Despite the arrival of bids from major soft drink companies Coke and Pepsi for the exclusive rights to serve their beverages in College dining halls and concession stands, many questions still swirl around the issue.
The College has not had time to dissect the bids, and has not officially decided where the money gained from the contract renegotiations would go.
"We don't even know how much money there is, and there is no guarantee of any contract or additional money," College Treasurer Win Johnson said. "Other than the fact that there is a general feeling that the money should go to some purpose that benefits students."
Coke and Pepsi, similar to a college donor, could also stipulate where their money is channeled, leaving students without the power to decide.
Exclusive rights include all pouring rights but do not concern vending machines. Before the contract expired, Pepsi had been the primary pourer at the College. Soft drink producers pay large sums for exclusive pouring rights.
The bids are "not just a one-liner. Each is quite different, with own spin and requirements, and it's hard to compare them... The problem is that I don't want to raise expectations until we know the money is there," Johnson said.
The committee must first compare the bids and evaluate their comfort level about the idea of exclusive rights, and then decide if more discussion with the companies would be necessary. Another option would be the status quo, Associate Dean of the College Janet Terp said.
"Regardless of how complicated the bids are, we can still decide now on a process for distributing the funds once they are received," Assembly President Josh Green '00 said who has been pushing for student involvement in allocating the funds generated from the contract.
Terp said the issue of who will control the spending is not yet clear, but that student input will help determine the issue.
Green said that the ultimate goal of his March 12 Assembly proposal was to have the administration commit before the bids were received to place students in charge of the allocative decisions.
Some options outlined in the proposal were to use pouring rights funds to install a full cable package, fully subsidize athletic tickets, increase funding for the Undergraduate Finance Committee, or install door-locking devices.
"I'm discouraged that the assurance of this have not happened yet, but there is still an opportunity for the outcome to go in favor of the students," Assembly Vice-President Case Dorkey '99 said.
Regardless of any proposed process, the administration is not under any obligation to use revenues for student life options. Yet since students are sacrificing their choice, they should be entitled to reap the benefits of incoming funds and decide where the funds are directed, Dorkey said.
"This is a chance for administrators to show their respect for student opinion, and I certainly hope they do," Green said.
"I would be disappointed, especially when students are questioning their institutional voice, if the College did not take advantage of this opportunity," Dorkey said.
While the money "clearly needs" to be used for student life, the administration must obtain feedback regarding the various ways the money could be spent, and might still need to negotiate with Coke or Pepsi, Terp said.
Meeting with administrators since Fall term, Green and Dorkey have continually emphasized they wanted a process established to ensure the money would be channeled to student life and that students would direct where the funds went, Dorkey said.
Once Green and Dorkey were aware the bids would arrive by the end of Winter term, they met with administrators. Hurriedly, a proposal was crafted, but administrators did not immediately respond to it, at which time the bids arrived.
"We had specifically asked for a process to be in place before the bids came in, that way, [the process] wouldn't be clouded by how much money [the bids] were," Dorkey said.
An upcoming committee meeting to iron out some of these issues is scheduled for Monday, Dorkey said.
