The following is a guest post by Jay Blanton, the Executive Director of Marketing and Public Relations at the University of Kentucky.

Rona Roberts’ recent commentary regarding dining services offered several compelling ideas for the issues that should be considered as the university weighs how best to move forward.

Indeed, each of the issues she raises — from local purchasing to sustainability to healthy food choices for our students — is at the heart of our decision-making process as we consider the best alternatives for providing food services for students, faculty, staff and visitors to our campus. She is one of many thoughtful and concerned people, both on and off campus, asking tough and important questions about this issue. Her voice, like that of many others, is an important one. And the questions and concerns she is raising deserve a response that reflects our commitment to communication and transparency. Moreover, a few points require some clarification and further expansion because of their importance to this process:

First, UK does not require any student to live on campus. The vast majority of first-year students — more than 90 percent typically — seek to live on campus. And, yes, as Ms. Roberts correctly notes, the university wants students to live on campus. The academic literature strongly suggests that students do better, are retained at higher rates, and graduate on time more readily when they live on campus. That’s because students who live on campus are more likely to become engaged early on in the life of the university — from engagement with their studies to involvement with student organizations that increase socialization and a sense of belonging. But there is no requirement that they do so.

Second, against that backdrop, it only makes sense that we would want even more students to live on campus. Right now, we can’t accommodate more students. We have about 5,200 beds, only about 680 of which provide modern living and learning space. So, we are seeking to rebuild our residence hall system and expand the number of beds — perhaps up to 9,000 — to accommodate first-year students and, ultimately, upperclassmen and graduate students as well.

Third, we’ve turned to a private partner to help facilitate that revitalization effort. Prior to beginning our work with EdR, the company we are partnering with, UK built only four residence halls in 40 years. There are a host of reasons for that pace of construction — from the university’s limited debt capacity to the fact that building residence halls is not a core competency of the university.

The bottom line: Enrolling more students and graduating more students at even higher rates is not only good for the University of Kentucky. It is good for the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Indeed, few things, if any, could contribute more to a stronger economy than a larger and even more educated and highly skilled workforce.

So, even as we seek to improve the living environment for our students, we’re also endeavoring to significant upgrade their learning environment and the teaching and research space utilized by our faculty and staff. It’s why UK President Eli Capilouto recently sought, and received authorization for, some $275 million in campus construction, all paid for with university resources, including some $65 million from our athletics department for a new Science/Academic Building in the heart of our campus – perhaps an unprecedented commitment of funds in American public higher education.

The construction and revitalization efforts underscore that our focus is — and should be — tremendous teaching, groundbreaking research, and community changing service.

That growth in our student population, coupled with the commitment to create better living, learning and research spaces, also is driving the need to think about and examine our dining operation.

To be sure, we are asking a fundamentally important question: what is the best way to provide dining to students, faculty, staff and others who spend time with us?

Yes, we have a quality dining operation. But is it a core function of the university itself? Or, are there more efficient and effective ways to provide this service, particularly as we grow and develop as an institution?

And, without question, part of our consideration in this process is whether and how significant investment could be made in dining facilities and others that serve our students and campus community.

But there’s nothing wrong with that consideration. In fact, facility revitalization is an important part of the equation in terms of creating an atmosphere that maximizes the potential of our students and of the faculty and staff who work with them.  It’s why we are moving forward in a partnership to build new residence halls. It’s why we are increasingly relying on our own sources of dollars to construct new classroom and research space, even as President Capilouto and our Board of Trustees delivered on a commitment to the smallest tuition increase at UK in some 15 years.

In an era of constrained resources, those questions of affordability, debt and limited capacity necessarily take on even more importance.

However, those considerations are not, by any means, the only things on the table — far from it.

In considering how best to proceed, we have put forward several requirements that will — and must be — part of any partnership we enter into with a food service provider, should we decide to recommend that course to the university and our Board of Trustees.

Many of those requirements, in fact, are cited by Ms. Roberts:

  • We are, for example, retaining our current food services employees as university employees with the same salary and benefits.
  • We would require that employment opportunities continue for students, as food services provides important compensation and potential career paths for many students who participate.
  • We will mandate our continued involvement with Kentucky Proud and local purchasing of food. Interestingly, something that has been conveniently overlooked is that at least two other institutions who work with third parties for dining services — the University of Louisville and Berea College — more food is purchased locally as a percentage of their overall purchasing than UK currently does with an in-house service.
  • We will require expanded academic interaction with units like the Lemon Tree, Butcher Shop, Nutrition and Food Sciences, Hospitality Management, and other campus departments.  We will expect a bigger influence on developing collaborative faculty and student engagement in support of our land-grant mission for diversified agriculture and creating new market research practices.
  • Finally, if the university ultimately decided to engage in a third-party partnership, we would expect more food options and healthier food choices than we currently provide students and others.

Yes, third parties expect to make a profit and benefit their shareholders. But it is simply erroneous to suggest returning a profit precludes partnerships and quality and the development of deep community ties. That is simply not the case.

We should be willing as an institution to examine all these issues closely, in both their positive and challenging dimensions, as part of an effort to find the best alternative for our students and for everyone who looks to UK for leadership on this issue and so many others.

But as we commit to that examination, we also — both those of us with UK and those of us, understandably, raising questions and challenges — should commit to dealing in the facts, wherever those facts may take us in the interest of finding the best path forward for everyone involved.

That’s a process we should undertake with a willingness to ask and answer tough, at times, skeptical questions. But, ultimately, we also should consider the fact that even though we don’t always agree on every aspect of every issue, that doesn’t mean we don’t want what’s best for UK and the Commonwealth we serve.

Indeed, we do.

We look forward to continuing this important dialogue as this process moves forward.

{ 3 comments }

ProgressLex is working to make Lexington a place that talented and creative people are happy to call home.  It’s how we’re going to create a truly great American city.  Lucky for us and Lexington, there are so many talented and creative citizens here.  They are our city’s change agents, and we want to empower them through platforms like our IdeaPost blog and the Now What, Lexington? (NWL) unconference.

We’re also helping to kickstart their efforts with two $500 NWL ’13 Micro-Grants, which support ideas springing from our NWL ’13 unconference.  One winner will be selected by the Board, and the other will be selected by votes from you.

Voting is now open to the public, and you may review proposals and cast your vote by clicking here.

Voting will be open between May 16, 2013 and June 13, 2013.

To see the full timeline and see the criteria the Board will use to select a grant, click here.

{ 0 comments }

We just wanted to give a quick kudos to Lexington’s change agent, Ben de Jesus, for organizing Team Lex Volleyball and being featured in the Herald-Leader.  For those of you who follow our blog, you may remember his cool story and reason for starting this league:

At ProgressLex, we believe that in order to make Lexington a place that talented and creative are happy to call home, our city needs to be welcoming to diversity of all kinds.  A quick snippet from the Herald-Leader article:

“I thought this would be a good way to get involved in the gay community,” [John] Rhyne said. “It’s much more welcoming. We want all kinds of people to learn to play and learn their skills. We’re trying to be a club like other clubs.”

Thanks Ben for helping contribute to a more open vision of the city, and we encourage our readers to check out the full Herald-Leader story by clicking here.

 

{ 0 comments }

The following is a guest post by Gregory Pettit, a native Lexingtonian who recently moved back from New York.

I grew up in Lexington, part of a family with long and deep roots in the community.  I was sent away to school as a young teen and never lived here full time again until my return last year after nearly four decades, three of them spent conducting public relations for companies, governments and NGOs in the US and abroad.  It has been a fascinating time for me, comparing the city I left in 1974 with the Lexington I call home today. When I left, preservation referred more to the contents of the freezer than the landscape and buildings that are the touchstones of our cultural heritage.

Lexington has come a long way though. Now double the size of my childhood hometown, it has a vibrant and largely restored downtown, statutes that limit development of our storied landscape and a level of energy and innovation that is infectious.

But I am incredulous at the circular firing squad that the preservationists in Lexington are engaged in over the Boone Creek canopy tour. One thing I learned in decades of public relations for Fortune 100 giants and startups alike was to pick your fights wisely.  And this fight looks counterproductive from every angle.

The public fight over Boone Creek holds the prospect of the city and the Fayette Alliance going to the ramparts and putting their credibility on the line to financially ruin a Sierra Club member for operating an increasingly popular but small scale, environmentally benign canopy tour designed for nature lovers. Is this really a crucial fight? And for whom?   What about the zoning rules so fiercely defended that would allow Mr. Carey to abandon his plans and log the land for timber? Who wins then?

The participants in this controversy need to take a few steps back and look at the bigger picture. The gentleman from Darby Dan rightly pointed out in his Op-ed in the Herald Leader that horse farms are businesses and not parks.  And that even so, perhaps 40,000 people take farm tours every year.  That’s great, but it is also only a tiny fraction of the visitors Lexington gets in an average year. What if only 5% of visitors to NYC were allowed into Times Square? His argument only underscores the need for other venues like the eco-tourism model that Boone Creek represents so that more tourists and residents alike can enjoy the landscape that makes us famous.

Our World Heritage landscape has attracted the rich and powerful for nearly two centuries, but they tend to come and go (how many remember Nelson Bunker Hunt or Elizabeth Arden?). We can continue to attract them and many more. But only if those who truly care about our heritage preserve their credibility with the larger community and avoid unseemly, internecine squabbles over fine print and focus instead on common sense regulation that protects the actual landscape more than the people who own it and leaves room for all owners to earn a responsible living. The Blue Grass is a treasure, but any horse farm operator will tell you that those rolling hills are a business, and the return on that land helps keep it the way it is.

You can drive a bus through the room for compromise on this issue.  I hope those involved can find the entrance.

 

{ 6 comments }

The following is a guest, crosspost by Rona Roberts, the host of Savoring Kentucky, the co-host of the Cornbread Suppers, the convenor of the Local Food Percolator, and the author of Sweet, Sweet Sorghum: Kentucky’s Golden Wonder.

As an important step toward realizing its vision of being among the top 20 public research universities in the country, the University of Kentucky recently decided to build thousands of new dormitory rooms, and require many more students to live on campus. As a community member, I have heard that the reasoning is that on-campus students are more likely to graduate, and that increasing graduation rates is a crucial aspect of improving the University’s status.

UK chose to outsource construction of the dorms—without dining facilities. Although no final decision has been announced, recently UK has signaled that it is considering outsourcing dining services as well, apparently because corporate food service giants have the capital to build several dining halls and then recoup construction costs as part of a long-term contract. Estimates I have heard publicly range from $5 million to $50 million for dining facility construction. The respected UK Dining Services, which now feeds dorm students and central campus (not the medical complex, and not athletics) is an in-house, UK-owned entity. It cannot raise the capital to build the new dining facilities unless the University chooses, and the University, so far, chooses other capital priorities other than dining halls. UK Dining Services boasts an excellent record on food quality, strong commitment to buying food from Kentucky growers and processors, and importance as an employer of both full-time and part-time workers. Many people, particularly the well-organized UK United Students Against Sweatshops, have been working to encourage UK to expand UK Dining Services to meet the new dining facilities need.

I spoke on this issues last night at an on-campus forum on Outsourcing UK Dining Services. The Tracy Farmer Institute for Sustainability and the Environment hosted the forum. My statement follows.

~~~~~

Along with many others, I have called for the University to expand UK Dining Services to serve the new dorms and the replacement dining facilities envisioned in the dining plan. University responses have included this language: “we owe it to our students to explore every avenue for making our services as efficient and effective as possible.” That consideration of efficiency and effectiveness has pointed toward soliciting private capital investment in new dining facilities.

University of Kentucky Dining Services excels in serving students and boosting local food economies in the Commonwealth. It is in jeopardy.

University of Kentucky Dining Services excels in serving students and boosting local food economies in the Commonwealth. It is in jeopardy.

I ask that University decision-makers develop and apply criteria based on deeper, permanent efficiencies that fit well with the University’s mission: “The University of Kentucky is a public, land grant university dedicated to improving people’s lives through excellence in education, research and creative work, service, and health care. As Kentucky’s flagship institution, the University plays a critical leadership role by promoting diversity, inclusion, economic development, and human well-being.”

Using that statement as a frame, and giving particular attention to its emphasis on education, creative work, service, health care, and economic development, I suggest four specific opportunities for achieving efficiencies of lasting benefit and effectiveness to the Commonwealth the University serves.

First, when UK students find it easy to eat well-prepared, delicious, nutrient-rich food, the state as a whole benefits from their improved health. Many UK graduates become our neighbors in Kentucky cities, towns and counties. In addition to the reduction in costly chronic diseases for which we may not have to fund treatment, these student’s good health, once they graduate and start families, will have a positive impact on Kentucky going forward. This yields the long-term efficiency of good public health.

Second, when UK does business with Kentucky growers and processors, that money makes positive ripples in Kentucky’s communities. When community income improves, public schools tend to improve. When schools improve, graduates tend to come to college better equipped to thrive and graduate. This effective education dividend, so important to the University’s top 20 vision, is built partly on the long-term efficiency of investment in strong local economies.

Third, when UK Dining Services collaborates with academic departments to introduce students to careers in food and agriculture, students build skills to succeed in food-based jobs. When those students graduate, make jobs and take jobs in any aspect of Kentucky’s growing food economy, our state efficiently profits from their work and their tax dollars. All of us stand to benefit from the long-term effectiveness of good career preparation.

These three deep sources of efficiency and effectiveness could conceivably be delivered by an entity that is not part of the University, and not part of Kentucky. But one final important deep efficiency cannot. Any outsourcing contract may specify food quality, set sustainability deliverables, mandate a percentage from local sources, require employee protections, and insist on collaboration with academic units. What an external food service contractormust do, however, is make money for its shareholders.

Right now we Kentuckians are the shareholders in UK Dining Services. In spite of faltering legislative support for the University, we are still the beneficiaries of UK Dining Services’ good work. Outsourcing dining services to Aramark or Sodexho ensures that a significant portion of the money Kentucky students are required to spend on dormitory food will leave the state and enrich others. It will, in effect, establish a new extractive industry in the Bluegrass.

And so, fourth, the University of Kentucky is a capable powerhouse, and in addition, there’s Big Blue Nation. UK itself has the commitment, brainpower, creativity and many mechanisms to live up to the economic development portion of its mission statement by inventing a way forward that meets new, deep efficiency and effectiveness criteria.

Among those criteria, the new dining service solution should improve student health, invest in Kentucky’s local food economies, equip Kentucky students for excellent work in our Commonwealth’s fledgling food system, and keep Kentucky money in Kentucky where it can grow and benefit all of us. Done properly, this new invention can offer new ways for Big Blue Nation to connect to this beloved university. A positive invention will expand a sense of ownership and connection to the University even in years that do not include the pleasure of hanging a banner in the Rupp Arena rafters.

{ 3 comments }

Town Branch Commons Public Presentation with SCAPE

May 3, 2013

Did you miss the Town Branch Commons public presentation with SCAPE this week?  Don’t worry, we’ve got the full video of Kate Orff below:     Kate provided a comprehensive presentation exploring 4 discrete districts detailed in the proposal, which include the Reveal, Clean, Carve and Connect segments of the linear park. For reference, you [...]

Read the full article →

“When I grow up…”

April 29, 2013

The following is a guest post by Theo Edmonds and Marnie Holoubek, the co-curators of Lexington’s “When I Grow Up…” project. “When you grow up… what will YOU do?”  It’s a question that kids get asked a lot.  And… they think about it with purpose and with a great sense of hope and infinite possibility. That [...]

Read the full article →

Team Lex Volleyball Kicks Off Tonight!

April 25, 2013

Ben de Jesus, one of Lexington’s change agents, provides a guest blog post about his work with Team Lex Volleyball, an effort to foster a supportive LGBT-friendly sporting environment in Lexington. I came out as an openly gay man in college, and that was a very challenging time for me.  One of the avenues I [...]

Read the full article →

NWL ’13 Micro-Grants Applications Are Open!

April 17, 2013

First, a heartfelt thanks to the change agents who participated in NWL ’13! As a young person in Lexington, I was incredibly excited  to see so many people from across the city working to improve our community. The sessions at NWL included a great discussion on Lexington’s history and what its cultural ascendance during the [...]

Read the full article →

NWL ’13: A new energy in Lexington

April 12, 2013

Help us design the future of our city at the Now What, Lexington? (NWL) unconference! RSVP here. NWL is an unconference, which means the participants get to design the sessions.  The event began as a citizen-driven follow-up event to the Creative Cities Summit, and today NWL serves as a platform for change agents who want to proactively [...]

Read the full article →