Let me begin by noting that a task force made recommendations addressing noise problems in a report which was generated after a particularly noisy autumn of 2002.
Their report and recommendations, including a proposal to "develop a new party-noise ordinance that provides for heavier penalties for large parties where multiple factors are present," were then distributed for consideration and comment to the University Student Commission, ASMSU, the Community Relations Coalition, the American Campus and Alcohol Project Team, the Responsible Hospitality Council and all city boards and commissions.
The commission, which The State News editorial claimed was "side-stepped" in this whole process, discussed the recommendations at no fewer than six meetings and a retreat between November 2002 and April 2003.
The commission supported the party-noise amendments with the caveat that tickets not be written where the party-thrower calls the police to aid in dispersing an unwanted crowd.
ASMSU has also been a bit disingenuous in its claim of surprise. Last year, the noise recommendations were submitted to them, reviewed by a task force they created and their comments were submitted to the city council in February.
Specifically, the comments of ASMSU (which, if memory serves me, were presented to the city council by Kevin Glandon) commented that "it is important to prevent large parties" and asked that the police focus on ways to assist residents in reducing the size of their parties without being punished.
For the record, our police department has been doing exactly that for years, registering parties at the initiation of the hosts and responding to calls from the hosts for assistance without ticketing them.
Those situations are not what our recent amendment is designed to address.
Contrary to The State News editorials, the city has involved students in the recent discussion about excessive noise in our community at least since September of 2002.
The city has been engaging a wide variety of student and community groups in discussions about what to do about the huge, boisterous, unregistered and unmonitored house parties taking place in many neighborhoods and the illegal sale of alcohol to underage drinkers that almost always accompanies them.
All of the other groups I mentioned above also commented on the noise recommendations and, more specifically, the party-noise recommendation. The city even sought comment through an interactive Web posting that was placed on the city's Web site.
Candidly, I can't imagine where The State News editors have been for the last year while this issue has been repeatedly and thoroughly discussed.
I also want to comment on the three students who received the complaints which seemed to precipitate the story "Policy shakes E.L. party scene".
"Before this year, Hines, Vargas and Wells said they had looked forward to throwing their own parties once they moved to an off-campus home." No wonder.
Just so you have the facts - there was admission they had: A common source of alcohol, were drinking and, according to The State News, are underage, sold the alcohol and that there were, by police officers' observation, approximately 300 people at the party.
There was also an admission to "breaking even" with cover charges on the night they got the citations and an admission to having a similar party the week before.
They had virtually every factor present for the new ordinance to be applied.
There was also an admission that they knew about the new ordinance before they threw the party.
They were charged with a misdemeanor violation of the noise ordinance with the potential for a minimum fine of $500 and three days in jail.
The above facts indicate that they could have been charged with operating a blind pig, which is a felony, and which carries a $5,000 fine and a 10-year prison sentence with it.
It is pretty clear that the police did these guys a favor. I promise that if there is a next time, they will be charged with the felony.
These guys' actions that night should be the answer to any lingering question about why a jail term is an appropriate penalty for the offense.

Mark Meadows
East Lansing Mayor