Forum Opens Communication Between Students and Administration
Student body president, Zach Triplett, addressed Sodexo Dining Services last Monday about the changing meal exchange options at the Huton behalf of students’ frustration.
In an email to Robin Walton, Triplett expressed his frustration at the continual change in menu items at the Hut. Most recently, the removal of the tuna melt, hot dog, and chicken wrap from the meal exchange menu caused some annoyance. All of these food options were considered popular among students, according to Triplett and Alex Veatch, another responder.
Walton responded to Triplett’s concern with confusion. She said that the options that were removed were the “slowest movers,” and that was why they replaced them. According to the employees, cheeseburgers, chicken tenders, and meatball subs were the most popular meals. Walton argued that the “slow movers” were replaced with classics like the BLT. “The reason for the change was to offer different options for everyone,” Walton claimed.
Veatch’s concern was not only the food, but for the sanitation of the food services. She witnessed an employee bring her puppy to the Hut, which most of the other employees petted. “There have been times where I have questioned the cleanliness of the Hut, but tonight was beyond anything I have witnessed,” Veatch said.
She was also concerned with the smoking policy for dining services employees. When some employees take a smoke break outside, the open door lets the smoke into the cooking facility. Veatch followed this with a suggestion of simply moving away from the door in order to smoke.
While there were numerous concerns, Triplett also suggested a solution that would satisfy both the students and the Sodexo employees: “I think Dining Services staff should conduct a focus group or something similar to pull in opinions of students before changes like this are made.” Triplett made it clear that he was simply expressing the concerns of the student body, as was his responsibility.
Walton agreed to this idea with much enthusiasm. “We would love to have a meeting with our students to discuss any concerns that they may have.”
To this, Triplett offered Sodexo representation at a student forum on Thursday, October 22. He challenged dining services to initiate an individual focus group for concerns. “I feel like dining services should still take the initiative to organize a forum or discussion focused solely on issues related to dining on campus.”
At the forum, students had the opportunity to speak their grievances against the Sodexo system. Many were frustrated at the meal plan, which does not allow them to use extra meals for friends, or use an extra meal at a different time in the day.
The Sodexo employees responded with a suggestion of a block meal plan, which would give students a certain number of meals a semester. Most of the students at the forum were very excited about this idea, but President Rosalind Reichard had a rebuttal. “The pricing of meal plans is assuming you won’t eat all the food,” Reichard argued. She suggested the block system was easier at a larger school, with more predictability.
In a discussion of the privileges taken away from students with their meal plan, a solution arose. The meal exchange program at the Hut allowed students to substitute a meal value for anything on the menu. Now, there is only to the option to use the meal exchange for the full meals listed on that specific menu.
Dean Pam Gourley said, “We get different feedback. We heard students were frustrated about the substitutions.” Many students at the forum replied that was not the case at all, to which the dean responded, “I can’t please everyone.”
Triplett, the mediator of the forum, suggested again that Sodexo create a focus group to get student’s opinions about changes and pricing of the meal plans. Both the dean and president were very supportive of this idea. After the suggestion made by Triplett to Walton in an email, Walton herself is very excited about the formation of such a focus group.
At the end of the forum, Dean Sharpe asked, “Is the tuna melt really that good?” to which student’s heads nodded enthusiastically.
The forum also addressed the visitation policy, which many students felt was outdated.
The policy the school has now has an 11pm curfew on weekdays and a 1am curfew on weekends. The dorms do not open up again until noon the next morning.
Many students felt that the hours should be extended until two or three in the morning. According to research done by the Residence Hall Association, many schools similar to Emory & Henry have 24 hour policies.
Veatch suggested if the policy was 24 hours, then the accountability would fall on roommate agreements, which would outline hours for visitation, phone time, study time, and overnight guest policies. This would put a lot of responsibility on the roommates to assert themselves.
This policy would also include a roommate Bill of Rights, because “no one should feel like a guest in their own room,” as Veatch said. This Bill of Rights would empower students to set their own standards for behavior. It would consist of a contract and a set of rules for roommates, suites, and halls.
In a poll taken this summer by the RHA, seventy percent of students were unsatisfied with the visitation policy now, while fourteen were satisfied. Because of this survey, the forum was also conducted to discuss the “outdated” visitation policy.
While nothing was decided, members of the Board of Trustees and much of the administration was present and open to the ideas discussed.
The forum simply gave students the opportunity to express their opinions and ideas to administration about how to better serve the student body.
Filed Under: Campus News • News
About the Author: Sophomore Hannah Rhodes is a Mass Communications and Public Policy and Community Service double major. A native of Richmond, Hannah works for the campus radio station and also helps with the weekly television show. This is her second year working with EHCWired. She enjoys writing, playing soccer, and spending time with friends. She volunteers at the Highlands Project after school program and enjoys participating in community service. Family is important to her, as she is one of five children. Her time at Emory has been wonderful, and she can’t wait to have even more experiences.
Because portions of the dialogue that developed at the event have been wholly unrepresented, I fear that the story as reported may lend itself to an unintended bias.
Pursuant to this fear, I recommend that a draft be put forward which clarifies some ambiguities and further represents all aspects of the dialogue that were given serious contemplative thought–otherwise those represented as is lends itself to selectivity. A synonym of “selective” is “bias.”
The forum referenced was the Board of Trustees Student Forum.
The “Sodexo employees” who “responded” are not identified. To my knowledge, the primary voice of Sodexo at the Board of Trustees Student Forum was Treva Watson, and I do not see her name mentioned in this news article. Furthermore, if the Sodexo employees are not identified, how then can we not be sure that the suggestions came from other another participant? As I recall, it was the position of present Sodexo employees to oppose such block alternatives because of their underlying cost structure and referenced their contract with the school.
The reference to the email dialogue at the start of this article contained every major perspective put forth except the only solution that relied on a Constitutionally derived powers the Student Body President already has which could synthesize the concerns of both Zach and Robin Walton.
Furthermore, at the Board of Trustees Student Forum, I had put forth the same solution, relying on constitutional authority which specifically references “food service” as a viable cabinet level position and the fact that the SGA Constitution further provides for such a cabinet level Executive Officer to have student advisory committee dedicated to serving as a forum for policy making in that Cabinet Officer’s specific area of expertise.
The Student Body President was specifically asked of his opinion regarding the proposal and he answered that he would not take a position on that. I doubt the newsworthiness of this aspect of the dialogue could be called into question.
This is further emphasized by the fact that Zach illustrated his response by stating that he did not believe a cabinet level position was necessary, and failed to give a clear definitive answer when I further pressed by asking at what point he felt that measure would become necessary–at what point would it be a sufficient student concern?
Alex Veatch then spoke up and contended that she “did” infact feel food service had become a major student concern, citing that the Whitetopper had probably covered it in some way in almost every issue so far this academic year.
Aside from all that, the wording of the visitation policy was also brought up because I had stated that its gender emphasis disregards sexual orientation and therefore applies to the student body as a whole inequitably. Furthermore, Josh Griffith had responded by citing that as a legitimate point and that attempting to implore a sexual orientation emphasis would create a witch hunt and that such an outcome was undesirable. This perspective contended that the visitation policy should be reformulated to ignore gender.
I will be deeply disturbed if these concerns are not addressed before publication.
Thank you for your time.
Izik Crispin
Chairman, Senate Rules Committee
President, E&H College Libertarians