How not to do public consultations

Negotiating food services at the U of M, part 1

ICEPIRG THE U OF M’S PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP

As some of you may have heard, we will soon be arriving at the end of Aramark’s 10-year exclusive monopoly contract with the university. In the spirit of exclusion and secrecy that we are all getting used to by now, the university opened up the bidding for the next of such long-term contracts only to companies who have had extensive previous experience as food service providers on other campuses. The net effect: only one other company can compete for the contract — Sodexo — and a bunch of frustrated students.

In what seems like an attempt to appear as though there is actually some sort of public, student involvement in these negotiations, a pair of “town hall” meetings have been arranged, seemingly to provide students with an opportunity to have their experiences, concerns and questions heard, and to engage with these companies that will ultimately be providing the bulk of our food services on campus for the next seven years. However, from our experiences with the first of these two slated meetings, last Wednesday, it is clear that these events are more of a rubber-stamp process — stamped, “public consultation” — than a real effort to listen to and learn from students and our needs.

Aramark stamped first.

IcePIRG, a public interest research group on campus, and UMSPAR, a group that was at the front of much debate and protest about Aramark’s inadequate food service provision at campus residences last year, decided to work together on the food service debate on campus. We decided it was important to encourage students to participate in this “town hall” meeting and have their voices heard.

While distributing flyers around University Centre, bringing it to students’ attention that this public meeting was happening at noon and that they should consider participating, campus security services came along and intervened.

And the truth began to unfold.

One student was told to stop distributing flyers and that he had no right to be causing such a “disturbance.” He refused, was promptly arrested and detained by campus security for two hours. So much for encouraging public involvement.

No doubt students are currently frustrated with Aramark, perhaps because of their poor service, their monopoly on University Centre, not providing healthy alternatives or simply the level of fresh food available.

The administration of the University of Manitoba knows of the conflict between Aramark and students. Perhaps this is why there were two or three Security Services officers at the entrance of the “Town Hall?” This does not make for a positive climate for public participation and discourse.

It gets worse.

At any rate, the swift, slick and clever Aramark PR representative, equipped with a vision for the future of food at the U of M, some fancy PowerPoint slides and even some captivating artists’ renderings of Tim Hortons expansions and renovations, seemed to try and bore the audience into submission. More likely, however, they were eating up time otherwise spent answering to the public. Did they really think that people were there to hear their already fabricated plan? The purpose of town hall discussions is to hear from the public and base the plan on those insights!

IcePIRG decided to work with UMSPAR on this because we share common ground on what food service provision ought to look like on campus. We prepared a list of demands to be presented at this discussion. They were realistic and appropriate, including: improved food with regards to cultural diversity, vegetarian/vegan, organic localgrown and health conscious choices, implementation of a residence mealdonation plan to local charities and to eliminate the monopoly that Aramark has over University Centre. However, our demands never got heard, nor did many others’ standing in the queue. We simply ran out of time.

Then Aramark finally gave the crowd an opportunity to ask questions. From the beginning the questions were critical of Aramark’s performance on campus so far — their monopoly in UCentre, accessibility for individuals with allergies, and levels of freshness. One student confronted Aramark on their statements of freshness with a green banana, and exchanged words of clear frustration with the moderator and Aramark. Others from the crowd began shouting that their voices were being undermined by fluffy rhetoric and a pseudo-consultation process. And so it ended — round one of the FSP PR process.

The plain truth:

This food services contract is worth millions of dollars, and it should be no surprise that the administration worked closely with Security Services to intimidate and suppress student dissent. The primary job of Security Services should be protecting students from violence and guarding their property, not arresting students for distributing pamphlets and dragging students into the hallway when they speak up for four more questions to be asked.

For more information about icePIRG and food services on campus, contact info@icePIRG.com.