As the student grocery store, now affectionately called Anabel’s Grocery, comes before the Student Assembly (SA) once again (though its proponents and the Daily Sun would have you believe it’s already a done deal), correspondence during the summer between former president David Skorton and the SA’s Vice President of Finance Matthew Stefanko ’16 has been made public.
Highlights include Stefanko’s railing on an imaginary “campus dining monopoly” and his numerous criticisms of the University and Skorton’s tenure as president (in an email that was ostensibly about saving the grocery store).
Rather than let himself get drawn into the school yard brouhaha Stefanko seems to want to engage in, Skorton summarily replied: “I am sorry if my request for reconsideration upset you. My fundamental concern is to have the due diligence done and approved BEFORE the funds (the $350,000) are released, not grant that authority assuming the due diligence is met.”
Anyways, judge the merits and tones of each email for yourself.
First, Skorton’s respectful email to the SA wherein he rejects the grocery store proposal:
Dear Sarah,
Thank you for sharing Resolution 65, Developing and Funding a Student Run Grocery Store. I am impressed with the commitment of the Student Assembly to help address a need that appears quite real for some subset of the Cornell student body. That said, I am sending the proposal back for reconsideration until all the issues you outlined in the resolution are addressed to the satisfaction of everyone outlined in the resolution.
To be specific, the working group that you are suggesting in Resolution 65 needs to grant approval for the discount/food scholarship structure, the business plan and all of the other approvals required by Cornell policies (e.g., the Sales Activities on Campus, Policy 4.3) before this proposal should be considered formally. I am most concerned about the long-term viability for such an operation given the extensive expense you anticipate up front and would want to see that plan outlined in detail. Your current version of a business plan has a number of assumptions about fundraising that may/may not be approved. I cannot approve a plan that has future funding assumptions built into the fundamental operational budget.
Moreover, I ask that you continue to work with Gary Stewart, Director of Community Relations, as you advance your plans.
Additionally, while Resolution 69, Clarify and Expanding the Use of the Students Helping Students Fund does provide the Student Assembly and Financial Aid Review Committee the ‘right, depending on the effectiveness and usage of the fund, to make changes in the Students Helping Student Fund categories that are offered to Cornell University undergraduate students’ it would be appropriate for there to be a modification to the guidelines to formally define the usage for a grocery store (or perhaps,even more generically, funds to address food insecurity should the model to address that be somewhat different than you now envision.)
I will be sure that President-elect Garrett is aware of my philosophic support for addressing concerns about food insecurity and my appreciation of the leadership role that the Student Assembly is taking, but also my concerns about the number of details to be addressed in advance of granting approval.
Regards,
David Skorton
And, Stefanko’s reply:
Dear President Skorton,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to Resolution 65. However, as students who have poured countless hours into addressing this very real issue on campus since January 2014, Emma and I have to admit that we are both frustrated and disheartened by this seemingly haphazard response.
First, while I appreciate your philosophic support for addressing food insecurity, what motivated both Emma and I from the start was the fact that your administration had previously taken inadequate action to address this widespread problem. The assumption that increasing financial aid or implementing weekly lunches effectively solves the root problem of food insecurity is wanting when numbers from the PULSE survey indicate 22% of students are struggling to eat at an Ivy League University. While a working group of staff, administration, and faculty was created years ago to address this issue, it later dissolved. I don’t necessarily expect action surrounding this issue given the numerous other initiatives you work on, but standing in the way of students who are working to address it seems counterproductive and unnecessary.
Second, it is confusing that you indicate both the necessity of the working group’s approval as well as concern over the long-term viability of a plan that intimately involves the working group in addressing the issues you brought up. It shows that there is a misunderstanding with regards to the the intent and implications of the resolution itself. This resolution calls for allowing a working group the ability to decide whether or not to give initial funding for the grocery store, which you seem to be in consonance with. However, because this resolution has been rejected, the working group’s authority is now defunct. With this response, you have prevented the incoming Vice President of Campus Life, the Dean of Students, numerous members of the Office of Financial Aid, and multiple students who have been involved in the Financial Aid Review Committee from having authority on this matter – indicating that you alone have the expertise to interpret the best way to address food insecurity. If this was the case, we cannot help but wonder why this administration has not came up with a solution already.
There doesn’t seem to be any belief that the working group could not appropriately address the concerns you outlined. If you believe these are the only concerns needed to be addressed, you should allow them the responsibility to determine whether or not we’ve adequately addressed them, and you should give them the power to either approve or disapprove of the legislation. While we recognized that a decision to move such a large sum of money should not be taken lightly, the administrators in the working group from Campus Life, the Dean of Student’s Office, and the Office of Financial Aid are selected for their jobs with the implied responsibility of being stewards of this university. If we can be sure that they take their positions seriously, then we can give them our faith that they will only approve a plan that resolves your basic concerns.
Additionally, I find your question regarding the long-term viability of this operation to be entirely problematic. The campus dining monopoly seems to have no problem continually starting and stopping operations that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, but a proposal by students, for students, using students’ money and the same project managers and laborers requires consideration by every single member of your administration. We would guess that this level of intricate investigation was not taken when placing Bus Stop Bagels in the failed Trillium Express location (a renovation that was more expensive than this one would be).
As one of the authors of the plan, I can assure you that no assumptions regarding fundraising exist and that our projections indicate a grocery store with subsidies would be viable regardless of proposed capital campaigns; an approach your administration and the previous administration didn’t even follow when constructing many of Cornell’s newest buildings. It doesn’t make sense and it makes me question the intensity with which you analyzed the projections that were sent to you by Rob (not Bob as your office seems to believe is his name).
Most importantly, I wonder why your concern for this store appears now and not much earlier. Many members of your staff were well aware of the issue of food insecurity and the impending legislation that began work in October after months of campus research in the previous semester – Vice President Murphy even lauded its work at your last meeting with the Student Assembly – and yet it took you a complete 30 days to respond with a seemingly minimal understanding of the resolution itself. No clarification questions were asked to any of the sponsors or members of the team. This comes despite Rob and Laurel presenting themselves to you to answer any questions and/or concerns you might have had. If you believe problems exist as substantially as they do, I would hope to see a response greater than three paragraphs to a 50-page business plan, numerous emails, and Excel documents.
Finally, I’m thoroughly disheartened although not surprised by the line that indicates, “funds to address food insecurity should the model to address that be somewhat different than you now envision.” Despite hours of conversations with students whom have indicated this approach is most appropriate, as well as well-developed arguments against alternatives, you still are in disbelief that this is the most effective response. Student-run grocery stores and food cooperatives exist on the UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz, Humboldt State, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, UC Santa Barbara, UC Los Angeles, Pitzer College, Lewis and Clark, Evergreen State, University of Washington, University of British Columbia, University of Delaware, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, University of Maryland College Park, SUNY Binghamton, Hampshire, University of Massachusetts, and Georgetown campuses. These stores often provide an affordable option for students.
What truly sets our model apart from a regular grocery store is its educational mission, which was completely ignored in your response, despite the fact that we so frequently laud our alignment with an “Engaged Cornell” when approaching and creatively solving social ills. We will provide the resources to teach students about nutritious eating, how to buy in bulk, and how to use the ingredients in our store to cook on their own. It offers the chance to empower students to make their own meals instead of simply providing prepared goods or unhealthy snacks. Students who work on the grocery store’s Executive Board will gain first-hand small business, accounting, supply chain, and project management experience. Student architects and designers have already worked to create the store’s blueprints with the store’s social mission and the challenge of creating something big in a very small space in mind. Students are busy even in the summer developing food programming and cooking classes, gaining invaluable experience in community engagement and the chance to bring information they learn in nutrition and dietetics courses far beyond the classroom. What excites us most about this project is that it will – and already has – acted as a living and learning unit that brings together students interested in an endless diversity of disciplines from business to social justice to community engagement, nutrition, agriculture, culinary arts, education, interior design, and marketing.
I’ve sat on the Assembly for three years now and have looked student activists, your administration, and the general student body in the eye and told them that the shared governance process works and change is possible through these institutionalized means. However, when a solution to a significant problem is rejected with so few words, despite the most significant amount of student engagement on an issue that I have ever seen, I question whether or not the administration has complete and ultimate power over the student experience. It makes me question whether significant change can ever come from the Assembly unless it is already present within the administration’s agenda. I understand the harshness and length of my message, but it comes after a meeting in May in which members overwhelmingly supported the legislation and food insecure students from the community applauded the work that was being done. Although I expect a grocery store to exist within the next year, all I can say right now is that both you and I failed those students once again.
Kind regards,
Matthew
And Skorton’s response:
Dear Matthew,
I am sorry if my request for reconsideration upset you. My fundamental concern is to have the due diligence done and approved BEFORE the funds (the $350,000) are released, not grant that authority assuming the due diligence is met. I never intended for work to stop, and I understand from communicating with Vice President Murphy that indeed Rob Hendricks and Laurel Moffatt are very busy at work with Gary Stewart, Kent Hubbell and many others to move things along.
So, I trust work should continue this summer but approval to spend the $350,000 should come back to the President’s Office once all of the issues I outlined are addressed.
Regards,
David Skorton
Every day, the web supplies access to information and personalized
content material to a whole bunch of millions of people across the globe
– freed from charge and freed from political interference.