The Associated Students of UCLA board of directors voted Friday
to end Taco Bell’s contract on campus, settling once and for
all a nearly yearlong debate over the eatery’s place at
UCLA.
The vote was five in favor and one opposed with two abstentions
on a motion to not renew the fast food restaurant’s contract
when it expires Oct. 31. Its last day of business at UCLA will be
this Friday.
After a hushed silence during the vote, 25 students who attended
the meeting to encourage Taco Bell’s removal erupted with
applause upon witnessing the result.
“About damn time,” said Emmanuel Martinez, an
undergraduate representative on the board and member of the ASUCLA
services committee, which brought the non-renewal proposal to the
board.
The vote came after almost a year of controversy over
allegations that Taco Bell’s tomato suppliers were committing
labor abuse against tomato pickers in the Immokalee region of
Florida.
The Coalition of Immokalee Workers, which represents the
pickers, urged UCLA to remove Taco Bell from campus until the labor
violations were addressed.
The board had voted against recommendations from the services
committee to remove the restaurant twice before, but on Friday
agreed with the committee’s third such suggestion and ended
Taco Bell’s tenure at UCLA.
In a statement released shortly after the decision, Taco Bell
Spokeswoman Laurie Schalow said the fast food company has
“made real attempts to resolve this matter” but said
the company has been “targeted for something that we, alone,
cannot control.”
“Taco Bell has proudly served the UCLA community for over
10 years, and we will miss our many loyal customers on campus. It
is disappointing and unfair that the Coalition of Immokalee Workers
has pressured UCLA students into making this decision and forced
them to be involved,” the statement read.
Lucas Benitez, co-founder of the CIW, speaking through a
translator said this “major victory” at UCLA will
encourage students at other universities to campaign against Taco
Bell.
“It is a tremendous victory for the youth and for the
student movement … they are not only demanding fast food but
they’re demanding fair food,” Benitez said.
“That’s something (Taco Bell) needs to
acknowledge.”
UCLA students at the meeting were visibly overjoyed that the
matter had finally been resolved.
“I’m ecstatic,” said Christina Kaoh, a member
of the Student Worker Front, as she clutched postcards signed by
400 UCLA students supporting Taco Bell’s removal.
“I don’t even have words right now,” she
said.
The association will move an ASUCLA-run sandwich restaurant into
Taco Bell’s current location after Taco Bell closes on
Friday, said Bob Williams, interim executive director of
ASUCLA.
He said they hope to have the new eatery installed in the Campus
Corner location by the following Monday.
ASUCLA also plans to eventually open a taco restaurant with
similar pricing to Taco Bell in the Cooperage to fill the low-cost
food niche, Williams said, adding that they can’t put Mexican
food in the Taco Bell location because of contract obligations.
The meeting began with an open comment period to allow the
two-dozen stone-faced students standing around the edges of the
room a chance to speak. Students held signs stating “People
over profit” and “Contracto, No / Justicia,
Yes.”
“I trust that the board … will be acting in the best
interests of the farmworkers,” said Darren Chan, internal
vice president of the Undergraduate Students Association
Council.
The vast majority of the discussion among board members centered
on the financial implications of removing Taco Bell.
Williams estimated that the association would lose 200 customers
who were loyal to the Taco Bell brand as a result of its closure,
and that combined with opening the new sandwich and taco
restaurants would cost the association $85,000 in profit this
fiscal year.
Rich Delia, finance director for ASUCLA, said the association
had projected a net income of $117,000 for 2004-05, and if taking
the loss of Taco Bell customers into account, total ASUCLA profits
this year would be reduced to between $30,000 and $40,000.
The board also discussed the broader implications of their
decision, including the future of the association as an entity
independent from administrative control.
Delia said continued losses could bring the association into
debt, at which point administrators could take control of the board
under an agreement between the university and ASUCLA.
“Then you have no association and you can’t deal
with future social issues,” Delia said. He warned the
chancellor could have the power to eliminate student
representatives on the board.
Other board members said they could deal with the fiscal issues;
it is the social issue of the worker’s rights that is
important.
Martinez and fellow undergraduate representative Gustavo DeHaro
even offered to donate their stipends to help offset the loss.
Williams said he believed Taco Bell would be open to coming back
to UCLA in the future if the matter was resolved because of the
“careful and professional approach the board took” in
arriving at their decision.
DeHaro said the board’s willingness to listen to student
concerns empowers them and gives them a voice.
“I feel that (the decision) gives back ownership of the
association to the students,” DeHaro said.
“Our name is the Associated Students of UCLA.”