26The Tar HeelThursday, August 19, 1985
in ..nil nniri i I I I ii - i r rn'i.-nn. I nr m rn r i-n rn irmi i it 1 1 1 1 i n - - i it ii.im.i'n'i n - I n - - 11 i n r nmi inn -onm n m.i I i i urn. "iriT i i i i - i - M i, I ini.m - I i nn in mm i. n. 11 . in n in ini n i.iiii. -. wi-rmn in i inimi in - r n i -i i i. i. Mini
$100 meal plsiiii implemented ffoF dormTe-Idleiniit
By Tom Conlon
and Jim GreenhiSI
Staff Writer and Editor
Students living on campus this fall
will be required to pay $100 a
semester for a mandatory meal plan.
The meal plan, adopted in March
1983 by the UNC Board of Trustees
to take effect this fall, will provide
a financial base for food service
operations in newly renovated Lenoir
Hall and Chase Hall. Renovations
of both Lenoir and Chase have been
funded through a special fee.
The meal plan implementation
process was by no means smooth and
without controversy. During the fall
of 1981, students and parents were
surveyed by a randomly distributed
questionaire to determine attitudes
about and needs of UNC's food
service. The survey showed that there
was strong support for improved
food services and renovation of the
South Campus' Chase Hall cafeteria,
as well as North Campus' Lenoir Hall
and the Fast Break. '
When Chase Hall closed at the end
of the 1982 school year South campus
students had to walk to Lenoir Hall
on North Campus to eat a full meal.
Later, catering service was provided
on South Campus, but it was decided
that Chase Hall would be renovated
and opened for full food service in
the Fall of 1985. The controversy
arose when current on-campus stu
dents found out they'd have to
participate in a room and board plan.
The plan, approved by the-Chancellor's
Food Service Advisory Com
mittee (which consisted of former;
Student Body President Mike Van
denbergh and other students and
administrators), originally called for
a $450 board plan for on-campus
students and an across-the-board
$12.50 per-student fee for renova
tions. Through negotiations with
student government, the figure was
reduced to $100 per semester and a
$10 across-the-board fee. Some
current students, however, have said
there was little student input in the
decision and that the food service
survey used loaded v and biased
questions.
Critics also claimed that students
making the decision on the meal plan
knew they would be long gone by
the time the plan would be imple
mented, and that students affected by
the plan had no representation in the
1. Cold Car Center: When
you come to student health with a cold or
sore throat you may go to the cold self-care
center. You will assess the extent of your
problem which in turn will facilitate your
being seen by a physician or nurse, or when
appropriate, to follow instructions for self-care.
2. pointment Sysfam: aii stu
dents will be asked to make an appointment
to be seen this fall in order to ensure appro
priate attention from your health care
professionals. Students will be able to select a
primary care provider of their choice. If your
provider is not available at the time you need
to be seen, another member of hisher team
.wjll be available to assist you.
Clinical IVlscOclna Appointment
Same Day
Future Date
Cpcrfs L'odlclno
Women's Kcc::h
Specially Clinics
(Derm., ENT, Eye)
966-2281
966-4558
965-3555
956-3550
965-3655
3
ii
IP
mi
Protest outside South Building: but only 200 of 22,000 were there.
decision. Others have said there was
little student input at all even in the
negotiating stages, and that all
students would be subsidizing a
private food contractor.
Proponents of the plan said that
the campus could lose food service
entirely without the plan and that
most other college campuses had
some sort of board plan. They added
that UNC could boast a quality food
service and that the new plan would
allow students to use their meal cards
at snack shops in dorms for other
items as well. Lenoir Hall renova
tions, they said, have also provided
expanded services such as pizza
delivery, quality ice cream and other
food specialty items.
During the 1985 campus elections,
the meal plan became a central issue
in the Student Body President and
Campus Governing Council races'.
While most student politicians
opposed the plan, others had differ
ent means of dealing with the action.
Former Student Body President Paul
Parker pocket-vetoed CGC legisla
tion that would have put the meal
plan proposal before the student
body in a non-binding referendum.
During the 1985 Student Body
President campaign, finalists Patricia
Wallace and Doug Berger both
opposed the meal plan but disagreed
in how to negotiate with the UNC
Board of Trustees. The BOT planned
to make the final decision during the
spring. Wallace called for negotia
tions with the BOT to pursuade
against implementation of the plan
and Berger called for a campus-wide
student boycott of food services if the
BOT refused to strike down the plan.
Under Wallace and a new Campus
Governing Council, the food service
referendum made it to the ballot last
April. Residence hall meetings with
proponents and opponents of the
plan were scheduled and widely
publicized, but poorly attended (five
students sat in on a panel at Mor
rison). Student voter turnout was
between 10-15, and of those voting,
over 90 percent struck down endor
sement of the mandatory meal plan
in three different forms.
The Committee Against The Meal
Plan (CAMP) was formed by Tom
Terrell, Fetzer Mills and Sherrod
THE
CLEAN
MACHINE
Back to School Sale
$50.00 Off 10 speeds
CENTURION (1 Japanese Bicycle)
Reg. Now
DLX $199 $149
Sport DLX $239 $189
Accordo $259 $209
Lemans $299 $249
MOTOBECANE
Mirage $239 $189
$100 Off Motor Bikes
$50 Off All Treks in Stock
Used Bikes o Same Day Repair Service
Across from Wendy's On 'C Busline
967-5104
Banks to research the issue and lobby
the Board of Trustees against imple
mentation. On March 18, the com
mittee presented a detailed report to
Wallace. They claimed that past
reports had not been supported by
data, and offered data supporting the
view aainst the meal plan. They also
charged ill-faith actions by university
administrators and failure of student
government in representing student's
interests. The administration
responded to the charges and
defended its decision to implement
the meal plan as necessary for a good
food service.
During April, about 200 students
and campus leaders turned out in
front of South Building to protest the
mandatory meal plan. CAMP
member Fetzer Mills appeared
Affairs Committee meeting to testify
against the meal plan. Wallace, as
Student Body President and ex
officio member of the Board of
Trustees, negotiated with the trustees
and, while not endorsing the meal
plan proposal, supported the BOT's
financial reasons for approving it.
"Basically there was no decision
made at the April 25 Student Afairs
Committee meeting,'' Wallace said.
"They listened to Fetzer and thanked
him for his views. But there was no
motion to change the meal plan.
"At the full Board of Trustees
meeting, there was discussion about
the last clause of Appendix X which
said if the meal plan did not generate
enough money it would be increased
by $25 each year," she said. "Chair
man George Ragsdale expressed
concern about an automatic increase,
Jut said it should be brought before
the board each year. They didn't
decide if it would or wouldn't (be
brought before the board)."
Wallace said the student referen
dum results generated little discus
sion, but that the BOT questioned
the number of students fighting the
meal plan. Chancellor Fordham, in
a letter to The Daily Tar Heel,
denounced CAMP's actions as repres
enting a vocal minority of students.
"I don't know if greater student
turnout would have changed their
minds or not," Wallace said. "It was
solely a financial issue. Students did