It seems outgoing Cornell President David Skorton’s last meaningful act as helmsman of the University has been to condemn the Student Assembly’s Student-Run Grocery Store proposal to “reconsideration.”
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… I cannot approve a plan that has future funding assumptions built into the fundamental operational budget. – David Skorton
In a letter delivered on Tuesday to outgoing SA President Sarah Balik ’15, whose duty it is to formally submit each resolution the SA passes to the University president for approval, Skorton writes: “… 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.”
Skorton’s objection to Resolution 65 stems from the following points:
- Resolution 65’s proposed “working group” must grant approval to the discount/food scholarship structure
- The working group must grant approval to the grocery store’s establishment in regards to Cornell’s Policy 4.3, Sales Activities on Campus
- Concerns regarding “extensive” upfront expenses
- Too many assumptions built into the fundamental operational budget
- A request that the working group work with Gary Stewart, Director of Community Relations
Bureaucratic “reconsideration” might very well throw a wrench in the grocery store’s development timeline. The grand opening was intended for October this year, as per the promises of Resolution 65 co-sponsors Vice President of Finance Matthew Stefanko ‘16 and incoming Executive Vice President Emma Johnston ’16.
However, what is truly holding the grocery store back isn’t this reconsideration period, it’s the myriad flaws in the business plan. Arguably, even with a stamp of approval from Skorton, the store would not have opened doors by October, and even if it did, its long-term viability would remain a subject of serious concern.
In his letter, Skorton raises clear doubts about the financial prudence that went into the grocery store conception and business plan: “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… I cannot approve a plan that has future funding assumptions built into the fundamental operational budget.”
This major concern is just one of many that were raised by The Cornell Review, dissenting SA members, students in attendance at the debate, and even some Cornell administrators. Other concerns, objections, and questions, as articulated by the Review, include:
- Objection to raiding over 20% of the principle of Students Helping Students, an emergency financial aid fund, for the grocery store’s start-up costs
- Doubts regarding the rationale behind spending $360,000 on start-up costs for the grocery store’s infrastructure and capital investments–these are essentially sunk costs that can never be regained at face value if the grocery store does not succeed
- Objection to co-sponsor Stefanko’s admission that student fees might increase in the near-future to replenish Students Helping Students
- Doubts regarding the viability of Students Helping Students after its principal reduction, as detailed in this guest post
- Questions regarding Cornell administrator’s claim that recipients of the grocery store’s food scholarships might see a reduction in their financial aid packages
- Objection to grocery store supporters who suggested students should not report food scholarships on their financial aid applications if the above-mentioned is the case
- Doubts regarding the grocery store’s ability to break-even and not require future bailouts
- Questions regarding the business nature of the grocery store–is it profit-motivated or a charity?
- Objection to the phrasing of start-up costs as an “investment” given the grocery store’s stated non-profit objectives
- Objection to the use of non-statistical methods of data collection regarding claims about the number of food insecure students on campus
- Objection to SA members who stated that voting to approve the grocery store is inconsequential considering it must ultimately approved by Skorton and other Cornell administrators, and therefore there is no reason not to vote for the resolution
These concerns, objections, and questions are further articulated here and in the SA debate recap, “18 SA Members Vote to Decrease Emergency Financial Aid Fund, Possibly Increase Fees.”
Not only is Skorton’s decision a major setback for Stefanko and Johnston, who made their reelection campaigns focused greatly on the grocery store, those who should be worried also include other returning SA members who voted for the resolution: Juliana Batista ’16, Gabe Kaufman ’18, Ben Bacharach ’18, Erinn Liu ’18, Maria Chak ’18, and Phillip Titcomb ’17. Special attention should be directed at President-elect Batista, who whole-heartedly endorsed the grocery store’s business plan and openly stated that it was put together in only four days.
Perhaps if supporters had dedicated the time and energy placed in April 30’s coercive voting frenzy into the footwork of making a successful proposal, we could have a grocery store on campus with robust funding from a non-raided source. Instead, the final debate was rushed through to the inevitable “yes” vote. Even then, a motion to hold a vote by secret ballot–a voting procedure whose merits are debatable but one available to the SA–was flippantly dismissed by President Balik on the grounds that the SA had not used one during the year. The motion for the secret ballot was duly moved and seconded by members. Provisions for voting by secret ballot exist in Robert’s Rules of Order (VIII.46), and this procedure is regularly adopted in the SA’s Appropriations Committee, which deals with large sums of money. This action of the chair to refuse to consider a duly raised motion appears to be a prima facie breach of parliamentary rules.
The SA’s franticness to pass this enormous, largely un-vetted piece of legislation, with its numerous unaddressed flaws and points of contention, casts serious doubt upon this student-run grocery store project. It seems it is only a matter of time before the doubt becomes crippling.
