In an ongoing attempt to redefine the role of Residential Security Officers on campus, a group of student leaders has released an e-mail response critiquing a contentious work group report that recommended no change in the RSO program’s official description.

A.S. President Harry Khanna, along with representatives from the Graduate Student Association and the Undergraduate Student Experience and Satisfaction steering committee, criticized the original report for its lack of student representation in the work group and a general misunderstanding of the student complaints about officers as outlined in the U.S.E.S. report.

The original RSO work group, created by Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Joseph W. Watson, consisted of five university staff members but had no student representation.

Chancellor Marye Anne Fox, who visited the A.S. Council on Sept. 27, had no direct explanation for how the oversight occurred.

“I can’t tell you how this happened, but I suspect that whatever happened during the summer — we obviously failed to provide the kind of representation that you need,” Fox said. “I do think it’s important for students to have a voice. I suspect that at the end of summer, many people just want to get their desks cleaned off, and I think that is what may have happened [with the report].”

In 2005, a similar work group commissioned to analyze the role of the RSO program. The committee, chaired by Revelle College Provost Daniel Wulbert, did have thee undergraduate representatives, but never released a report.

Along with the lack of student participation, the content of the report posed many problems, Khanna said.

“It is clear … by the contents of the updated report … that the work group has misunderstood and misinterpreted the issues most important to students,” the response stated.

The response, sent by e-mail to Watson and Vice Chancellor of Business Affairs Steven W. Relyea, consisted of three pages refuting the points made in the original report, and urged the administration to examine the issue and the program as a whole on a deeper scale.

One of the key issues discussed in the original report was an analysis of the RSOs’ duties and the reported shift of various responsibilities from residential advisers to the RSOs in recent years. According to the work group, the fact that RSOs now have duties unpopular with students that were once performed by RAs, is a major factor in student disdain for the officers.

However, the student committee believes that the original report did not provide enough detailed analysis of the RSO program’s function, or whether or not it is as effective as it could be.

“The work group does not provide any reasoning or explanation for refusing to review the job description or formal expectations of the RSO program,” the e-mail stated. “This is disheartening as [the committee] thought that this was the point of the work group envisioned by the U.S.E.S. report.”

Additionally, the original RSO report referenced the notion that many students have not had much experience in handling confrontational situations, due to a culture shift in recent years where parents have become more protective of their children.

The insinuation itself, according to the e-mail, is insulting.

“The work group did not presume that students are trustworthy or capable of becoming adults and contributing members of the UCSD community,” the response stated.

Similarly, the student committee was not pleased with the report’s suggestion to administer exams throughout the week, especially on Fridays, in order to curb the problem of student alcohol abuse.

The response references the idea as “almost laughable,” suggesting that it would only make life harder for students already dealing with a stressful class schedule.

The response was necessary to ensure that administrators continues to monitor issues that are important to students, GSA representative and steering committee member Aaron Parker stated in an e-mail.

“I can assure you that the steering committee will discuss these reports at length in the near future,” Parker stated. “One of the reasons for writing the letter was to ensure that this issue didn’t fall off the radar.”

Parker added that the committee decided against commenting further because it had been unable to meet since the response was released.

Watson and Relyea did not respond to requests for comment on the issue. However, according to Khanna, Watson has expressed interest to him personally in examining the problem further in the future.

Readers can contact Matt L’Heureux at [email protected].