Wesleyan Student Assembly — Wesleyan University

Minutes: April 6, 2003, No. 18

WSA Officers

• President: Joey Wender
• Vice President: Yaw Agyenim-Boateng
• Coordinator: Sara Mirsky
• Treasurer: Adam Lachman

Opening of Meeting

The meeting was opened at 8:05 pm.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes were approved unanimously.

Meeting Agenda and Business

• Dining Discussion
• Resolution on Iraq

Dining Discussion – Tim Reiss, Director of Dining Services

Mr. Reiss introduces the new changes in University dining for next fall. 1) Students will be allowed to use points at off campus restaurants. He has been talking to five or six restaurants that are enthusiastic about the prospect. All points will be able to be used on restaurants, so the Dining Committee still needs to look at the costs that the plan will pose to dining services. One restaurant will be used as a pilot next semester; it will be decided upon by the WSA. 2) Weshop will be expanded. It will be made similar to Wild Oats; it will contain a juice bar and deli meats. It may be combined with the First Harvest Café. The Committee is looking at a new location and is considering the Nicolson Lounge. The goal is to increase the organic output and cut down on waste. It will be open late, until 2 am.

Stack

• Colleen Galbraith asks how the First Harvest Café will run without Peggy, the head chef.
• Mr. Reiss explains that she wants to do her own thing, but Dining will find a chef similar to her.
• Selina Ellis asks what will happen to Kosher Kitchen.
• Mr. Reiss responds that there has been talk about combining it with Summerfield’s, but there needs to be a discussion on how “kosher” should be defined. A lot needs to be factored in with dealing with a kosher facility.
• Sohana Punithakumar states that Weshop should not be moved into the Nicolson Lounge because then the Nics won’t have any lounge space and WestCo will have two lounges.
• Yaw Agyenim-Boateng asks if Dining has looked into getting a discount at restaurants that will accept flexpoints.
• Mr. Reiss explains that he would have to talk to the restaurants. There will be costs for the restaurants, such as card scanners.
• Gabe Tabak asks what will happen to the fourth floor of the campus center if First Harvest isn’t there.
• Mr. Reiss responds that it will kept as a student space, used for maybe seating or programming. If the designs don’t work out, though, they might keep the Vegan Café where it is.
• Selina Ellis asks for a timetable for these changes.
• Mr. Reiss hopes to have it all done by the fall.
• Jeremy Abrams asks for the immediate and long range goals for Summerfield’s.
• Mr. Reiss explains that there has been a management change, so they are looking at different menus. He hopes to turn it into a restaurant type atmosphere, in which food will be brought to people, food will be made to order, etc. He also hopes to renovate it and bring the cooking out front.
• Jeremy Abrams thinks that the sandwiches should be made to order, but they should also try to speed up the service because so many people go there for lunch.
• Mr. Reiss explains that they will streamline lunch, but make changes for dinner.
• Sara Mirsky asks if the renovations will cut back on the options available to people.
• Mr. Reiss hopes that the switchovers will be made over breaks. Things will be kept where they are until the new locations are ready. Most of it will be done over the summer.
• Colleen Galbraith argues that having a pilot for flexpoints is unfair because it will give all campus business to one restaurant.
• Mr. Reiss states that Dining is looking into putting flexpoints on a flexcard that can be used for laundry, bookstores, all restaurants in Middletown, the post office, etc.
• Cecile asks why Summerfield’s isn’t open on weekends and asks if it will stay that way.
• Mr. Reiss answers that based on statistics, Summerfield’s gets little business on the weekends.
• Matt Lerner urges Mr. Reiss to speak more on flex points’ effects on Aramark.
• Mr. Reiss answers that students and President Bennet have both wanted flexpoints for a long time, so it will happen.
• Matt Lerner asks if Mocon will be eliminated in the long run.
• Mr. Reiss responds that the University has deemed it an inefficient use of space. The new University Center will replace Mocon, but they do not know what will happen to the building.
• Matt Lerner inquires into the possibility of food services in the WestCo Café.
• Mr. Reiss informs him that some money has been allotted for it. He doesn’t know if Aramark will be involved in the future, but Dining would be willing to help.
• Nathan Victoria asks into what spaces Summerfield’s and Weshop will spread.
• Mr. Reiss answers that Weshop might be expanded in the back and a little in the front. He doesn’t know about Summerfield’s.
• Nathan Victoria complains that on the last days of breaks, most students are back, but there are not many food services running. He suggests keeping more services open and stresses the importance of late night dining.
• Sohana Punithakumar asks if the Campus Center will close if the food services there are closed.
• Mr. Reiss responds that it will be open as a student space until late.
• Joey Wender recommends involving ResLife in the process of moving Weshop.
• Karen Courtheoux thinks that the changes are great, but weekend dining is very limited. She also voices many people’s complains about the quality of the food at the end of the semester.
• Mr. Reiss hopes to address that problem with the improvements to Summerfield’s and Weshop (with the deli and First Harvest). He is also hoping to add two meal plan options: 5 meals a week and an unlimited type plan.
• Jeremy Levinn asks for the rationale behind the high senior buy-in.
• Mr. Reiss explains that in order to run facilities, a certain amount of money needs to come in.
• Gabe Tabak recommends expanding Kosher Kitchen’s hours.
• Emily Polak asks the Assembly to decide on what restaurant to use as a pilot next year: Thai Gardens, Giuseppe’s, Mamoun’s, Puerto Vallarta, Domino’s, It’s Only Natural, O’Rourke’s, Typhoon, Neon, Japanica, La Boca, Sorelle’s, Eli Cannon’s.

Vote

Giuseppe’s wins with 16 votes. Sorelle’s- 8; Mamoun’s- 6; Thai Gardens- 5; La Boca- 4; Puerto Vallarta- 4; Typhoon- 3; Neon- 3; Japanica- 2; Eli Cannon’s- 2; O’Rourke’s- 1.

Resolution on Iraq – Joey Wender

• (see attachment 18A)
• This will be an open discussion, so representatives should feel free to say whatever they believe. Last Sunday, the WSA agreed to draft a resolution regarding the situation in Iraq. A working committee, chaired by Mr. Wender, to draft the resolution was created. The committee came up with some principles of what they would want to see in a resolution. The committee agrees that this resolution fit into the principles that were drafted. The purpose of this discussion is to debate the resolution presented.
• Adam Lachman makes a friendly amendment. (see attachment 18B) Stack will be taken to discuss the friendly amendment.

Stack

• Matt Lerner agrees with the amendment strengthening the resolution. He believes that the original resolution did not make a statement.
• Joey Wender argues that representatives are not elected to make a decision regarding their opinions on war; commenting on national politics and international affairs uses the WSA’s power in a very inappropriate way.
• Yaw Agyenim-Boateng completely agrees with Mr. Wender. Furthermore, he has issues with people making a resolution that does not coincide with the ideas agreed upon by the rest of the drafting committee. The resolution should not be political, but it should take a strong stance.
• Sohana Punithakumar states that the Assembly should not pass a resolution that is pro or anti war.
• Sara Mirsky agrees that the resolution should promote dialogue, like the Chalking Resolution did. A lot of people in the community do not have a definitive stance on the war. Creating a resolution that speaks this strongly will silence a good portion of campus and will prevent a positive digression of ideas. The individual opinions of students cannot be voiced on a national or international level; the WSA’s decision will represent the rest of campus.
• Straw poll on whether the resolution should be explicitly for or against war: 7 for taking a strong stance, 18 for not taking a stance, 3 abstentions.
• Adam Lachman points out that the war affects campus life, even if it is a national issue. Also, the WSA has made political statements in the past.
• Adam Poswolsky argues that not taking a stance is a political action in itself.
• Joey Wender responds that though the WSA has taken political stances in the past, this one is out of its authority and scope. Representatives can take their own stance, but the WSA represents everyone on this campus.
• Jeremy Abrams states that it is the job of the WSA to support all groups’ rights to speak.
• Sohana Punithakumar fears that if the resolution is passed, Wesleyan will be included in statistics as an anti-war community when that it not the case. There are people at Wesleyan who have enrolled in the army because they believe in the cause. The WSA cannot alienate these people.
• Gabe Tabak points out that the other political resolutions the WSA has passed discussed politics for the sake of campus. Passing this resolution would be discussing politics for the sake of politics. It is fundamentally hypocritical for the WSA to say that it supports diversity and dialogue and then say that it is anti-war. Representatives’ personal views don’t matter.
• Selina Ellis is concerned that Mr. Wender’s resolution doesn’t say anything. The resolution should talk about war/campus issues more explicitly. It is important for the Assembly to remember that there are people for the war on the campus, too.
• Joe Yannielli argues that the war strongly affects students’ financial aid. Mr. Wender’s resolution is too weak and doesn’t say anything. Over 400 students, a large block, are strongly against the war. War also eliminates the diversity on campus; there are fewer international students, etc.
• Matt Lerner explains that the WSA’s scope is issues that clearly pertain to the campus. Its authority is derived from the student body; it therefore must represent the majority. The point of a university is to be a venue for dialogue, but not for circular dialogue, hence the reason for student government.
• Colleen Galbraith points out that this does not have a precedent. The WSA should not be afraid to take a strong stance on it; since the issue is unlikely to come up again, a resolution will not set a bad precedent. The whole world has taken a stance against the war; the WSA will not be that radical if it does, too.
• Sara Mirsky argues that the war is obviously affecting campus life. The Assembly should acknowledge that, but should make more of a pro-peace stance. She doesn’t feel comfortable saying that her opinion should be blanketed across the university. The WSA has to pick and choose what it puts forth, otherwise the resolutions will backfire and lead to misunderstanding. Something should be put forward that creates dialogue and that people are comfortable discussing.
• Mr. Wender states that though it may be easy and feel good to pass Mr. Lachman’s resolution, the WSA has to act on political restraint.
• Emily Polak points out that in order for student voices to be heard, the WSA has to pass the resolution. Solidarity with other student governments is what makes an impact.
• Monica Arduini informs the Assembly that there have been a very high number of emails to the WSA urging it to pass an antiwar resolution. Though the lack of dissent could be because of the silencing of minorities, it is important to note.
• Becca Solow argues that the WSA should not be so concerned about a conservative minority that doesn’t even speak up. Not passing a strong resolution would alienate a vocal antiwar majority. As for the issue of authority, she argues that though she was voted to the SBC, she still votes on issues such as dining; therefore, representatives can vote on issues outside of their platforms.

Vote on Mr. Lachman’s amendment

• 11 for, 14 against, 2 abstentions
• Jeremy Abrams urges representatives who want a non-watered down resolution, to vote against Mr. Wender’s. Then the WSA will just not have a resolution because it could not decide on the resolution’s strength.

Adjournment
The meeting ended at 11:20 due to the loss of a quorum. After some representatives pointedly walked out, only 24 people were left in attendance.

Respectfully Submitted,
Monica Arduini, WSA Secretary