Bethany Horne, Copy Editor
The student union will vote on Dec.1 on whether to approve a radically different vision of the student union building (SUB), and how much control students have over that space in the future.
A joint food contract has been proposed by the university, which would strip a large percentage of our union’s sovereignty over food operations in the building.
The dream, planted on Oct. 13 by a presentation by Heather Sutherland from Dalhousie’s Ancilliary Services, was an image of a student union building that extends as far at the sidewalk of LeMarchant Street. The dream includes an expanded lounge where people can wait for buses indoors, more rooms for society rentals, and a large cafeteria, to be shared with the residents of the yet- to-be named 310-bed new residence, set to be built kitty-corner to the SUB.
To achieve this dream, by 2013, the university wants the Dalhousie Student Union (DSU) to give up control over the food contract in the building, and go in on the larger food contract that the University negotiates. Both the DSU’s contract with Sodexho, and the University’s contract with Aramark, expire in June 2011. Requests for new proposals for food operators on campus need to be finalized by the end of January, says Chris Saulnier, the president of the DSU.
That’s why this negotiation between the University and the DSU is happening so fast, in between council meetings, and in informal settings.
At a general meeting in 2009, the then vice-president of finance and operations for the DSU said that the student unions’ deals with Sodexho and Pepsi bring in $300,000 a year, which goes towards society grants, events, and other union business. Nevertheless, a few months later, more than 1,300 students signed a petition against exclusivity deals in their union building.
The Pepsi contract is already a joint contract with the university, signed last year. Dal and some union executives now want the food contract to look the same.
Saulnier says the University must guarantee that the DSU’s current revenue from the food contract would stay the same, and that any additional profits would be split with the University.
“Students have been involved,” in determining what the DSU demands from the University, Saulnier says. “And I’ve been talking about it every week in council.”
But Maggie Lovett*, a student rep to the Dal Senate and a member of the DSU council, says councilors still don’t know some of the details of what is being proposed.
Saulnier says one of the DSU’s demands is to have a seat on the Food Management committee that oversees the implementation of the contract across the whole university. Heather Sutherland will not say for certain yet whether the university will offer this large a role to the student union, or whether the DSU’s seat at the table will be limited to the committee specific to food services in the SUB.
She says the Food committee does not determine which vendors get spots (Tim Horton’s, Booster Juice, or local alternatives), or what the details of the labour agreements are between the company and its food service employees: that is up to the company who wins the contract. The committee would act merely as an advisory group to the company, and determine details in the request for proposal, and which proposals are accepted.
Although the University and the DSU haven’t agreed yet on the final details of the University’s offer, the deadline is the Nov. 24 meeting. This meeting, scheduled for 6:30 in an undetermined room of the SUB, is open to all students. After Nov. 24, councillors will have a week to consider the University’s final proposal, consult their constituents, and vote yea or nay on Dec. 1.
Saulnier says there is one point the two sides have already settled: the deal has to give control of one of the food “kiosks” over to the union. He says the space will be offered either to a student-run food co-operative, like the one proposed by student food activists in the Loaded Ladle (made up of members of SustainDal and Campus Action on Food), or to a local business.
*In the print version of this article, Maggie Lovett’s name is wrong. We regret the error.
Recent Comments