• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

Coca-Cola would be responsible for the removal of all equipment from Associated Students UCLA fac

As the Associated Students UCLA Board of Directors considers whether to remove Coca-Cola products from campus, it is also mulling over the possible effects of its decision, including lost revenues for ASUCLA and a potentially tricky bidding process to find a new drinks vendor if Coca-Cola decides to bid again.

The consideration comes after protests from a student group on campus that Coca-Cola has engaged in human rights violations in Colombia. At the last two board meetings, ASUCLA representatives heard both sides of the issue, listening to presentations from Coke-Free Campus and the Coca-Cola company.

At the ASUCLA budget meeting May 6, food service representatives said that ASUCLA would receive an estimated $155,000 from Coca-Cola in product sales and sponsorship fees next year.

But if ASUCLA withdrew from a contract with Coca-Cola, ASUCLA might face a loss greater than the budgeted $155,000.

“The financial impact without Coca-Cola would not just mean a loss of sponsorship money,” said Rich Delia, the chief financial officer for ASUCLA. “(ASUCLA must) consider how many sales are we going to lose (from removing Coca-Cola) and the fact that people may not go to our restaurants because Coca-Cola is no longer sold there.”

“The loss would be significant, but we can’t put a number on it because it is a very complicated issue,” he said.

Coca-Cola would be responsible for removing its equipment on campus so ASUCLA would not incur a cost, ASUCLA officials said.

Should ASUCLA decide to remove Coca-Cola, they would have to seek bids from new soda vendors, potentially facing a renewed and highly competitive bid from Coca-Cola. This would present a “problematic situation” for the board, Delia said.

“There are not too many competitors that can outdo Coca-Cola’s bid,” Delia said. “And that’s an issue we have to consider. If we did remove Coca-Cola, ASUCLA might have to consider excluding Coca-Cola from the bidding process.”

UC policy states that when the university sets out to purchase a certain amount of product, it must sign with the supplier that offers the best bid.

This policy, known as Business 43, follows the Public Contract Code of the State of California stating that “all purchase contracts involving an expenditure of more than $50,000 shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder meeting specifications ... determined on the basis of one of two methods: (1) cost alone or (2) on a cost per quality point basis.”

Since ASUCLA cannot discriminate against vendors on certain grounds, such as a company’s religious affiliation, the board would face the problem of determining whether Coca-Cola’s alleged inhumane practices would be a sufficient reason to exclude Coca-Cola from the bidding process. If so, the company would not meet the “cost per quality” standard outlined in Business 43, and ASUCLA would be able to select a different bidder.

If the decision is in favor of removal, Delia said the board would not use the money from the SAFE referendum, which was passed last year by a student vote and gradually raises student fees over the next decade.

As a result, because the financial impact would be noticeable, the board would need to find ways to make up for the loss, Delia said. He said cutting staff salaries was possible, though it was all speculation at this point.

But other ASUCLA representatives pointed out that, as a result of financial growth due to increases in merchandise sales, the association should have little trouble handling the cost of removing Coca-Cola.

“Definitely (removing Coca-Cola) is not going to put the association into bankruptcy, since we are having a good year,” said Gustavo DeHaro, chair of the ASUCLA Services Committee and board member.

As part of the decision-making process, the board will launch an educational campaign to inform the students and faculty about the issues ASUCLA is considering. Chair of the ASUCLA board Hoi Ning Ngai said the campaign would begin in the next few weeks.

“We want transparency in the decision-making process, meaning we want the campus to know what we’re doing, what steps we’ve already taken and what possible future steps we may take,” Ngai said.

As part of the educational campaign, ASUCLA plans to post signs, leaflets, and flyers across campus in areas where Coca-Cola is served, as well as include information about the decision on the Web site. ASUCLA is also considering hosting an open forum event for the student body to come address the issue.

In addition to conducting the educational campaign, the board is investigating the allegations against Coca-Cola. Ngai said the board is also waiting for reports from the International Labor Organization, which is conducting a private investigation into the corporation’s practices.