In a 40-7-0 vote, senators passed an amended resolution off the legislative floor declaring their lack of confidence in the corporation, following presentations by the Duke University Student Dining Advisory Committee and testimonials from students. No representative from ARAMARK or Duke Dining services was present at the meeting.

DUSDAC presented a power-point presentation to the senate outlining the current status of ARAMARK's eateries on campus, including student feedback about food quality. Emma Batchelder, co-chair of the group, outlined several disappointments with the company including that it kept out-of-date items in the refrigerators in the Great Hall, had only implemented one of 12 improvements management pitched in fall 2003 and that proposed menus for the current semester did not reflect promises to improve nutrition.

Although acknowledging some of the corporation's accomplishments, such as establishing a fresh sushi bar in the Great Hall and adding breakfast-on-the-run to the Marketplace, Batchelder told the senate that, "DUSDAC voted 11 to zero for no confidence in ARAMARK."

Batchelder said that 68 percent of students cited convenience as the primary reason for eating at the Great Hall, which received overall ratings from students of C-, B- and B- for quality, selection and service respectfully. "ARAMARK keeps saying that their employees are their problems but they were their highest rating," she added.

Two undergraduate students, speaking during the meeting's public forum, also urged legislators to show their displeasure in the company by voting for "no confidence." Junior Deirdre Hess, employed at Trinity Cafe on East Campus, shared her experiences working at the ARAMARK-managed coffeehouse. She also read a letter from Trinity Cafe student managers Jeannie Chen and Allison Clarke, detailing their grievances with the company.

"The stories are true," Hess said of the "terrifying truth" about problems at the cafe and other ARAMARK eateries. "I could talk to you for hours about the problems we have at Trinity Cafe."

Chen and Clark's letter included allegations that some equipment has been broken for years, food quality and ingredients were inadequate or improperly kept, repeated firings in ARAMARK management made improvements or changes difficult and training was insufficient. Hess claimed that the cafe failed a recent audit because it occurred a day earlier than scheduled and the eatery was, as typical, out of its necessary supplies.

Senators expressed their displeasure with murmurs of "eww" and "gross" upon hearing several of the depictions contended in the letter--including claims that the bean grinder has been broken since the fall of 2002, plates are sometimes kept in the display case for up to a week, a sink has been clogged for weeks and that the espresso machine frequently malfunctions.

"We're begging you, please, get them out," Hess said. "Give us a chance to make new."

Jessica Rosario, president of AQUA Duke, also urged a vote of no confidence. She told senators that ARAMARK workers "assaulted verbally" members of her group at an event held at the Marketplace in fall 2003 and that the company's management had fallen through on promises to host sexuality sensitivity training.

Most of the debate about ARAMARK during the four-hour long meeting did not occur over the company, but was aimed at producing a resolution amiable to both members of DUSDAC and the Student Affairs Committee, which is responsible for presenting legislation to DSG about dining services.

Elizabeth Dixon, vice president of the Student Affairs Committee, reported Monday night that her committee was unable to endorse DUSDAC's official recommendation of "no confidence" because of a lack of student feedback or information from the advisory group. As such, there was not a resolution on DSG's official agenda concerning a vote on the future of ARAMARK. However, both Dixon and her committee, as well as freshman senator Christopher Chin and DUSDAC (of which he is a member), presented resolutions to be offered from the floor about the vote.

Dixon's resolution recommended a vote--aye for confidence, nay for no confidence--in the student body, while Chin's legislation was comprised of a DSG endorsement of the DUSDAC stance.

"I am confused why there are two resolutions on the table," Chin said. "I know that there was a profound breakdown of communication between Elizabeth Dixon and DUSDAC."

After about an hour of intercourse during debate between the Student Affairs Committee and the writers of the DUSDAC bill, a four-minute recess and multiple extensions of time, the senate approved Chin's legislation from the floor after amending the rationale of the bill. Dixon--responding to charges that the dispute over resolutions was part of a power struggle between her, her committee and DUSDAC's legitimacy--described the problems over the ARAMARK resolutions as "a lack of communication" and said that, in the end, the outcome was most important.

"I think that the point of the evening was that each of us has the same goal," she said. "There was a consensus of the student body reached and I have the utmost confidence that DUSDAC will effectively convey our concerns to the administration."

DSG President Matt Slovik agreed, saying that the vote was a clear message to the company and Duke's dining administration.

"In terms of ARAMARK, I think it was a pretty resounding vote and very meaningful that ARAMARK didn't have a representative here tonight," he said.

Director of Dining Services Jim Wulforst has the final say on whether ARAMARK stays or goes. He has indicated previously that he would take into serious consideration DSG's recommendation, but would not act solely on the students' position.