ÒThe image that the Student Union presents around this campus is not a positive one. The image presented is that the University of Arizona is not willing to invest much in the type of activities that the Student Union provides. If one compares the Alumni building with the Student Union building, the implication is that the U of A is interested in soliciting contributions from wealthy alums but is not willing to spend on its current student body while it is here. This dichotomy does not bode well for the future.Ó

Ñ Roger Dahlgran

UA agricultural resources and economics professor and

member of the Student Union Task Force 1994

Something is rotten in the Student Union and itÕs not just the food at the Grazing Bar in LouieÕs Lower Level. Last week the Student Union Task Force, an ad hoc committee created by Student Affairs Vice President Saundra Taylor, released a five-month study of the Student Union which would make you think twice before dozing off in the Cactus Lounge or eating a leisurely lunch at the Mexican Restuarant. From an inadequate fire safety system to concerns about asbestos, one would think the committee was talking about something straight out of a Dickens novel rather than the campus Òcommunity gathering center.Ó LetÕs look at just a few of the more surprising findings of the committee:

¥ÊThe ÒRisk ManagementÓ section of the report begins, ÒThe current Student Union building, while not in compliance with prevailing fire codes, is not in violation since the facility was built prior to enactment of these codes.Ó Maybe itÕs just me, but I donÕt like the idea of any building on this campus not meeting the fire code, no matter how old it is. Anyways, the report goes on to state that the building lacks a Class A sprinkler/alarm system and fire walls and has Òinadqeuate ventilation and sprinkler systems to control grease fires.Ó Even more disturbing, the report states that Òsome of these items were identified in the Fire MarshalÕs report following the May 1993 inspection.Ó ItÕs nice to know that the UA administration has known about these problems for months and hasnÕt acted on improving the conditions. Then again, I havenÕt seen President Pacheco eating at the Fiddlee Fig

¥ÊThe ÒFacilityÓ section of the report conjures up images of sweatshops from the 1920s. ÒThe Student Union kitchen facilities are outdated and cannot efficiently serve the demands of students, faculty, staff and visitors. Task Force members who toured the Student Union were amazed at the level of output accomplished by staff under these adverse conditions.Ó The report also states that lack of funding has Òcreated a facility that is in a state of disrepairÓ where the $1 million in repair and maintenance work is spent on a patchwork approach to solving problems. Rather than make a long-term investment in repairing the building, the university has been content spending money on Òbuckets to collect dripping water, mismatched tiles on the floor (and) new wallboard that creates a facade hiding structural damage.Ó I guess the administration and Student Union officials think itÕs better to save a little money by pretending to solve a problem than actually solving it.

¥Ê One part of the report concludes, ÒAny updating and renovation of the building takes on added dimensions due to the complications and costs associated with the presence of asbestos in the building. We must deal with this problem. It will not go away.Ó What? Just how much asbestos is in the Student Union? The report doesnÕt say, but the Òmust dealÓ alarms me. Should I be wearing a gas mask when I go to a meeting in the Student Union?

The day this report came out, the director of the Student Union, Robert Ernstein, resigned. The report states that the Student Union management has for Òseveral years been operating without meaningful and effective collaboration with other units, a style which has resulted in a pattern of decision-making that reflects myopic approaches to problem-solving.Ó But Ernstein isnÕt the only one that the committee blames for problems with the Student Union. Even though in the past the Student Union has been a self-supporting entity, the committee concluded that Òsupport for general use and public areas, which the campus depends upon as part of the campus facility infrastructure, should be the financial responsibility of the University.Ó The committee recommended that the administration authorize $750,000 to be used to meet present fire safety standards, support privatizing parts of the Student Union and start more long-range planning. The report offered some good ideas.

But remember, the suggestions were made by only an ad hoc committee and weÕve seen how seriously the administration has taken such committees in the past Ñ for example, the 1992 Ad Hoc Gender Issues Committee. The purpose of that committee was to address such issues as rape and sexual harassment on campus and coordinate an education and counseling system within the university. The reportÕs findings came out in February 1992. A couple months later the university fired the only mental health employee who counseled rape victims (who was rehired for that position a year later). The university has still failed to follow through on the vast majority of the 18 recommendations made by the gender issues committee. An ad hoc committee can make suggestions, but if administrators arenÕt listening, the suggestions are

Will administrators listen to the suggestions made by the Student Union Task Force? Will the administration, despite knowing for months, finally spend the money to improve the fire safety system? I wouldnÕt hold my breath, but then again, IÕll already be holding it because of the asbestos.

Jon Burstein is a junior in journalism and political science. Like it or not, his columns appear every Tuesday. Read Next Article