Friendless UT

Courtesy of Friends of the Cactus Cafe

After the plan by the University of Texas administration to close the Cactus Cafe met massive resistance, they played nice and invited students and citizens into the discussion over its future. Now a community rep has quit, suggesting that the admin is trying to ram through a new and equally unpalatable future for the venue.

Attorney and Friends of the Cactus Cafe representative Reid Nelson had been working with the administration and the Student Friends of the Cactus Cafe to create a workable option to not only keep the cafe open, but to increase student involvement.

However, today he has sent a letter to Vice-President for Student Affairs Juan Gonzalez and Dean of Students Soncia Reagins-Lilly announcing that he will no longer take part in that process because the admin does not seem to really be interested in the conversation. He wrote, "What also seems apparent to me is that a model has already been decided upon by the administration, one that involves a bifurcated approach of a third party for-profit entity running cafe and bar operations and programming done through some other university entity."

The timing is deeply disturbing. On Tuesday the UT Student Government became the third major student body to officially back keeping the cafe open where and as is, plus adding student internships and artist-in-residence programs. In his letter of resignation, Nelson said that the attitude of the union administration is that "such issues are simply not on the table for discussion in these meetings.”

What's most worrying is that there Nelson confirms the worst fear of many interested individuals: That the administration was going to find some way to hand the space over to a private entity. Nelson wrote, "“There seems to be a headlong approach that has developed over the course of these conversations toward a third party vendor mode."

If that is the path that UT is considering (and we're well past the point of pretending that this is anything to do with what the students want) then there may be a major legal hurdle. Outgoing SG president Liam O'Rourke told the Chronicle that he had been told by staff that IRS rules prevented any further space in the Texas Union going to third party vendors.

Nelson's full letter below:

Dear Juan and Soncia,

I entered these conversations regarding the future of the Cactus Cafe in good faith. However, I made it clear from the beginning that I would approach them one at a time and continue with them so long as progress was being made toward the goals of our organization, Friends of the Cactus Cafe, to preserve the fundamental character of this legendary venue in its current location under professional experienced management.

My understanding of the Student Union Board’s charge to Dr. González is that he was to evaluate the three Cactus Cafe proposals presented to the Board in February and make a recommendation at the April 30th Union Board meeting on how best to move forward. This conversation group was to assist in reviewing those proposals.

Progress to date has been painfully slow. In three meetings we were able to come to agreement on what the goals for the Cactus Cafe were going forward. After yesterday’s meeting, it appears we have not even agreed on those goals.

Of the proposals that are supposed to be under review, at least one contemplates retention of current staff at the Cactus and another proposes building on the current business model to achieve greater involvement of students in Cactus operations. Discussions to date have revealed that, at the very least, half of the members of this group support keeping the Cactus Cafe operationally on the Texas Union books as the simplest and most seamless means of achieving the goals. However, you have made it clear that a model that builds on the operational status quo within the Union and any discussion of retention of current staff are off the table for these conversations.

I have serious reservations with your plans to present three potential models to Union management and have them decide which one is best for moving forward. On one hand, putting that decision, even ostensibly, in the hands of those who wanted to end the Cactus Cafe as we know it, seems ill-advised at best. On the other hand, what also seems apparent to me is that a model has already been decided upon by the administration, one that involves a bifurcated approach of a third party for-profit entity running cafe and bar operations and programming done through some other university entity.

Quite frankly, I’m beginning to feel a little like one of the students on the Union Board who, as is clear from the record, was asked to approve a decision to close the Cactus that had already been made two months before. There are, as you have stated, other discussions going on outside of our group. It was not clear to me until recently that those involved not just opinion-seeking of interested parties, but substantive discussions on moving forward with a particular business model.

When these conversations began, the operative position of the University, as expressed by one of the Union Board members, was that no third party would be taking over the Cactus Cafe space because of current space allocation to other third parties in the Union and the laws governing such allocation. Apart from any discussion about the viability of additional third party vendors coming into the Union, I have serious substantive reservations about what effect such an arrangement would have on the fundamental character of the Cactus Cafe. It will affect both employment opportunities for students and the extent to which daily cafe and bar operation can continue as they currently do. It also seems to me an unnecessarily complicated model that is ripe for conflicts down the road, and that cannot help but have a deleterious effect on the whole Cactus Cafe experience that makes the venue what it is to so many. Moreover, the involvement of a for-profit, third party as part of the business will complicate our group’s involvement, as a non-profit organization, in supporting the venue.

Finally, there are also other issues that I have encountered outside of our discussions that I believe will ultimately negatively taint this process.

For these reasons, regrettably, I cannot in good conscience continue as a part of these conversations. However, I would like to depart from them on a constructive note.

It seems to me that all of the work that is currently going into making third-party participation viable in the Union under current law could just as easily be devoted to revisiting the Union budget in a way that would allow the Cactus to remain operationally on its books. In my experience, change, particularly change in cultural institutions like the Cactus Cafe, is best effected not through a “blunt-cut” approach, but through gradual transition. If the Cactus Cafe mission is to change to include more student involvement in programming and greater learning opportunities for students using the venue as a resource (which I agree it should), that can best be accomplished, it seems to me, by adding those elements to the current model over time.

My suggestion would be that you seriously consider a 12 month trial program of maintaining the status quo at the Cactus Cafe, and adding to the current model the programs that would address the concerns of student participation, access and learning opportunities. I honestly do not see how that would fail to make everyone who has an interest in the future of this venerable room happy. We have moved, in terms of the atmosphere of our discussions in this group, from mostly contentious to largely cordial and friendly. I would have no reservations working with you both to develop a successful model based on such an approach.

Kind regards,

Reid Nelson