wrote that a freshmen center could not be implemented next year.

Academic Vice President Matt Love, who had been involved in the discussions, said, “There is no way they can do it (freshmen center) for next year. If they try and do it next year and fail, they’ll tank the program for the future.”

Feeling it was necessary to inform the administration of their plans, Sarcone met with Humphrey Monday afternoon, later to be joined by SGA President Mike Cappel.

Together Sarcone and Cappel were able to illustrate the students’ concerns of implementation next year. One key issue of concern was that of the squatters’ rights for those in the Griesedieck Complex and Marguerite Hall.

In their discussions with Humphrey, Sarcone and Cappel reached an agreement that would allow the freshmen center to go ahead next year but would preserve squatters’ rights by allowing sophomores to live there under the new policies.

Back with the committee of senators, Sarcone and Cappel’s compromise met opposition. “Within 15 minutes we concluded it was not the best course of action,” Sarcone said.

Cappel decided that the committee of senators as a whole would have to meet with Humphrey, which they did Tuesday morning.

In what Sarcone described as “productive dialogue,” both sides were able to reach an agreement to hold off one year on the freshmen center. In return for the postponement of the freshmen center, policy changes-specifically alcohol and visitation policies-would be implemented next year in a limited number of buildings on campus, likely Griesedieck and Marguerite.

The six days of activity concluded with legislation passed last night at the SGA meeting.

Looking back on the events of the past few days, Sarcone believes his committee did an outstanding job of “tackling the issue, thinking outside the box and working diligently to reach a solution.”

Throughout the events, various senators have raised the question of shared governance.

“It was shared governance at its worst and at its best,” Love said.

Humphrey seemed to disagree, noting that she thought some senators “jumped the gun.” She added, “You can’t say it’s not shared governance until I make a policy and don’t consult you.”

Cappel noted that shared governance “ensures you sit at the table, but doesn’t guarantee you will always agree with the decision.”

Sarcone concluded, “We could have waited until this came out and had one heck of a problem on our hands, but now we can have a lot more influence on how it’s developed.”