[328] in UA Senate
Re: Follow up on Dining Discussion today
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jont=E9_Craighead?=)
Wed Dec 2 05:08:56 2009
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jont=E9_Craighead?= <jontec@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <345fee000911301904r67e6e1b5t61739cc5e4c0d368@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 05:08:36 -0500
Cc: UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>, ua-admin@mit.edu
To: Maggie Delano <maggied@mit.edu>
This discussion did not get off the ground as hoped and it appears we =
are t-minus 4 hours away from the meeting. Here is what I had been =
hoping we could get from Dean Colombo:
1.) (short-term) A hard and fast answer about whether there will be =
changes in the dining system before next year.
This should be easy. It appears that there will most definitely =
be changes to address the budget concerns with the system.
2.) (short-term) A very specific list of issues with the current system =
that he believes to address; this could, but does not necessarily have =
to, take the form of a brief report presenting the administration's =
perspective on the issues.
My thoughts are that such a list would enable us to see his =
priorities, open up the discussion, and enable the UA to begin =
investigating the issues independently. If with transparency is slow, we =
could have our own set of solutions prepared and ready to compare with =
those produced at the end of Dean Colombo's analysis. To have any value, =
though, this list has to be much more specific than "dining is operating =
on a 600,000 deficit" or "students tend not to eat breakfast." While =
both are true, to be useful we need statements like "dining overall is =
operating on a 600,000 deficit and losses from dining halls contribute =
to 70% of those losses" or "students tend not to eat breakfast but there =
is a demonstrated demand," which are more to the point and can be =
tested. (Examples, I am not speculating that either of these are true).
3.) (short-term) If not a timeline, a guarantee that changes will be =
announced to the MIT community well enough in advance of their =
implementation and finalization for the upcoming year.
In other words, since certain changes, especially those in the =
preferred dining system, would have to be decided upon in advance of =
finalizing offers for the class of 2014, we should have a guarantee that =
the student body will have at least a month and a half to review and =
provide feedback on the changes proposed for the next year. I trust your =
judgment as to what date this kind of request corresponds to; =
essentially, we do not want to be in the position where the decision is =
made two weeks before it becomes policy for the next year.
3.) (long-term) A detailed explanation of the objectives behind making =
changes at all and how the proposed changes help to achieve those =
objectives; this would preferably be a report.
This report would give us something detailed to debate and =
respond to as well as provide upfront justification for the changes =
proposed. Where we disagree with the solution proposed, we can look at =
the objective in mind and propose a different one.
4.) (short-term) If no such guarantee on feedback can be made and =
changes are imminent, then students should be involved in the process =
immediately to ensure that changes will indeed meet student needs.
Even with the most competent and attentive set of =
administrators, there is no substitute for *real* student input.This =
would also allow the UA to report to the student body on the plans as =
they develop, significantly opening up the process. This is in the theme =
of 40 UAS 6.4 "Bill to Increase Transparency and Empower Student =
Representatives on the Blue Ribbon Dining Committee" which was passed by =
Senate last December.
These are just my thoughts; I do not expect that all of Senate will be =
in agreement with me--in fact, I expect that many will likely expect =
more from the meeting in order to be satisfied.
Also, ignore time sent. I am now starting my day (early to bed last =
night).
Thanks,
Jont=E9 D. Craighead
Next House UA Senator
MIT Class of 2013
(Prospective) Course 1C
On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:04 PM, Maggie Delano wrote:
> Hi Senate,
>=20
> I was speaking with a few Senators after the meeting today about how =
to move forward with some of the concerns on the dining issue. =
Specifically, people are starting to get nervous about the level of =
transparency as Dean Colombo begins to investigate dining changes. =
Bennie and I have our weekly meeting with Dean Colombo on Wednesday, and =
a few of us thought it would be helpful if Senate could respond over =
email with a few things they think they'd like to see from the dean. We =
can discuss these items with him on Wednesday, and then based on how =
those discussions go, Senate can decide if they'd like to draft =
legislation for the December 7th meeting.
>=20
> So if there is anything you'd like us to ask Dean Colombo about, =
please email ua-admin (or feel free to start a discussion on this list). =
Some ideas that were discussed included a timeline, list of those =
involved in decision making, and maybe even a report similar to the BRDC =
report with specific implementation details.
>=20
> Thanks,
> -Maggie
