Smith Alumna Blasts President Christ's Office for Bullying Green Street Cafe

Jan Carhart, MSW

Ms. Laurie Fenlason

Executive Director of Public Affairs

and Special Assistant to the President

Smith College

Northampton, MA 01063 July 19, 2009

Dear Ms. Fenlason:

Many thanks for your recent reply to my letter concerning Green Street Café. I also appreciate having a copy of the piece you wrote for the Hampshire Gazette.

While it’s clear that your understanding of the situation and that of the owners of Green Street Café differ dramatically, I remain convinced that the construction process and Smith’s handling of it has done the Café great harm. It appears the College expected John and Jim to forego their original lease with its option to extend the lease and to absorb the considerable expense of relocating, remodeling at a new location, and re-establishing their business elsewhere for approximately $65,000 -- only $35,000 of which entailed an actual cash payment to cover the substantial cost involved.

This hardly seems reasonable when an established business with a solid lease in place is generating gross revenues up to $700,000.00 or more per year and is comfortably providing income and benefits to two owners plus approximately ten fulltime employees. (Another ten or so part time employees received income, but no benefits.) Having spent many years working in financial and investment management, I fail to see the attractiveness -- much less generosity -- of such an offer and, in the absence of the College negotiating more reasonable terms, can only describe Smith’s position as, at best, mean-spirited or even sharp-dealing and bullying. It clearly left Jim and John with no alternative but to attempt continuing their business in the face of all the various problems created by the construction.

Furthermore, the implication that Green Street Café has no basis for claiming that the College “ceased doing business with the Café” seems disingenuous. There are, I know, many Smith employees who personally enjoy the restaurant and who likely use it for College-related functions now and then. In 2003 or 2004, however, Smith revoked the Café’s ability to bill the College directly for such functions, requiring instead that those hosting them pay personally by check or credit card then seek reimbursement from the College. It seems fair to say that refusing to accept invoices from the Café for college functions, among a handful of other actions apparently taken by the College, constituted a decision by Smith as an institution to cease doing direct business with the Café and dramatically diminished the income generated by the restaurant’s major institutional client. It terminated the friendly, mutually beneficial relationship the Café and Smith once enjoyed, a situation that seems especially unfortunate when the alternatives to using Green Street Café may in fact be more costly to the College.

I don’t want to spend time here reviewing other perspectives on the parking situation, on the Café’s closing over fire code issues, and various other things. Suffice it to say that I fear Smith has chosen to discredit the valid concerns and needs of an established commercial tenant in order to assert its own interests in the property. In doing so the College has severely financially compromised the café owners and their employees. Rather than displaying the caring, responsible behavior of a good citizen, the College appears willing to trample a tenant whose interests do not match those of the College, even in the face of those divergent interests having a leasehold interest that should protect them.

In short, I couldn’t be sorrier to learn that Smith is determined to pursue the course it has chosen. That said, if, at any time, my earlier offer might prove helpful, please don’t hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely yours,

Jan Carhart