Alternative Food Systems

Shred the Contract

https://shredthecontract.wixsite.com/studentsforselfop?fbclid=IwAR0weZzfBTPRXZDyirm2lkfasUyJUsIsscuQ7n4nhybkNSa7yDfWNXVEZHc

Eggplant Collective

http://archives.evergreen.edu/webpages/committee/food/dtfchargedocument.htm

Contacts

Sharon Goodman

goodmans@evergreen.edu

Doug Cole

cole-douglas1@aramark.com

Rhian Peterman

petermar@evergreen.edu

Puget Sound FoodHub

• David Bauermeister: david@pugetsoundfoodhub.com
• Mark Whims: mark@pugetsoundfoodhub.com

Pacific Lutheran University

University of Puget Sound

Week 5

In Live Plan, prompt structures lean more towards a broader, ideological, and emotional argument. The scoping exercise prompts seemed to make the format of those particular posts come out more business/professionally oriented, as we felt bullet points were more appropriate. We also ended up using more straightforward language. Upon reflection, it seems that it might be better to switch these formats, as LivePlan is intended to be a more professional presentation of our project. Also, while working on the scoping exercise, we noticed that our group worked more as a collective and had a much more open discourse. When we were writing our LivePlan posts, we distributed the work and interacted minimally during our group meetings.

Week 6

This week, the work on Live Plan seemed to be more structured and to the point, while the work on WordPress seemed to be broader and more encompassing. It seems very interesting to me that this is almost the polar opposite of last week, though this may have to do with the fact that we could not physically meet this week and instead chose to cut up all the questions and distribute it amongst ourselves, rather than do it all together as a whole. In any case, this week’s work seems to be more in line with each sections’ intended goals in terms of writing style, which hopefully will lead to a more conducive presentation on both ends.

Week 7

This week, the work done on the research project seemed particularly succinct, at least compared to the massive amount of information imputed  to Live Plan. Additionally, the work on the research project had a distinctly subjective perspective. Due to the fact that a lot of the information imputed to Live Plan was number-based, it instead had a far more objective perspective. Also, information on the research project came a lot easier to our team than Live Plan. This was primarily due to our difficulty in finding concrete numbers on Aramark’s end.

Week 8

The difference between both segments of this weeks work I believe were the biggest out of all the weeks. The research project section functioned almost as a final review of different sections of the project as a whole. Also, this section seemed to be focused on potential derailings, risks, and existing difficulties. Live Plan was very different. They were focused on measures of success, beyond anything else. While it is possible that the information inputted in both of these may overlap, most of the information is starkly different.

We believe all of our goals are achievable, given enough time and effort.  By far, our biggest limitation is that Aramark is absorbing a significant amount of debt, which puts us at a significant point of disadvantage.  Our biggest risk would be to lose their contract without an adequate replacement. Having an independent food system would not make it harder for other projects to reach their goals. It actually may have the possibility of doing the opposite, since it may open the possibility of giving some freedom to groups such as clubs on campus, who are currently barred from advertising food. Do to this being the case, we would probably receive significant support form said groups.

The economic feasability of our project will be largely defined by the university’s budgetary capacity in regards to campus dining. This will either be directly managed by a self operating system, or negotiated through a contract with a third party supplier. The funding comes from meal plan money collected from student fees. Under an external provider, the funds will be allocated by that company. But under a self operating system, the admistration would have finanical oversight on how the money is spent. Ideally, there would be decision making panels that include students to determine how these funds are used. Workers under this system can be unionized and collectively bargain for their rates of pay.

How many people, with what backgrounds or skills, are needed to implement your project?

This project will require a fair amount of coordination to be successful. We will need to reach out to organizations and individuals who have more experience and resources than ourselves. It will be necessary to find individuals with dining management experience to run day to day operations. We will need people with culinary experience to design menus and prepare food. We will need to talk to folks with logistical capabilities to provide transportation of goods to the college. We will need to coordinate with local food vendors and farms to mainatain a steady and reliable source of food. Due to the complexity of the project, and the current state of campus dining, it may be in the college’s best interest to continue the use of a third party vendor to faciliate these needs. There are local alternatives to the current provider, Aramark, that can provide the majority of these services. Contracting out may be the best economic option for Evergreen as it would likely provide the easiest transition. In order to make this happen, we will need to communicate our needs with this third party and provide a financial framework for them to work within if we expect a bid that can rival our current contractor.

What other resources are required?

The primary resource that we will require is enough food that is ethically supplied to meet Evergreen’s demand for it. It may also be necessary to provide some miscellaneous materials, such as menus, cutlery, plates, point-of-sale systems, inventory systems, etc.

What rules or criteria will your project adhere to?

Our ultimate goal is to have a completely self-operated food system, but our current goal is to operate without any Aramark involvement. Of course, it’s not acceptable for us if the new food manager has just as many practical and moral issues as Aramark, so whatever option we take should be an actual improvement, rather than an “improvement” in name only.

What will it do, concretely?

Who outside the project group (the people implementing the project) will be affected by it? What roles, if any, will they play?

Anyone who participates in campus dining would be affected by the project. This means workers, students, faculty, staff, anyone who spends their money on campus food or works to provide it will be affected. The workers themselves will be at the forefront, providing the labor necessary to make all of this happen. Their organization and input will guide the framework of the campus dining experience. The students would be next, as the main patrons of campus dining. Their considerations will guide the food and menu selection. Beyond this, staff and faculty will have the opportunity to provide curricular support for programs and groups that are centered around food or cooperative management structure.

What makes the problem you are working on a “problem”, and what are its dimensions?

The Aramark Corporation is the primary and monopolizing food source for The Evergreen State College.  The food system is an epistemic infrastructure that implicitly defines the nature of what community looks like on campus.  Our school declares itself a place of collaboration, encouraging its students to think critically and to engage in social justice and environmental stewardship.  As Greeners ourselves, we have come here to be molded into the role of this kind of citizen and it is in this spirit that we investigate the presence of Aramark on our campus.

• Food Accessibility:
  • Campus clubs cannot serve food.
  • **Aramark’s pricing makes it difficult for students to be able to afford to buy food.**
  • **Events must cater through either the Flaming Eggplant or through Aramark. **
  • **Longhouse events**

• Quality
  • Evergreen has a fully operational organic farm, an expansive agricultural department and a network of community gardens on campus, while the food provided by the Aramark Corporation is only 25% “real food”, according to the Real Food Challenge which defines such food as local, ecologically sound, fair and humane.

• Ethical Violations
  • Aramark has contracts with over 500 correctional facilities in the United States, profiting off of the billion dollar prison labor industry:
    • Aramark has already been replaced as the prison food contractor of the state of Michigan after fining the corporation twice, once at $98,000 and the second time at $200,000.  The issues cited by Michigan included sanitation problems, maggots and rocks found in food, termination of 176 Aramark employees for a range of transgressions, and unauthorized menu substitutions.   https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/07/13/state-ends-prison-food-contract-aramark/30080211/
    • Immigrant detention centers
  • Employee practices**

• Sustainability
  • ***This relationship inhibits better relationship with local businesses.***
  • The current concern on campus is the survival of the college, implying that the infrastructure needs to evolve.

Possible causes of the problem

• Evergreen’s budgetary concerns creates the need for an outside vendor.
• Limited vendor competition
• Lack of  culinary department

What general approaches have been used in the past or currently proposed to deal with it?

• Past contractors
• Student Proposals
  •  Flaming Eggplant
• Food Systems Working Group- The Food Systems Working Group (FSWG) was created
  when The Evergreen State College signed the Real Food Campus Commitment in 2014, as
  part of an agreement to participate in the Real Food Challenge. They erves as a formal committee which can facilitate communication between the administration
  and the campus community regarding issues in the campus food system.
• Past Proposals
  • “The Corner” – student run cafe, active from 1988-2000
  • Food Disappearing Task Force recommended that a transition to Self-Op would be in Evergreen’s best interest
  • S.tudents O.rganizing for F.ood A.utonomy was created to pressure the administration to follow the DTF’s recommendations.  (supported by private consulting firm)  Their activity was ignored by the administration.
  • Subterranean shop in the HCC
  • 7 Evergreen students developed business plan and feasibility study for what would become The Flaming Eggplant
• Past Contracts
  • Fine Host (1990-2001)
  • Bon Appetit, later Compass Group (2001-2004), operated at a loss for Evergreen at 1,500,000 because of the guaranteed profits clause in the contract.
  • Aramark was the only contractor to bid (began in 2004)