In mid-December, Bon App‚tit and Steve Hoffner, then-director of dining operations, met to discuss Bon App‚tit’s financial situation for the academic year. They were on track to lose money, according to Hoffner. To get back in the black, Bon App‚tit offered an “extensive” set of items that they wanted to make more expensive.
Hoffner said he checked Bon App‚tit’s wish list against USDA statistics for food price increases and found many increases unjustified. His skeptical eye saved students money. He okayed the increases for those items that did indeed see significant inflations in price.
The price increases on campus reflect increased costs in acquiring certain foods, namely meat, dairy and eggs, says Bon App‚tit. The numbers support this assertion. According to 2004 USDA numbers, meat jumped in price 8.4 percent, dairy prices rose 7.3 percent and eggs got more expensive by 6.2 percent. Yet overall food prices increased 3.4 percent and the Consumer Price Index (a measure of inflation) rose 3.3 percent in 2004.
On average, Bon App‚tit found food costing 6.1 percent more. They couldn’t have reasonably forecast food costs increasing twice as fast as inflation. But that doesn’t give them a right to pass along the cost to students.
Students pay for their points up front, at the beginning of the year. In return, the University grants a set amount of points, meaning a set amount of purchasing power. By raising prices without increasing the number of points, Dining Services is decreasing the amount of points, in real terms.
It’s unfair to change the contract on students midstream. If Dining Services and Bon App‚tit want the flexibility to raise prices midyear,, they should switch to a pay-as-you-go system.
Right now, the University gets millions of dollars from students in meal fees up front, and they have the ability to invest it and make additional money off the interest. But the students don’t benefit at all from this prepayment, it seems. That’s plain wrong. A more just system would be using the interest accrued to pay for unavoidable price increases.
Rumors that the price increases were implemented to spur Center Court attendance are false, said Hoffner. He noted that Bon App‚tit requested to raise Center Court prices, too, but that didn’t happen.
The other problem was that students were not consulted in making the decision. “I probably should have,” remarked Hoffner. It’s good that Hoffner admits as much, and hopefully students won’t be left out of the loop in the future. Meanwhile, Bon App‚tit’s General Manager Kathy Carmody has been avoiding talking with the CS40 about the price increase, said CS40 Speaker Danielle Matilsky. Bon App‚tit may be a private company, but as long as they serve students, they should be responsive to student concerns.