Come fall, when football Saturdays return to Sanford Stadium, Blake Edward Allen Bliss won’t be in the student section. It’s not that the University freshman doesn’t want to be there, it’s that he can’t. Caught twice for underage drinking, Bliss was suspended for all of 2007, as ordered by the University’s new alcohol policy.

Ian R. Smith will be in Sanford this fall, but not in the student section. A backup center for the Georgia football team, Smith will grace the sidelines with the opportunity to help his team. That’s not so unusual, except he too was caught twice for violating the University’s alcohol policy.

One policy, two results?

“I don’t see how that’s consistent,” Bliss said in a telephone interview.

For both Bliss and Smith, the first offense of underage drinking brought probation.

But the second offense meant a year suspension for one, and continued probation for the other.

After learning about his suspension in early January, Bliss headed home to Peachtree City to work two jobs and consider his options over the next year.

Smith remained on scholarship, is still in classes and will be eligible to play after sitting out the first five games next season.

Why the difference?

From the University’s point of view, it’s a matter of timing.

The new alcohol policy took effect May 15, 2006. Associate Dean of Student Affairs Alan Campbell, whose office oversees University Judicial Programs, said students whose first violation happened before the sanctions were in place, but who violated the policy after May 15, would be handled according to their original probation.

This means a student on probation before the sanctions took effect, who then violates the policy again after May 15, would not necessarily be suspended.

“Students who violated the policy before did not have the benefit of knowing they would be suspended,” Campbell said.

Yet the policy makes no such exceptions. It states: “All students found in violation, through the University’s judicial process of alcohol and other drug-related misconduct will receive: second offense while on probation – suspension from institution for current semester and one subsequent semester…”

There is no mention in the policy of when the first incident took place or under what circumstances.

Judicial Programs resolutions prior to May 15 had, depending on the circumstances, various instructions for students.

Some documents said a student “may be suspended,” while other documents said violations “will likely result in suspension” or the student “will be suspended.”

But following the policy change, the language is clear: a second violation does mean suspension.

Campbell said that after May 15, the only option on a resolution was to tell students they will be suspended upon their second violation.

Smith’s first reported alcohol-related incident was in February 2006, after police had to hammer through a wooden door to get a “passed out” Smith from a bathroom in Amici’s, a downtown restaurant.

He was placed on probation, and told a repeat violation “may result” in suspension. Police arrested him a second time for an alcohol-related incident in November 2006.

Smith was found unconscious outside Sanford Stadium and showed an alcohol blood limit of .216, more than twice the legal limit.

His second resolution allowed him to stay on probation, despite the fact his violation happened while he was on probation, but noted that a third violation would result in expulsion.

Bliss was arrested in September and again in January 2007, both times by campus police. After the first violation, he was told a second violation “will result” in suspension.

After his January 2007 arrest, it was only a matter of time.

“The particular sanctions assigned to students who have been found to be in violation of the Code of Conduct have always been and continue to be decided on the basis of the unique circumstances of each case,” Campbell wrote in an e-mail to The Red & Black.

But the policy makes no mention of “unique circumstances.”

Two other cases

“The process is to be educative for students,” Campbell said, but was quick to add the process is not built to be punitive. “We believe in the impact of the judicial process and educating the students.”

The purpose, Campbell said, is to give the student an opportunity to see the misconduct, correct it and be aware of the consequences of further misconduct.

But a problem keeps coming up: students doing the same crimes aren’t doing the same time.

Two other students whose alcohol-related incidents were resolved after the sanctions took place also had different outcomes.

Matthew J. Mammola was placed on probation by Judicial Programs Sept. 5 for an underage possession of alcohol arrest. Just one

week later, he was arrested again for underage possession.

Two months later, Mammola went before Judicial Programs and his probation was extended.

Tyler B. Addison was put on probation for underage possession on Oct. 10.

About five weeks later, he was arrested again for the same charge, but in December, Judicial Programs suspended Addison for the Spring semester.

Both students saw a judicial officer and were aware they could be suspended for another alcohol violation.

In both cases, the first resolution, placing the student on probation, was signed after the sanctions were in place.

Yet the end result for the same behavior was different: One can stay, but one must go.

The reporting process

When a student is arrested by the University Police, he or she is booked into Athens-Clarke County jail and his or her arrest information is forwarded to Judicial Programs.

When a student is arrested off campus, he or she is booked into ACC jail and information is posted on the jail’s Web site.

Each Monday the ACC police department sends a list of all 17-to-24-year-olds arrested in the county for the previous week to University Police.

University Police Chief Jimmy Williamson said his staff takes that list and compares it with a list of enrolled students.

If there’s a match, Williamson requests all files on the student from ACC and forwards the information to Judicial Programs.

This process takes about seven working days, Williamson said.

Through a cross-check of Judicial Programs resolutions and a list of student arrests both on and off campus, The Red & Black discovered some cases either did not have resolutions or did not have cases pending in Judicial Programs.

Campbell said there could be many possible reasons for this. If the behavior doesn’t relate to Code of Conduct violations, if there is insufficient evidence or if the case was resolved in conjunction with another case, there may not be a resolution or pending action.

In some cases, two incidents involving alcohol or drug-related misconduct have been dealt with on the same resolution, Campbell said.

Take, for example, the cases of University student Cuyler Repine.

University Police arrested Repine on Oct. 22 for underage possession.

While that arrest was making its way through the system to Judicial Programs, Repine was arrested again on Nov. 8 for possession of marijuana.

Repine’s December resolution has two case numbers, but the resolution only mentions “possession of alcohol while under the legal drinking age” and multiple violations related to alcohol misconduct. It does not mention the drug charge.

Coleman A. Hoover faced a similar situation.

He was arrested by University Police for underage possession on Nov. 4 and then by ACC Police on Nov. 10 for underage consumption of alcohol while driving.

His December resolution lists two separate case numbers, both resolved by one probation sentence.

Campbell said in cases in which students have not had an opportunity to receive treatment or education for their first offense, it would be unfair to penalize them for the second offense as though it were separate.

Yet there is no exception for this in the new policy.

And then there is University student George S. Maier.

In his case, University Police reported several incidents of misconduct by Maier to Judicial Programs, but according to multiple open records requests made after the incidents, Judicial Programs had no cases pending or resolved for those arrests.

University Police arrested Maier for underage consumption on Jan. 15, 2005. Judicial Programs put Maier on probation from February through May of 2005. That is the sole record for Maier that Judicial Programs sent to The Red & Black.

But Maier was arrested a second time by University Police for, among other charges, underage possession in February 2006.

He was arrested a third time for underage possession – this time by ACC police – on Dec. 6.

Neither Maier’s second nor third arrests have resolutions, nor are actions pending by the University Judiciary.

Further details about Maier’s and other students’ resolutions were unavailable.

Kim Ellis, associate dean in the office of judicial programs, did not return repeated telephone calls to her office about these cases.

Bliss waiting, thinking

So some students get third chances, some get two-for-ones, while others get passed over by Judicial Programs.

Blake Bliss was not so lucky.

On Jan. 7, a month after Maier was arrested and Repine, Smith and Hoover were allowed to stay despite repeat violations, Bliss was arrested a second time for underage possession.

Three days later, Bliss was suspended from the University until Spring semester 2008. He also lost $400 in a dorm room deposit.

He may have been too honest for his own good.

“I went directly to them before they received the report,” he said. “I thought if I went promptly, it would help. They said there was nothing they could do.”

“I understood this was straight across the board. The second time, and you’re out.”