You have heard the rumors regarding the placement of a McDonald’s in the Hub.

Now hear the truth.

Many students may think the only McDonald’s located on campus is the one proposed for the Hub.

They are wrong.

The Union accepted a proposal from McDonald’s which would place a McDonald’s in its Food Court. Because the Union now controls the vending on campus, and because the Hub is considered a vending area, the Union was able to subcontract its vending in the Hub to McDonald’s.

Some students have defended the McDonald’s proposed for the Hub on the basis that it would be nice to have a fast food franchise on central campus. Well, you already have one in the Union.

Are you still happy with the one in the Hub?

What if I were to tell you that the Union was also planning to operate three smaller food areas on campus, including the Design Center?

What if I were to tell you that one of these three areas, according to a former Memorial Union Board of Directors member, had also been planned for a McDonald’s?

Are you still happy with the one in the Hub?

Some have argued that a McDonald’s in the Hub would promote bug infestation in Parks Library and cause grease damage to books.

Some have argued that the university is selling out to commercial interests.

Some have criticized local McDonald’s owner John Dasher for his involvement in a 1980s food service study which suggested students wanted a fast food franchise on campus.

However,these may seem like trivial complaints once you realize how much student input was actually involved in the decision to put a McDonald’s in the Union, and thus also in the Hub.

Everything that follows in this column was taken from an interview with Mary Jo Mertens, managing director of the Union, and minutes of the Memorial Union Board of Directors’ meetings.

The process for finding restaurants to franchise in the Food Court began properly, with Mertens circulatingRrequests For Proposals (RFPs) through the Ames Chamber of Commerce sometime in December 1994 or January 1995.

Interested restaurants were to submit proposals by March 31, 1995. Representatives of the restaurants then were to attend a mandatory meeting.

Seventeen proposals were submitted by the deadline. Sixteen representatives went to the meeting.

McDonald’s never submitted a proposal before the deadline date. No representative from McDonald’s attended the mandatory meeting.

Instead, the restaurant submitted a letter that stated its interest in having a franchise in the Union, but its inability to do so because of the state’s then restrictive franchise law.

The letter also noted McDonald’s interest in going ahead with the franchise if the law changed.

If Mertens had any intention of being fair, the McDonald’s question should have been answered then and there.

But it wasn’t.

If Mertens had any intention of bringing students into the decision, she would have involved, ideally, the student members of the Board of Directors.

But she didn’t.

An ad hoc committee of the Board of Directors was set up to review the proposals in early May 1995. This committee included student members of the Board of Directors.

Mertens, however, never gave the committee complete information as to all of the 17 proposals submitted.

She and a food service consultant picked the five “best” bids and then gave those proposals to the committee for its review.

One of the students on the committee has complained that his committee never saw the other proposals and, in essence, served only to rubber stamp Mertens’ choices.

One of the proposals to which Mertens had given original approval was from Taco John’s.

By Feb. 22, however, Mertens reported to the Board of Directors that Taco John’s had withdrawn its bid and thus the Union was left with the problem of operating a Mexican unit and a hamburger unit, instead of just a hamburger unit.

The Union didn’t have the funds available for both.

Funny, isn’t it, that Mertens would have already chosen a restaurant for the Food Court one month before the proposal deadline and two and a half months before the ad hoc committee, the only student voice in the process, would meet to make its decision?

What is even more curious is that Mertens did not use any of the other proposals submitted by the deadline to provide service in what was formerly Taco John’s area. Instead, that space remained open.

Granted, perhaps no other Mexican restaurant submitted a proposal by the deadline.

However, what Mertens did after deciding to leave that space open defies the concept of fair business practices.

Instead of circulating new RFPs for either of the open spaces in the Food Court, Mertens asked McDonald’s to submit a proposal for the hamburger unit. It did so and Mertens awarded McDonald’s the area.

Mind you, the proposal wasn’t submitted until November or December of 1995 — eight months after the original deadline for proposals.

The ad hoc committee was not reconvened to approve this development.

Mertens did, however, corner the SUB president and vice president in the Food Court and tell them about the news.

As Mertens put it, she told the SUB executives that the Union had the opportunity to contract with McDonald’s.

As she said, “Neither said they were against it. I don’t recall them jumping up and down, but I said I would pursue it.”

The now former SUB vice president recalls the conversation somewhat differently.

He said Mertens simply said the contract was something she was pursuing, as if it was already a done deal.

Indeed, all references to the McDonald’s contract in later Board of Directors’ meetings made it seem as though it was a done deal.

While the contract was mentioned, no discussion was made regarding the awkward timing of the deal, whether other hamburger restaurants were given the opportunity to bid, or whether this was something students really even wanted.

The Memorial Union Food Court provides a needed service to the students, faculty and staff at Iowa State.

The idea itself is not a bad one.

The way it has been managed by the managing director of the Union, however, leaves wide open questions concerning the amount of student input sought by an organization which receives more than $1 million in student fee money.

It also begs the question of whether any of the actions Mertens took regarding McDonald’s followed fair business practices, or the law.

Theresa Wilson is a graduate student in political science at ISU and a law student at Drake University.