| |
Because students have
voiced so much concern about possible changes in
dining at Smith, I am writing to clarify where we are at
present and
what the process will be for determining any changes. A great
deal of
misinformation is circulating, causing needless alarm and
distress.
I think it would be useful,
first, to give a chronology of events that
have led us to this point.
Last fall, I appointed a task
force on housing and dining (made up of
students, faculty, staff, trustees, and alumnae) to advise
me about
whether the college should consider any changes in the
current housing
and dining system in order to better meet students' needs.
(Those of
you who were here in the spring of 2002 may remember that
the grass
roots group urged attention to several housing issues,
which made up a
portion of the task force's charge.) You can read the full
report of
the task force at www.smith.edu/rltaskforce/report.php.
In the area of dining, the most important finding was that,
while the
majority of students prefer to keep dining options exactly
as they are,
a substantial minority (30 to 40 percent) expressed a desire
for more
options, including broader menu choices, longer dining
hours, and more
freedom to choose where to eat their meals.
In the course
of last year, after the task force had begun its work,
it
became clear that the college was facing some budgetary
challenges.
Dean Mahoney and I decided that it was best for the task
force to
complete its work in accordance with its original charge
because we
wanted to know what the task force felt the ideal structure
of housing
and dining should be.
This fall, I have appointed
two small implementation committees, one
concentrating on housing, the other on dining, in order
to consider how
the campus might implement the task force recommendations,
with
appropriate attention to cost. I've encouraged the dining
committee
both to consider small changes -- allowing students to take
some meals on
their meal plan at the campus center, for example, or extending
hours in
some dining rooms, or creating more specialization and
variety in menus,
or allowing students more flexibility in where they eat
lunch, or
creating more and larger co-ops -- and also to consider the
benefits,
drawbacks, and comparative costs of a smaller number of
dining
locations.
We have asked a consulting firm
to help the committee envision
scenarios and to cost them out. The consultants' task is
to stimulate
discussion by imagining alternatives (they have certainly
done that!)
and to provide cost and budget analyses. The consultants
have no
authority, and they are not even charged with making recommendations.
It is the task of the committee to evaluate the scenarios
that the
consultants suggest, to assess what they offer in comparison
with house
dining as it currently exists, and to consider efficiencies
and cost
savings. Of course the committee will give careful attention
to
long-standing house traditions like Friday tea, senior
banquets, and
candlelight dinners. The implementation committee
will consult widely with students before
making recommendations to the administration. Any recommendations
for
change will come before the Committee on Mission and Priorities
(CMP)
and the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation (ACRA),
both of which
have student members. A final decision would be made by
the
administration in consultation with the Board of Trustees.
As
you can see, we are at the beginning of a deliberative
process. No
decisions have been made, and there are no foregone conclusions.
Because I know that students want to have a structured
and regular way
in which they can get information about issues and can
give advice not
just about dining but about the budget in general, I
have asked SGA
President Elizabeth Liedel to propose a way to accomplish
this within
the current student governing organization. In the discussion
about dining, I realize that many of you are
concerned about the security of the jobs of your kitchen
workers. In
all of the budget reductions that we have been making,
we have been
careful to minimize layoffs. For that reason, we have offered
voluntary
separation plans in areas where we knew we would make workforce
reductions; we are banking empty positions in order to
provide budgetary
flexibility; and we are increasing opportunities for internal
mobility
for college staff. We will be as careful to minimize job
loss in RADS
as we are in any area of the college.
In facing the budgetary
challenges before us, we must not be afraid to
ask hard questions about how we do things and to have thoughtful,
civil
discussions of alternatives. Entertaining a possibility
is not the same
thing as making a decision. If we take some alternatives
off the table
without any discussion, we may find ourselves facing
unforeseen
consequences in areas of the budget with higher priority
-- the curriculum,
for example, or financial aid. I would hope, in the year
ahead, when we
face a number of challenging decisions, that we not rush
to conclusions
based on insufficient or faulty evidence, that we trust
that the process
of consultation and deliberation will lead us to good
decisions, and
that we understand that fiscal challenges can motivate
creative ideas
and beneficial changes.
Sincerely,
Carol T. Christ |
|
Speeches & Writings
Letters
to the
Community
Senior
Staff
Office
Staff & Hours
Biography
Community Advisory Board
|
