The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

SGA debates student dining options

The Student Government Association met on Nov. 16 to debate changes to the meal plans for students. Mark Campos / Staff Photographer
The Student Government Association met on Nov. 16 to debate changes to the meal plans for students. Mark Campos / Staff Photographer

After working on library renovations earlier in the week, Student Government Association had a food fight at their Wednesday meeting.

The Student Government Association met on Nov. 16 to debate changes to the meal plans for students. Mark Campos / Staff Photographer

SGA debated two resolutions regarding student meal plans for residents and commuters.

The meal plan proposal for residents, which included a provision to increase flex dollars for all student meal plans, sparked a debate about financial considerations for students who live on campus.

The resolution came up for debate after Van Vieregge, director of business and auxiliary services for student development, suggested a possible increase in flex dollars for student meal plans last week.

The resolution included increasing flex dollars for all student meal plans.

Story continues below advertisement

The meal plans would be increased by $100 for students with the all-flex plan, $85 for students with the eight-meal plan, $80 for students with the 10-meal plan and $75 for students with the 14-meal plan.

Senators Krishi Peddada and Kathleen Cadigan presented the proposal and a survey where 91 percent of students said that an increase in flex would allow them “to take better advantage of the dining options.”

Senators questioned the proposal for various reasons including its timing, the validity of the survey cited in the resolution and the effect the proposed increase would have on room and board.

Senators questioned the rushed timing of the proposal. Senators feared that the resolution was not fully considered and that more time was needed to consider the resolution.

Senators also questioned the data that was cited. The survey only received answers from 442 respondents about the increase in flex dollars, which senators thought was not representative of the entire student body.

Senators also debated how the increase would affect room and board rates for fall 2012. Senators argued that this increase would add to room and board hikes for next year.

Senators began to disagree whether the increase in flex dollars would be stacked with the room and board increase for next year. Order had to be called a few times to control the arguments between different senators.

Senators attempted to end the debate before other senators could speak on the proposed issue. Senator Blake Exline proposed an amendment to remove all the proposed the financial considerations within the bill. The amendment passed with the removal of all the proposed increases in flex dollars. The remaining clause in the bill, which created an ad-hoc meal-plan task force, was passed.

SGA also changed the current commuter meal-plan system. In the new plan, there are two options: $300 for 250 flex dollars or $400 for 350 flex dollars. Commuters can opt for the new and larger plans, but students will automatically be given the current commuter meal plan, which is $200 for 150 flex dollars.

SGA also endorsed the decision to close the Busch Student Center at midnight instead of 2 a.m. At last week’s meeting, Vieregge said that the center would start closing earlier after the winter break. Vieregge cited low student traffic between midnight and 2 a.m. as one of the reasons for the earlier closing time. Vieregge said that the BSC will extend hours beyond midnight for special events and finals week.

SGA confirmed and seated five new senators. Finally, SGA nominated Tommy Zhang to fill the vacant vice president of international affairs position.

View Comments (4)
Donate to The University News
$1410
$750
Contributed
Our Goal

Your donation will support the student journalists of Saint Louis University. Your contribution will help us cover our annual website hosting costs.

More to Discover
Donate to The University News
$1410
$750
Contributed
Our Goal

Comments (4)

All The University News Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • S

    Sassy Straight BillikenNov 17, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    @SassyGayBilliken, though we are both sassy, unfortunately I don’t always agree with your views.

    The athletic fee referendum did not poll “roughly the same amount of people.” It in fact pooled much more than double the people that this chartwells poll surveyed.

    In addition, the athletic fee survey was made by students and was well advertised. While the final numbers did not represent the entire 8k (the referendum was targeted at the undergrads) every undergrad had the chance to vote and every undergrad was given ample time.

    It seems you feel content to complain about these things, but decline to do anything about it. You and the rest of the people against the athletic fee last year had plenty of time to get out there and protest the fee and sway popular opinion. Yet besides the very occasional Facebook whine, I did not see any flyers, posters etc. that showed that students had discontent for the fee.

    I predict that this fee will do a lot for school spirit. Our mens Basketball program is about to have a breakout year and will soon have very sustainable success. National Ranking is not far off in the next season.

    But if my predictions are true, then Chaifetz could have jacked up prices for the next few seasons knowing students would have no choice but to pay what they ask. But at least the small and manageable Athletic Fee of $15 a semester will stay frozen for the next four years.

    I agree that Chartwells’ $50 overhead cost is B.S. and that there gouging of prices is awful as well. However, at least the athletic fee will halt any oncoming Chaifetz price gouge.

    In conclusion, the Athletic Fee is very much different from this recent Chartwells survey. @SassyGayBilliken, please refrain from such silly statements, you are giving us sassy Billikens a bad name.

    Also, @SassyGayBilliken, there is a very big basketball game this sunday afternoon against the University of Washington. We will need all the fans we can get. I hope you will take advantage of the Athletic fee and come and show some school spirit.

    Reply
  • A

    Andrew SovaNov 17, 2011 at 3:51 pm

    This article doesn’t give the full details of everything that occurred. 442 students took part in a survey run by Chartwells which represents 3.4% of the 13K students enrolled at SLU. 90% of the 442 students wanted in increase in flex dollars available to them, not 90% of the University.

    The bill was originally intended to do two things. The first was to ask that when the room/board rates increase next year, that more money goes into the students pockets for the meal plan. Unfortunately this measure was unnecessary. Chartwells has not submitted any plans to change the venues nor increase food complexes on campus; so they do not need any more any at this point in time. The second portion of the bill requested an ad-hoc committee be formed. Ultimately we scrapped the bill of much of its language and agreed only to create an ad-hoc committee that is going to investigate overhead fees, university profits (from the meal plans and cost of food), and then make a recommendation.

    Additionally, the committee will be able to use MySLU as a way to create credible surveys that all students would be able to fill out and voice their opinions.

    One of the biggest concerns we all shared was lack of clarity regarding overhead costs. SLU charges all students a $50 overhead charge, the claim is that this funds growth, development, and maintenance of food facilities on campus. However, everyone can clearly see that food is overpriced on campus, it is that way on every college campus. The reason the University has a higher cost on food items being sold is to cover this overhead. This is a standard model in business.

    When you go to McDonalds you don’t get charged a $5.00 fee for paying the employees who make your burger. You pay for your burger and you leave, a portion of the cost of the burger pays the employee salaries. Based on this business model, there is no need for the University to be charging a $50 overhead fee, PERIOD!

    I hope you can see that our real concern is about the administrators being honest about profit margins and actual costs, instead of making claims about ‘overhead’.

    The most abrupt point of the debate came when a statement was made but later retracted that room and board rates increase because of rising inflation. Inflation however deals with the trading of commodities and options; and since university property is owned outright it doesn’t suffer inflation from the mortgage market. The only cost associated with campus property is property taxes. However, part of the increases in room and board go to cover rising utility cost, increase in staff salaries, but also to ensure that the University continues to raise and save more money than the previous years.

    Andrew Sova.
    Graduate Senator
    MPH Candidate in the School of Public Health

    Reply
  • P

    Peter CastensNov 17, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    So basically… SGA argued alot, and then passed a resolution that does absolutely nothing. Why am I not surprised?

    And yeah, I agree with SassyGayBilliken. Let us vote. I didn’t vote for 90% of you… actually with how many people resign and are replaced by “applications”, I probably didn’t vote for a single one of you. So quit trying to inject your opinion and say it’s mine. Let me vote.

    P.S. – Students can already option to increase their own personal Flex Dollars. This literally benefits students 0%. Just another way the Administration is trying to take our money.

    Reply
  • S

    SassyGayBillikenNov 17, 2011 at 11:46 am

    I find it funny that the Senate is discrediting a survey of 442 individuals when a similar survey was used to push through the Athletic Fee increase and pooled roughly the same amount of people. Funny how there is all this talk about lack of precedent, but never utilized. Put it on the ballot. Let the students decide where/if they want to pay more.

    Reply