[869] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
The state of dining
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Cain)
Thu Oct 4 05:01:27 2001
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-ID: <p05010414b7e1bc41f2fe@[18.243.0.247]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 04:05:33 -0400
Reply-To: "Documentation at http://web.mit.edu/beland/talk/talk.html"
<MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU>, Matt Cain <mcain@MIT.EDU>
From: Matt Cain <mcain@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
It doesn't look like a good account of tonight's meeting has been
sent around, so here's my take. BTW, a history of the dining system
at MIT over the last 20 years is now available on the DormCon site:
http://web.mit.edu/dormcon/www/
Short Version:
Student input HAS been heard and new options WILL BE explored by the
Campus Dining Review Board which will have increased student
representation.
Long Version:
The meeting started off with Chancellor Clay who outlined the course
the process will take from here. Here are the high points from my
notes:
-The design will start again with student input this time
-There will be 45 days (~ 6 weeks) of discussion
-In that time the Campus Dining Review Board will be empowered to
evaluate dining options and plans will full support (resources, data,
etc.)
-At the end, the CDRB will present a plan or set of plans to the administration
-The administration will have the final say
-IF the CDRB can't figure anything out, `Plan B' will give each
freshman a mandatory meal plan
-CDRB will have expanded student representation (from 4 to 9 students)
-Proposals should not "automatically exclude" off campus vendors,
self-cooking, food trucks, etc. but must have a self-supporting system
This represented a definite win for the students, IMHO. We have a
very real way to present counter proposals that better meet our
needs. Enough editorializing...
Berlin was up next. First he presented the goals of the new system
(whatever it may be):
-target all the service areas, meet their needs and build community
-balance student needs with business needs (e.g. don't loose > $1 million/yr)
-provide flexibility to retain existing dining communities
-make a sustainable system that we can be proud of
Next was a slide with the major areas in which he had received
feedback over the last two weeks:
-Mandatory is unacceptable to students
-Respect decision making
-preserve self cooking opportunities
-proposed plans are not affordable for many
-There is no confidence in their ability to deliver
-No specific attention to Veggie/Kosher/special diets
-plans compromise house & FSILG dining programs
-students want expanded card options
-refund unused balances
After this, the questions began to come in. Very little was said
there that hasn't been said on at least one of these lists before
(usually with more expletives). What's important to note is that
there is a lot of room for the CDRB to come up with other options and
plans without minimum participation by all can be considered as well.
There is NO hard mandate for a mandatory system. If the economics of
the situation demand it, dems the berries. At least then we'll know
that the issue has been thoroughly researched by the people most
directly affected.
MENTAL HEALTH
was the second topic to be covered. The institute is doing the right
thing in this case. the task force presented parts of their draft
report. The final report should be released circa the 31st. If you're
interested, see http://web.mit.edu/medical/mhtf/
Those are my notes and conjectures from the meeting. I encourage
others to give their view of things.
--
-Matt Cain
mcain@mit.edu
Dormitory Council President
