EDITORIALK: The 'why' behind a Dining decision

Administrators must lay out the specifics before a debate about outsourcing is possible. Yet while there has been talk about the potential for a move to outsource dining services since summer 1996, we have yet to hear from the administration about any concrete goals for improvement. Executive Vice President John Fry has spoken in vague terms of "better and cheaper." But is it a question of quality of food or quality of service? Why is dining being targeted specifically? How much would outsourcing save? And how many jobs would such a move affect? What would it ideally achieve? It is difficult to have an intelligent discussion about whether to outsource dining until these answers are laid out on the table. As of now, the dining advisory committee -- though certainly an improvement over the small group of administrators who negotiated the deal to outsource facilities management to Trammell Crow -- is only able to serve a perfunctory role. If the administration is going to go to the trouble of convening an advisory committee, it should be used to its fullest potential -- as a means of input, rather than a public relations display. And student views should be given particular consideration in this discussion -- beyond data from the recent Cornyn Fasano report on campus dining, (the same report that incorrectly predicted the success of weekend meals). Even more than the decision to hand over facilities management, a move to outsource dining services would directly affect students. It is their interest in the final product that will spell success or failure for dining. The University can only benefit by making them more involved. Of course, an open process must be balanced with concern for not making employees unnecessarily nervous about their jobs. For this reason, the administration must be clear about what's going on and why certain decisions are being made.