SSMU approves corporate food service for Shatner 103
Students decry flawed tender process, lack of consultation
A corporate food service will again occupy Shatner room 103 – currently leased by Caférama – for at least the next five years following a razor-thin vote at SSMU Council late last night.
In the 13-12 secret-ballot decision, Council approved the SSMU Operations Committee report that recommended the corporate vendor. Prior to the confidential Council session - which lasted until nearly 4 a.m. - about 50 students showed up for an hour-long public debate, largely to express their support for a student-run café and lambaste Council for a flawed tender process.
SSMU President Jake Itzkowitz said the vendor – who unofficially accepted the offer, but whose name will not be released until the deal is officially accepted, likely early next week – will still have to follow ethical guidelines set by various SSMU bodies, such as the Financial Ethics Research Committee.
"We got a lot of good proposals from the corporate services, but not very good ones from student-run initiatives, unfortunately," Itzkowitz said.
Some students were angry that their first opportunity for public input was the same night Council was to decide the issue – and the second-last day of classes.
"Given the support of student-run operations, I don't think [students'] considerations were taken into account," said Tim Dowling, from Greening McGill and the Plate Club. Dowling presented a petition of over 800 signatures in support of a student-run initiative to Itzkowitz at the meeting.
Not all students in attendance supported establishing a student-run café. Alexandra Swann, former president of the Debating Union, argued that SSMU's financial resources were already strained, and that the Society had other mandates to adhere to.
"The [General Assembly] motion that was passed about student space mentions nothing about food space," she said, referring to a motion last fall mandating SSMU to prioritize student initiatives in the Shatner building.
In a public report released Monday, the Operations Committee estimated that a new student-run operation would incur fixed costs of roughly $285,800 in its first year and $93,800 thereafter.
But a 23-page counter-report – authored in four days by Arts Representative and incoming VP External Affairs Devin Alfaro, Senate Caucus Representative Erica Martin, and other students and councilors – challenged the validity of the Committee's calculations.
The counter-report accuses the Operations Committee of "fail[ing] to do an accurate assessment of the actual cost of a student-run operation," and projected that a student-run café could break even in four years if start-up and managerial costs were kept low.
It recommended that SSMU not make a decision on room 103 before consulting students and investigating more student-run options.
Trevor Chow-Fraser, U3 East Asian Religions & English Literature and one of the students involved in drafting the report, argued at Council that the Operations Committee ignored relevant café models.
"Have you looked at the models of any of the 21 student-run cafés at l'Université de Montréal or the seven at [l'Université de Québec À Montréal]?" he asked.
Jessica Dan, Chair of the Operations Committee and president of the Architecture Students' Association (ASA), said using the ASA's Architecture Café as an example of a successful student-run food service was not reasonable for SSMU.
"I personally do not feel that the model for the Architecture Café would be viable for the space below," Dan said. She noted that the ASA did not have to pay insurance or taxes before McGill Ancillary Services took over the Café and began sharing responsibility for its operations.
Critics have alleged that Dan's position as ASA President and chair of the committee was a conflict of interest, arguing that her involvement with the Architecture Café could lead her to slant the report against a student-run competitor.
Itzkowitz, who worked with Dan during the ASA's negotiations with McGill on the Architecture Café issue, said she was originally hired to study improving Gert's, but that she also had relevant experience for the room 103 decision.
"I know some people had some concerns about a conflict [of interest]," said Itzkowitz, adding that to address these concerns, Dan did not vote on the issue.
But Itzkowitz maintained that with popular support for a student-run food service, it was only a matter of time before one was installed in Shatner.
"I think we need to open a student-run food service in Gert's," he said. "Negotiations are currently stalled [with Al-Taïb, a food seller in Gert's]."
But he warned that next year's executive would have to figure out how SSMU would approach these issues in the future. The lease on the restaurants in the second-floor Shatner cafeteria is up in two years.
"We need to figure out what our operational priorities are," he said. "We are a student union, but we are also a corporation.... Those mandates are fundamentally incompatible."
About 50 students packed into a SSMU Council meeting last night to debate establishing a student-run cafe in Shatner room 103.
Will Vanderbilt / The McGill Daily
Comments
Byron Tau wrote:
This isn't slanted or anything...
Apr 12 at 01:23 PM
Flag as inappropriate
Drew wrote:
Byron, I know you're super-excited about The Daily's new comment function, but you're starting to embarrass yourself. And I've read your articles. You're hardly the platonic ideal of journalistic objectivity.
Apr 12 at 02:15 PM
Flag as inappropriate
Byron wrote:
Drew,
Usually my slanted articles appear under the banner "Opinion." Usually, anyway. Also, if you're referring to that plagiarism one, I was one of the most pro-Daily staffers on the Trib. If you can believe that.
-Byron
Apr 12 at 06:30 PM
Flag as inappropriate
Drew wrote:
I wasn't referring to your opinion pieces. Anyway, although I'm hardly in favour of strict objectivity, I don't see how this article is slanted. Four quotes from Itzkowitz, one quote from Swann, and one quote from Dan vs. one quote from Dowling, one from Chow-Fraser, and one from the counter-report.
Apr 12 at 07:54 PM
Flag as inappropriate
Max wrote:
Snap.
Apr 12 at 10:36 PM
Flag as inappropriate
Anish Jain wrote:
If anyone at the Daily actually had any sense of impartiality and actually read the counter-report, it estimates that the student run cafe would STILL run an 87k+ deficit over 4 years, and they state that this is with OPTIMISTIC projections
Funny how the numbers are all over when it comes to the official report, but the one the Daily tacitly agrees with (the bias is obvious) is not actually reported on, simply linked to and then the estimable (and OBVIOUSLY unbiased)"activist" quotes are parroted
Of course, only the opposing views of the evil corporatists should be investigated
Apr 14 at 02:54 PM
Flag as inappropriate
derek wrote:
With regards to this whole objective/impartial news reporting dispute, please get over it.
I'm sorry, but it's seriously frustrating.
a) objectivity in reporting (or anything, for that matter) DOES NOT EXIST. No-one is capable of it, and to seek it is dishonest and itself a distorted perspective.
b) POWER! What views are most dominant? Liberal democratic, corporate ideology. Which ones are less seriously represented? Those that go against this ideology -- hence the Daily (while still offering many views) giving voice to this less dominant, though important, voice.
At least the Daily, and other independent news outlets are honest about this bias. Why can't people let it go? When ever you argue that we should not take a news story seriously because it is 'slanted' (read: actually provides a serious and thoughtful space for minority views in a society soaking in asymmetrical power relations) yo completely miss the point -- or better yet, PROVE the point.
Being objective is a political and ideological choice.
Apr 15 at 10:52 AM
Flag as inappropriate
Anish wrote:
As long as you admit this is propaganda, I guess it's alright.
And if you think your neo-Marxist pseudo-Trotskyite views are an "oppressed minority" view in university, you have to be kidding.
"b) POWER! What views are most dominant? Liberal democratic, corporate ideology. Which ones are less seriously represented? Those that go against this ideology -- hence the Daily (while still offering many views) giving voice to this less dominant, though important, voice."
Yes, because conflation of liberal democratic ideals and corporatist ideals is at all accurate.
So just because some Marxists were genocidal, Marxism can be defined by the gulag, right?
"When ever you argue that we should not take a news story seriously because it is 'slanted' (read: actually provides a serious and thoughtful space for minority views in a society soaking in asymmetrical power relations)"
Wow I've never heard so many generic political buzzwords fit into one sentence.
And as a minority, I doubt you (obviously white, obviously generically socialist) know anything about what it means to be a TRUE minority
Hey, what system has brought the most people out of destitute absolute poverty in the last 20 years (see India and China)? Hint, it wasn't Fabian or Maoist socialism...
Apr 15 at 02:52 PM
Flag as inappropriate
Anish wrote:
And another little idea here---who cares about the bias of the writing itself if it PROVIDED THE FACTS as news SHOULD---THAT is the bias of interest---the writing can and will be biased, but a selective leaving out of facts makes this no better (actually, probably a bit worse, as they usually state the fact then marginalize it) than Faux News
And the way to minimize BIAS is to recognize it, and present a MULTIPLICITY of views---you know, sort of how the biases balance out
Selective absence of facts is shitty news reporting, whether overtly, covertly or imaginarily...and to think I voted to keep the Daily...I sure am embarrassed that I did now
Apr 15 at 02:56 PM
Flag as inappropriate
derek wrote:
Okay, maybe my defense of this article could have been less buzz-wordy (though the cliches are abound on all sides), but given the format i couldn't write an essay, and those are real words with appropriate meanings.
So that we can (hopefully) end this weird escalation over a Daily article that is no where near the level of intensity that we have both made it out to be, I just want to make one thing clear:
I am not a minority, nor do I think the majority of 'leftists' on campus are an 'oppressed minority'. I said neither of these things and didn't mean to imply them.
The issue is with access to viewpoints and ideas.
For example, it's difficult to argue that the notion of having only collective-based, (perhaps) non-profit food providers on campus, directly run by students, staff, and other members of the local community, is not contrary to the status quo.
The Daily, taking its job seriously by interviewing a multiplicity of people and perspectives, functions as it should: to regularly give alternative ideas a legitimate space, both on campus and in the community.
This is all I meant. It's not a 'poor us, no one hears us!' argument or anything. Really.
Apr 15 at 07:02 PM
Flag as inappropriate
alex wrote:
so what is going into rm. 103? i have heard rumours it's java U. can anyone confirm or deny?
Apr 15 at 10:20 PM
Flag as inappropriate
Post a Comment