Wait, wait-it’s four outs. New rules.

You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game. You can write the rules before the game begins, but you can’t change the rules in the middle of the game.

Likewise, you can’t tell students in the middle of a college semester that they owe money they were told that they didn’t owe.

Sound familiar? Much like it announced the implementation of a graduation fee three weeks before graduation, the administration announced a change in University policy that prohibits family members of University employees to receive funding to study abroad next semester. They announced this little more than a week ago, six weeks before the end of fall classes.

Six students planning to study abroad next semester went to collect their bills for spring 2006. They were all part of the Faculty and Staff Children Exchange Program, or FACHEX, which allows children of university employees to attend SLU while paying reduced tuition. Because FACHEX funds covered studying abroad until this semester, these students expected to see an amount close to $1,000 for spring tuition. Instead, they were handed bills for as much as 14 times that amount. This is because the University decided it was too expensive to pay for these students’ study-abroad experiences.

It’s not the funding change, though, that is the problem. Change is inevitable-as is opposition to change. To reiterate a previous editorial: Any time Fr. Biondi says “change,” a murmur of discontent runs through the student body, even if the change is a necessary one. Earlier this year, for example, FACHEX fees rose to $75 per credit hour from $50 per class, but those who opposed the increase were at least told far enough in advance to accommodate the change.

The problem is not the amending of funding policy. Rather, we are irked by the University’s method of communication-or lack thereof-in informing them about billing alteration. Communication is the problem.

Now, students affected by the FACHEX changes are either scrambling for funds to study abroad or are finding a place to live around town and signing up for classes they didn’t intend to take. In either case, their desperate readjustment next semester is unnecessary.

Mistakes happen-and the University made a mistake in their lack of communication. Ethics should dictate that when scholarship funding is changed, the current generation of funded students should be covered, at least until the year’s end. Change may commence with the next generation of FACHEX students, but current students ought to be grandfathered in. Etiquette dictates that, whether by e-mail, letter or singing telegram, students should be informed of funding changes that affect them-a matter of mere courtesy.

The administration claims that this decision has been discussed for some time, anywhere from six months to three years. If this is the case, it shouldn’t have been kept secret. That the decision was discussed earlier does not justify a lack of action. Secrecy breeds skepticism and further distrust of the administration. If policies created by the University are truly in the best interest of its dependants, then the University has no need to hide these policies. Openness and honesty will garner the trust of those students and faculty, and this is crucial for the University to function.

Poor communication is more than a problem of etiquette, though. In this case, it affects significant plans in students’ lives. Because they were told only this week that plans made last year are void, no opportunity exists to accommodate change. Academic arrangements could have been adapted had students known about funding withdrawal before the start of the school year, but now we’re in mid-run. The semester is half-over. Classes have been set in stone. Finances have been committed. You can’t tell the runner you’ve moved the bases when he’s already taken off.

We know how communication is supposed to work-at least according to our professors. One way, and perhaps the best way, to improve communication is obvious: the administration needs to plan communications ahead of time. This is something that professors have stressed since the first day of college, a skill that we need for our future employers and our development as effective and well-rounded persons. The University, teacher of these skills, can set a better example for its students.

The administration has at least three communication outlets at its disposal. Mass e-mails work. The University News spreads administrative missives in news articles. The Student Government Association exists precisely to link the student body with University management. Even a fourth, albeit uncommon, option exists: a personal letter.

Miscommunication-and then mishandling of this miscommunication-hardly merits a petty and inconsequential “vote of no confidence” in the administration, because it is a serious concern. Students and faculty must expect that administrators will inform them of serious policy changes before they are applied. Even then, it should work to clean up its own mistakes instead of taking the juvenile route and dumping consequences on another party. Student retention will reveal the real confidence students have in those that maintain the structure of their University.

The best option in this situation is postponing removal of FACHEX study abroad funding until next semester, allowing students currently enrolled to study abroad next semester, and also enrolled in FACHEX, to maintain their planned academic and financial careers.

Sometimes you change the rules so you can win when you’re already losing. Like when your little brother gets you out for the last time and so you tell him that there are really four outs in baseball. The problem is that this only flies when the kid doesn’t know any better.