Mm
Send fn the Clouds
Cloudy and cooler today with a
high around 55. More clouds will
move in overnight causing a 70
percent chance of rain Friday.
Down by the Old Well
Go by Memorial Hall tonight and
hear The Clef Hangers sing their
special brand of barbershop
harmony at 8 p.m. For ticket
information call 962-1449.
Serving the students and the University community since 1893
Copyright 1985 The Daily Tar Heel
News Sports Arts 962-0245
Business Advertising 962-1163
Volume 93, Issue 18
Thursday, March 21, 1985 Chapel Hill, North Carolina
O
(plfll(Q)im ov
intra
T
(01
mmsaal.
ptan
By JANET OLSON
University Editor
Editor's Note: This is the first in a series of
articles examining allegations presented in Student
Government's "Report to Patricia Wallace,
Student Body President, on the Mandatory Meal
Plan."
A Student Government report released Tuesday
denies the necessity for a mandatory meal plan
on campus, calling the plan "ill-conceived,
unneeded and contrary to students best interests."
A committee headed by Fetzer Mills submitted
the report to Student Body President Patricia
Wallace to evaluate the history and reasoning
behind the meal plan, due to go into effect in the
fall of 1985.
The report states, "We believe we have
adequately documented that the current manda
tory meal plan began as an idea in the minds of
university administrators who were singularly bent
upon its creation and implementation in some form
despite what studies and student opinion have
said."
Wallace delivered the report to Chancellor
Christopher C. Fordham III Tuesday. When
contacted by phone Wednesday afternoon,
Fordham said he had not read the report.
comprised Tom Terrell, former president of the
Graduate and Professional Student Federation,
and Sherrod Banks, president of the Black Student
Movement.
' . . . the current mandatory meal plan began as an idea in the minds of
university administrators who were singularly bent upon its creation and
implementation in some form despite what studies and student opinion
have said. 9 from Student Government report
The report mentions several University admin
istrators and their roles in the development of the
meal plan, including Charles C. Antle, associate
vice chancellor for business; James O. Cansler,
associate vice chancellor and dean of student
affairs; and Donald A. Boulton, vice chancellor
and dean of student affairs. When contacted by
phone Wednesday, all three administrators said
they had not read the report, and Boulton and
Cansler said they did not receive a copy of the
report until Wednesday.
The rest of the Student Government committee
Looking back at the development of the meal
plan, the report criticizes the Food Services
Advisory Committee, which drew up proposals for
the plan to present to the chancellor and the Board
of Trustees. "The Food Services Advisory
Committee has ignored and misrepresented
student opposition to the mandatory meal plan,"
the report states.
Incidents of student opposition to the plan that
the report says the FSAC ignored or misrepres
ented include:
A 1982 meeting of the Residence Hall
Effect ofstrndemti vwsws mst
giigwEe, rep
By KAREN L. YOUNGBLOOD
Staff Writer
The Food Service Advisory Commit
tee has ignored and misrepresented
student opposition to the mandatory
meal plan, according to a Student
Government report released Tuesday.
The report says the FSAC implied
that student input led to the implemen
tation of the mandatory meal plan.
According to the report, students had
no such input.
Opposition to the mandatory meal
plan goes as far back as 1980, when
Student Body President Bob Saunders
said it would hurt the quality of the
food service.
"It (the meal plan) did not offer
incentive to put out quality food,"
Saunders said in a recent telephone
interview.
The meal plan issue was brought up
again when Scott Norberg took oyer
as student body president in the spring
of 1981. The Norberg Administration
opposed the mandatory meal plan.
"At that time, there was no discussion
of compromise," Norberg said. "The
proposal was for a full board plan."
Norberg's Student Government pres
ented a report to the FSAC on Feb.
10, 1982, saying that Student Govern
ment opposed any measure that would
curtail the freedom of students.
"In any case, this university has
recognized for some time that a captive
audience is neither desirable nor doe's
it ensure good food service," the report
stated.
The Norberg Administration again
opposed a mandatory meal plan when
Amidleirsoe
wins MSWi
lection
By DENISE MOULTRIE
Staff Writer
Sibby Anderson was elected presi
dent of the Black Student Movement
Tuesday when the BSM elected a new
central committee.
Anderson defeated Tony Martin, a
late entry, 109-34.
"I was really surprised," Anderson
said. "I wasn't really sure I was going
to win because I didn't have time to
campaign as much as I wanted."
She said she was really enthusiastic
about the job and planned to continue
established policies of the BSM.
Tonya Smith, who ran for vice
president against Todd Mason, chair-
man of the Student Affairs Committee
of the Campus Governing Council, won
by a vote of 103-40. Anderson had
endorsed Smith in a recent candidates'
forum.
"I am very glad that the people with
the most experience and dedication to
the BSM won the elections," Smith said.
"I don't think anyone can come into
an office in the BSM without having
been intensely involved before."
In the race for secretary, Janet
Roach, also endorsed by Anderson, was
re-elected, 102-41, defeating Adriann
Howard. During her campaign, Roach
said experience with the BSM prepared
her for another term.
Craig Goodson was elected treasurer,
9545, in his race against Sallie Davis.
The mandatory meal plan, constitu
tional funding for the BSM and minor
ity recruitment should head the list of
issues for the next year, Smith said.
Sherrod Banks, current BSM pres
ident, said he expected Anderson to do
an outstanding job. "Having been
president of People Against Racism
(PAR), she already has experience as
a leader," he said of Anderson.
"The job of BSM president is
extremely difficult," he said, "and every
BSM member should be patient and
supportive of her as she grows into her
new position."
meeting with the consultants Hill, Inlow
and Jacobs, whom the University hired
to study the food service and to make
recommendations.
"The food service ought to be
voluntary. It is a matter of free choice."
Norberg said. "In the end, we were
assured that there would be no man
datory meal plan."
ering the original cost of $500 a semester
to $100 a semester.
"We felt we had cut down way back
on this (the meal plan)." he said. "It
(the compromise) was the best type of
bad medicine at that time."
Chancellor Christopher C. Fordham
said students had a voice in the
mandatory meal plan decision process.
The report says the FSAC implied that student
input led to the implementation of the mandatory
meal plan. A ccording to the report, students had no
such input.
Norberg added that he thought the
administration had acted in good faith.
Mike Vandenbergh also opposed the
mandatory meal plan when he took
office after Norberg. Although he
signed the mandatory meal plan agree
ment, Vandenbergh explained in a
telephone interview that he signed the
agreement only after his own proposal
had failed to win the approval of the
FSAC.
"I had been fighting the mandatory
meal plan all alongj" Vandenbergh said.
""" According to Vandenbergh, the food
service on campus was poor and needed
changes, but his administration was
against a full board plan. Vandenbergh
was unable to stop the meal plan but
managed to work a compromise low-
"I was told by the student body
president (Vandenbergh) that the
students were in agreement with the
proposal," he said.
Kevin Monroe, chairman of the
FSAC during Vandenbergh's adminis
tration and student body president in
1983, said that the original proposal for
a mandatory meal plan went through
the administration over Spring Break
in 1982 and that neither he nor Van
denbergh knew anything about it until
they returned from Break.
The original plan then was brought
down to something more financially
suitable for students, Monroe said.
Students had a good deal of say in
the mandatory meal plan process,
Vandenbergh said.
"We had lots of different meetings."
he said. "We had ample opportunity to
talk. We even had a special meeting.
"The question that should be asked
is if we faced a choice of closing the
food service or continuing with it. (But)
we certainly had ample opportunity to
talk about it."
Students expressed a desire for a meal
plan, said Charles C. Antle, associate
vice chancellor for business. "The
students and the parents all seemed to
be telling us, 'Yes, we want a better food
service and yes, we realize it's going to
cost more,' " he said.
But when asked about student oppo
sition to a mandatory meal plan, James
O. Cansler, associate vice chancellor
and dean of student affairs, said, "There
clearly were (oppositions) all along."
Donald Beeson, executive assistant to
Vandenbergh, said students did not
have much say in the mandatory meal
plan process.
"There were a series of forums which
weren't well attended." he said. "They
(the forums) were just a time for Antle
and Cansler to answer questions with
justifications on why we needed a meal
plan. , -. . ....;,..,.. ,
"Their (the forums') real purpose was
for Antle and Cansler to impose their
views upon the students."
In addition to opposition to the meal
plan by student body presidents J.B.
Kelly, Saunders, Norberg and Vanden-
Association at which the RHA governors voted
unanimously against any part of the student body
being placed on a mandatory meal plan. After this
meeting, then-RHA President Scott Templeton
wrote a letter to The Daily Tar Heel expressing
the opposition.
The Black Student Movement's opposition
to the plan, which it told a group of consultants
the University called in to analyze the food services
situation on campus.
The Interfraternity Council and Panhellenic
Council's opposition to the plan because it would
"severely damage the financial stability of the
Greek system," an objection they stated when
talking to the same consultants.
Student Government reports and proposals
to the FSAC offering alternatives to the FSAC
proposal that finally went to the BOT.
The report also states that surveys and studies
the administration has cited to indicate support
for the meal plan have been misinterpreted.
See REPORT page 2
ort mys
bergh, the meal plan proposal met with
opposition by the Residence Hall
Association, the Black Student Move
ment, and the Interfraternity and
Panhellenic councils.
The reactions of the different groups
were recorded in a section of the
Assessment Report of Food Services by
Hill, Inlow and Jacobs.
Hill, Inlow and Jacobs said the BSM
expressed that "an economical, flexible
campus board plan had the potential
to attract a number of customers. There
was total disagreement with a manda
tory freshman meal plan."
The Interfraternity and Panhellenic
councils told Hill, Inlow and Jacobs
that a "mandatory freshman meal
requirement would severely damage the
financial stability of the 'Greek' system."
RH A's opposition was quoted in The
Daily Tar Heel on April 6, 1982, which
said: "The RHA Board of Governors
voted to oppose any mandatory meal
plan at UNC, to support a university
wide fee to cover food service renova
tion costs and to approve the renovation
of Chase cafeteria at their meeting
yesterday afternoon. Members of the
Bo.ax4-VPted unanimously against any
portion of the student body being put
on a mandatory room and board plan."
Grant Parsons, Arne Rickert and
Kelly Simmons contributed to this
article.
Balancing act
v fS ' , s
1
; -
1 $
'
iiillll
Wes Armstrong, a senior international studies major
from Chapel Hill, balances eggs on end outside Lenoir
DTHLarry Childress
to demonstrate the gravitational differences caused by
the spring equinox.
UNCpkms coputiraci ckmmgesfoir SA C opemimt
By RANDY FARMER
Staff Writer
On Feb. 24, Tar Heel basketball fans celebrated
as the men's basketball team played its "last game"
in Carmichael Auditorium.
But the celebration of victorious Tar Heels in
Carmichael may not be over.
Under the current contract between the University
and the Paul N. Howard Contracting Company, the
Tar Heels may be back in Carmichael next fall because
the entire Student Activities Center may not be
completed, said Farris W. Womack, vice chancellor
of business and finance. The original contract between
the University and Howard Contractors calls for the
basketball arena and the swimming area in the SAC
to be completed as one project, Womack said.
"The contractor told the University that the whole
building (SAC) may not be completed by next
basketball season," Womack said.
- Presently, the University is preparing to ask the
contractor to take on the SAC as two projects, he
said. One project would be the arena, and the other
would be the swimming area.
In the request for a change in the SAC contract,
the University will send a change of order form to
the contractor, which will ask for an alteration from
the original plan. Womack said the contractor
conceivably could charge for the change in the contract
or could add no charge at all. Once the contractor
makes his decision, the change of order comes back
to the University for decline or acceptance.
Hampton L. Austin, press agent for Howard
Contractors, said he could not comment on the
situation because his company had not seen the change
of order.
In addition to sending a change of order, the Board
of Trustees has passed a beneficial occupancy
resolution that would allow the" basketball team to
play in the arena before the entire SAC is completed,
said Susan Ehringhaus, assistant to the chancellor.
Womack said the BOT passed the resolution as
a consideration in case the entire SAC was not
completed before the 1985-86 men's basketball season.
Selwyn N. Bryant, director of engineering and
construction, said, "The Board of Trustees passed the
beneficial occupancy rule as a safety valve in case
the project could not be completed before the
basketball season."
H
&
rant
ffminidlnimg
By GUY LUCAS
Staff Writer
After confusing debate con
cerning parliamentary procedure,
the Campus Governing Council
appropriated $3,295 to The Pho
enix for a computer and related
equipment Wednesday night.
The Finance Committee had
recommended an appropriation
of $5,190 for two computers.
Phoenix Editor Chris Sim
mons said the computer equip
ment would help improve the
publication and cut the amount
of time needed to put it together.
David Fazio (Dist. 19) led
support of the appropriation. He
said the new equipment would
free the terminals in the under
graduate library and Phillips Hall
for other, students and radically
reduce the amount of time and
travel to Durham for the editors.
Simmons said, "We spend
hours in the basement of Phillips
just waiting for word programs
to become available." He also said
Phoenix editors had travelled
hundreds of miles between the
University and the printer in
Durham.
Jay Goldring (Dist. 7) said the
computers were something to be
considered in the budget process
and not as a capital expenditure
now. He explained the CGC
already had appropriated a lot of
money since its election in
February.
"We're spending some of our
surplus, which is low, for this,"
he said. "Well be up to spending
over $12,000 for subsequent
appropriations this year."
John Nicholson (Dist. 17)
agreed. "This is a good bit of
money here ... I think it would
be best to wait and put it in next
year," he said.
But Fazio argued that the
appropriation could not wait
because if a pending lawsuit
against the UNC Student Stores
was successful, the computers
could cost twice as much next
year.
"There's a chance these com
puters won't be offered at this
price (if The Phoenix can't get
them now)," he said. "So this is
really a favor to The Phoenix. ,"
CGC Speaker Wyatt Closs
(Dist. 10) agreed and said the
Council might decide during the
budget process that there was no
money available for the
computers.
"I think we're going to come
to the conclusion we don't have
the money to give out for a capital
expenditure (next year)," he said.
Nicholson maintained his oppo
sition, saying The Phoenix was
asking for more money than 20
or more organizations got for all
of the past year.
The original bill for $5,000 was
defeated 10-9. Fazio then asked
for reconsideration of the bill,
reducing the amount to allow for
one computer. Anna Critz (Dist.
12) motioned for reconsideration
but no one seconded the motion.
Debate then centered over
whether a second motion to
reconsider could be made after
Frank Whitney (Dist. 3) changed
his mind. The Council voted to
suspend the rules of parliamen
tary procedure and reconsidered
the bill.
In other action, the CGC
approved a new loan of $6,250,
to be repaid in spring 1986, for
See CGC page 2
Thursday night your stockings needed mending The Beatles