Fri, Oct 29, 1999 

Does school go better with Coke?

By JOEL NELSON 

BARKHAMSTED, CT -- Do teaching, learning and athletics go better with Coke? 

For school officials at Northwestern, the answer is yes - but they're still working on the deal.

For the past six months the Board of Education at Northwestern Regional School District No. 7 has been working with a corporate recruiter to literally sell and market the middle and high school to corporations who may be interested in advertising within the school. 

Coca-Cola has taken the bait, and now the school is trying to reel them in.

"One of the things I was most pleased to hear was they are not interested in turning Northwestern into Coca-Cola High School," Superintendent Dr. Richard Carmelich said.

Carmelich met with three representatives of the Coca-Cola Corporation Tuesday to talk about a potential partnership. On the table was an $49,895 scoreboard proposal from Northwestern, and a $24,200 counter offer from Coca-Cola, $10,000 to $20,000 of which was earmarked for the scoreboard. 

The remainder would go to sports gear for the athletic department, software for the guidance department, soft drinks for school events, and coolers for the cafeteria.

Coke also offered the school a 25% share of vending sales. It is estimated the school's vending machines sell 30,000 cans of soft drink per year.

No agreements were made Tuesday. Instead, another meeting was scheduled that would also include members of Northwestern's cafeteria and school store staffs, as well as Carmelich and Coke. 

In the meantime Coke will share with Carmelich agreements the company has entered into with other school systems, allowing Carmelich to speak with other administrators about their experiences.

"I was generally pleased with the kind of discourse that took place," Carmelich said. "But we have a long way to go."

Despite the wide gap between the school's estimated costs of two new scoreboards - one outdoors at a cost of $26,890 and one in the gym, at a cost of $23,005 - the widest gap between Coke and Northwestern seems to be the issue of competition. Coke wants to be the only soft drink dealer on campus.

"I take it they didn't want to back off their demand for exclusivity?" board member Kerry Jassen asked.

"That's why they wanted to talk to the cafeteria staff," Carmelich responded.

Northwestern began seeking corporate partnerships in May when the weight of a $20-million renovation project was first felt by the school's finances. Northwestern contracted with The Idea Place, an East Granby marketing firm to seek funding. 

During its six months of work, The Idea Place netted the negotiations with Coke, and $9,200 in additional contributions, including $5,000 from O&G Industries, the firm carrying out the school's building project. 

Bob Sproat, The Idea Place's representative, also set up a meeting between Athletic Director Candy Perez and Pepsi Oct. 18 - "in an effort to see
what else might exist out there and to develop a spirit of cooperation with Coke."

The school board closed its contract with The Idea Place Tuesday, choosing to pursue leads internally for the time being, and to use Sproat on an as-needed basis in the future.

Coca-Cola studies remote-control pricing

The Associated Press
Date: 10/28/99 22:15

ATLANTA -- The Coca-Cola Co. is studying wireless technology that could allow bottlers to raise or lower soda prices by remote control at certain times -- say, in hot weather.
 
Lower prices in periods of slower sales would presumably bring in more business -- unless the higher prices at other times enraged customers. But a spokesman for the world's biggest soft drink maker said the company has no immediate plans to put such a machine into the marketplace. 

"The issue of the pricing is something we don't see happening any time soon, if ever," spokesman Rob Baskin said Thursday. "You could probably make a vending machine that could fly, too, but I don't think we would do that." 

The New York Times reported Thursday that the company is testing a machine that can automatically raise prices for its drinks in hot weather. It quoted chairman and chief executive M. Douglas Ivester's comments on the subject earlier this month to a Brazilian newsmagazine, Veja. 

The desire for a cold drink increases in the summer heat, Ivester said, so "it is fair that it should be more expensive. The machine will simply make this process automatic."

All content © 1999 The Kansas City Star

Niskayuna cuts deal with Pepsi

School expects goodies, $110K yearly; agreement follows state guidelines

By SHIRIN PARSAVAND

Gazette Reporter

NISKAYUNA (May 6, 1999)- The Niskayuna school district has become the latest area school district to enter into an exclusive agreement with a soft-drink company.

The 10-year pouring rights agreement with Pepsi-Cola Bottling Group gives the district an annual cash award of $50,000 a year, along with commissions based on the amount of drinks sold. The Board of Education approved the agreement Tuesday by a 5-0 vote.

Under the agreement, which takes effect July 1, Pepsi will supply all of the district's vending machines and the high school cafeteria.

The district will earn a 35 percent commission on the drinks sold, with annual commissions estimated to total $63,280. The company also agreed to provide software and promotional items, such as gym bags, said Mark Laplante, assistant superintendent for business.

The agreement with Pepsi was based on a model contract developed by the state Education Department, he said.

The district has been looking at the idea of a so-called "pouring rights" contract and talking to vendors for about six months, he said.

Pepsi will provide various drinks that are part of its product line, including soft drinks, ice tea, fruit juice, sports drinks and bottled water.

The company will donate up to 125 cases of beverages to PTO-sponsored events each year. Booster clubs will have to sell Pepsi products at concession stands during sports events, but they will be able to keep the profits, Laplante said.

He said the district can negotiate with Pepsi for additional revenues if it builds new recreational facilities at the high school and puts vending machines there. The district is now looking at adding a pool and weight room to the school.

Although the Pepsi logo could appear on some promotional items distributed in the schools, Laplante said district officials have told the company it should promote itself in a "tasteful manner."

He said that same request would apply if the district decided to ask Pepsi to put up a scoreboard, something soft-drink companies have done in other districts.

"Their logo, I'm sure, will appear, but in a tasteful manner," he said.

The Gloversville and Brunswick school districts have entered into similar deals with Coca Cola, and other area school districts are in talks with one or more soft-drink companies.

Area school districts tap bottlers' cash

By MIKE MacADAM

Gazette Reporter

[March 21, 1999] It's a fertile advertising opportunity: A building full of young consumers who are required by law to be there, every day. A captive audience, as one school superintendent put it.

Students in high schools, middle schools and elementary schools in New York state have become the targets of vending companies, specifically soft-drink giants Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola Co., through partnerships that pump money into the schools but give the vendors the exclusive right to sell their product at the school.

Virtually every school district in the Capital Region has heard proposals by representatives of Coke and Pepsi in the last year. A few districts have already signed up, some are on the verge of signing up, and many are still weighing the possibility. A few have said thanks, but no thanks.

The money is good - Gloversville, for example, accepted a $441,000, seven-year deal with Coke on Monday - but schools have been using extreme caution when considering "pouring rights" deals, as they're called.

That's because the New York state Department of Education has made it clear how such partnerships should operate by issuing a model contract to guide schools in their negotiations with the soft drink companies. The overriding desire is to keep commercialism from seeping into schools, while still taking advantage of the revenue that's available.

"Our concern is that we want to make sure that children attending school are not subjected to commercial exploitation," said department spokesman Bill Hirschen.

"We want all the resources focused on education and not to facilitate private commercial gain. It boils down to the fact that commercialism should not infringe upon the mission of schools, which is to instruct children."

`A captive audience'

``I've always felt like we're dealing with a captive audience," said Schenectady school district Superintendent Ray Colucciello, whose district is in the final stages of approving a pouring rights deal. "So you have to be careful what you do. We didn't bring them here to sell them stuff."

Most of the contracts cover 5-10 years. Typically, what the schools get is cold cash, usually with a large portion up front and the rest to be paid incrementally over the length of the contract. What the beverage companies get amounts to a soft-drink monopoly - the company stocks all vending machines on school grounds, provides all fountain drinks and trademark cups at district events, and supplies cafeteria drinks such as juices and packaged water as long as they conform to federal nutritional guidelines.

With districts always on the lookout for revenue sources other than taxes, the pouring rights contracts are worthy of investigation, especially since the district can use the money any way it sees fit.

The Brunswick Central School District in Rensselaer County was the first district in the area to jump on board, signing a 10-year deal with Coke last year worth about $250,000 that paid for a new concession stand, press box and scoreboards.

Gloversville will be able to pay for a technological referendum that's up for a vote in May that will add about 600 new computers to the district, and the taxpayers won't have to pay a dime.

The district is getting a lump sum of $180,000 from Coke and the balance of $261,000 over the next seven years.

"This happened at a good time for us," Gloversville Superintendent Don Lomanto said.

Waterford-Halfmoon, which will start looking at bids at the end of the month, could finance some projects that the district simply hasn't been able to afford, Superintendent James LaGoy said.

"We can live without it, but it's nice to see a huge chunk of money," he said.

"There's things we've put on the back burner, like painting the school gymnasium in the school colors, resurfacing the gymnasium floors and buying new curtains for the auditorium. We'd like to pay for these things without taxpayer money."

Scotia-Glenville was originally approached by Coke to finance a new scoreboard that would carry a Coke logo, but now Scotia-Glenville is exploring contract ideas that would give them the sole voice in how the money is used, Superintendent Mike Marcelle said.

"We've gotten away from that idea, but with the dollars, we could still buy a scoreboard," he said.

Careful consideration

Schools are taking their time when considering deals. They're required by state law to request formal bids from the vendors, and then the schools have to decide which deal is best.

Schenectady, for example, has spent the better part of a year investigating every aspect of a potential partnership, Colucciello said.

"It'll get done," Colucciello said. "We want to do what's best for the district financially, and balance it so that we're not pushing more product."

Since last July, the districts have been armed with a model contract supplied by the state to help them draw up deals. The contract includes articles that allow students and faculty to bring competitive products on campus for their own consumption, gives the district a recycling rebate, and reiterates nutritional restrictions.

The state got interested when the Liverpool school district set a precedent in the state last April by signing a 10-year, $1.53 million deal with Coke, specifically to refurbish its sports complex. The North Syracuse district soon followed suit.

New York already prohibits advertisement on school buses, and the Education Department is aware of a growing trend in other parts of the country to commercialize schools, Hirschen said.

One school in Grapeville, Texas, has a Dr. Pepper sign on its roof, visible to passing airplanes; others offer products supplied by fast-food chains in their cafeterias.

"We had to pay attention to it to make sure that school business is the business of educating kids," Hirschen said. "The model allows schools to earn money, but to do it in conjunction with school programs."

"We feel like the state Education Department is in the boat with us," Colucciello said. "In other parts of the country, you see ads on buses. The state has been very clear that students come here to learn."

`Good for both parties'

"We think it's good for both parties," said Coca-Cola spokesman Robert Lanz.

"Partnerships with schools have been going on since vending machines [were invented]. The only thing different today is that you have a specific number of years, like five years or ten years. The partnerships we're doing now are for the most part exclusive."

If that's the only difference, it's still enough for some districts, like Mechanicville and Amsterdam, to turn down deals.

The Education Department has drawn a line by limiting the advertising presence of soft-drink companies on campus, but the exclusivity built into the pouring rights concept insidiously crosses that line by itself, some say. The marketing forces may be more subtle than, say, a billboard, but they're still there.

Mechanicville turned down an offer from Coke in January.

"[The school board] did not want to see themselves in a commercial relationship, and did not feel that the money available was worth what they would see as a compromise to commercialism," Mechanicville Superintendent Bob Kennedy said.

"I have to agree. The point, to me, is that schools need to be in the business of protecting against exploitation, and this is an example of a potential for exploitation. It's commercial advertisement.

"It's a choice issue," he said. "The principle is more important than the money."

"It's definitely worth exploring, but you don't want to get too involved with big business," Marcelle said.

Schools and soda: to sign or not to sign with bottlers

Schools and soda: to sign or not to sign with bottlers LIBERTY: Is commercialism in schools smart business or a deal with the devil?

By Barbara Gref 
The Times Herald-Record (NY)
October 1, 2000

Look, said Brian Howard to his school board, I'll explain.

 "And then," said Howard, superintendent of Liberty Schools, "I'm getting out of the line of fire." 

On some fronts, the mere mention of an exclusive contract with a corporate juggernaut like Coca-Cola or Pepsi sends discussions into the emotional ozone. A national debate over commercial activity in public schools is exploding. 

And that's just what happened in Liberty Tuesday night. A movement is afoot to have all eight school districts in Sullivan County band together to get a deal with one of the soda giants for what is called "pouring rights" – the exclusive right to sell its products in all the school's vending machines. 

From a distance, it's a quandary over whether schools should allow such high-level commercial presence. But up close, some would say schools are trying to turn the tables on the big bottlers and get the upper hand when it comes to cashing in on something that's happening anyway.

The art of the deals 
Aside from the pool concept, the Sullivan proposal is not that different from what the Tri-Valley Schools in Grahamsville have already done. The business office there arranged to get 35 percent on each Pepsi product sold in the school when Tri-Valley signed an exclusive deal with Pepsi about two years ago. The take is about three times what it had been getting, and now there are more vending machines, which also adds to the revenue – about $12,000 so far.

Kingston schools have one of the more lucrative deals in the region. The district reaped $350,000 from a 10-year deal with Coca-Cola, which gave Coke exclusive pouring rights and gave the district higher commissions plus a fee for the exclusivity.

Kingston Superintendent Arthur Stellar wrote the deal up as part of a front-page spread in the national magazine, "American School Board Journal" this past spring. The stories touted ways to stretch school dollars, which, in Kingston, totals more than $87 million in annual school spending. 

More than 20 schools upstate have deals that compare, usually with Coke or Pepsi. But other companies can theoretically try to get the contracts, too. 

Such financial benefits were clear to the Liberty School Board. 

Still, it took less than 15 minutes for the idea to be booted out, with the request that it never come up on the agenda again. 

"This tells the students subliminally and really that the schools back this. And that we can sell ourselves," board member Matthew Frumess said. "Why don't we just put a Nike swoosh on the sides of the schools?" he asked.

Getting in on the bucks 
The national reports are stunning: 
A Wisconsin-based commercialism-in-schools watchdog group said on Sept. 14 that corporate presence in schools appears to have increased fourfold since 1990, with exclusive contracts increasing more than tenfold over the same period. 

Those observations are backed up by a Sept. 8 federal report, ordered by two members of Congress, that said pouring-rights contracts lead the pack when it comes to commercial activity in public schools. 

And now, some years into the debate, the issue is taking on a new edge. 

Sullivan BOCES Superintendent Martin Handler is both a fan of the contract idea and the one proposing it. 

For him, this is not about getting commercial; it's about getting smart. 

He's inclined to agree with Frank DeMayo of the Liberty School Board, who was in the minority Tuesday night. 

"This is the time that we're in – big industry rules," said DeMayo. "But if there is a way to get more funding for the schools, then let's see what's out there." 

The schools are entitled to a piece of this pie, said Handler. "This is a very lucrative business. 

"Typically, the schools are not compensated anywhere near the return that private businesses are." 

"Somebody's going to make money here – that's a fact – and it's our belief that schools ought to be able to share in some of these profits," Handler said. 

One of the leading school-soda vending lawyers in the nation, Syracuse-based Benjamin Ferrara, is working on the Sullivan deal. Like every deal in New York state, the Sullivan deal would prohibit big corporate signs, billboards and score- boards. The only ads would be those on the fronts of the schools. 

All of that is due to the state Education Department's rules. Elsewhere in the nation, rules are more lax and ads can be more prevalent. 

The contracts, said Ferrara, are designed to give schools a better deal than they are generally getting now. "Districts need revenue they can't always get from the taxpayers or the state – why shouldn't they get it (from a soft-drink contract)?" he said.  Schools often get only about 10 percent (or even zero) on vending sales. 

Ferrara's contract generally gets about 30 to 40 percent on sales, plus a substantial fee for exclusivity as well as recycling money and a chip-in from the soda company on the lawyer's fees.

Exploiting a captive audience?
Despite all of that, some still see it as a deal with the devil. High-profile national groups – like the Oakland-based Center for Commercial Free Education – are supporting that point of view. 

The state Education Department is cautious in its way, too. In a 1998 memo to all school superintendents, state education officials warned: "The department wants to ensure that children attending school by virtue of the compulsory education law are not subject to commercial exploitation in school. Moreover, it is essential that school personnel and resources be focused upon education and not on facilitating private commercial gain." 

Nonetheless, the department drew up a model contract that schools could follow if they went the way of an exclusive deal. 

It's tough to turn down the deal, Liberty board member Charlie Barbuti said Tuesday night. It's tough to turn your back on things like the fancy new field Kingston was able to get. 

But, Barbuti added, "It's wrong. " … Coca-Cola, which is a very smart company, is spending an awful lot of money on 9-year-olds' loyalty," he said to his school board colleagues. "And then if you do it, it's not your school any more, it's their school."

Schools wrong to allow firms 'pouring rights

An Albany Times Union Letter to the Editor
First published: Sunday, November 12, 2000 Schools wrong to allow firms 'pouring rights'

Bethlehem Central should be added to the list of school districts that have wisely rejected the lure of corporate money in exchange for marketing unhealthy beverages to a captive audience -- public school students ("Schools hear call of commercialism,'' Nov. 4). 

These school boards have refused to allow multinational corporations to further tighten their grip on the youth market in their school buildings. Exclusive "pouring rights'' contracts open the door to increased commercial influences and pressures. A school is a place for learning. It ought not be an avenue for corporations to manipulate children and to establish their brand identity.

JEFF BROWN
Delmar

Buffalo News - Schools to join beverage contract talks

By KATHY KELLOGG Cattaraugus Correspondent 
The Buffalo News
11/21/00

FRANKLINVILLE - Franklinville school officials will talk with a consortium of Cattaraugus-Allegany BOCES school districts studying a contract with a single beverage vendor to create a shared source of new revenue for the group. 

The school board Thursday authorized Superintendent Richard M. Wachter to enter the consortium discussions and return next month with more details about the concept, which is being put into practice in other locations. 

Wachter said districts that make a commitment to participate in the later stages of negotiations would help tailor a contract with the vendor, with more districts expected to generate larger vendor revenues. 

In the meantime, the pouring rights consortium must provide some information to BOCES, such as the number of dispensing machines in use and enrollment figures for each school. 

Wachter said research will soon begin to determine those facts. Board members stopped short of making a final commitment, but asked for information about the possibility of additional income and how a commercial presence could affect current district operations. 

The district's philosophical position in the pouring rights debate will have to be established later, Wachter said.

(January 16, 2001) Cattaraugus-Allegany BOCES is currently accepting proposals to potentially grant a company exclusive rights to sell beverages on-site at all three of its centers and 18 of its component school districts. Any interested individual, company or corporation is invited to submit a sealed proposal, which must be received by 2 p.m. on Feb. 2, 2001.

The boards of education at each of these districts have expressed an interest in offering the exclusive “beverage pouring and vending rights” as a way to enrich and enhance their educational programs by forging a mutually beneficial relationship with the private sector. Similar contracts across the country have reaped up-front money, annual income, scoreboards, educational scholarships and much more.

Final commitments to offer the exclusive “beverage pouring and vending rights” will be determined after the proposals are reviewed. Each district will have the option of approving their involvement in this program through a contractual arrangement with the successful vendor.

It is anticipated that the BOCES contract would be for five years and would begin on July 1, 2001. A BOCES sub-committee will open the proposals on Feb. 2 for review. Interested parties requiring more information can contact Thomas C. Potter, BOCES controller, at 1825 Windfall Road, Olean, 376-8250.

Published Wednesday, August 4, 1999, in the Miami Herald

Teens may pop more soda tops in schools

By STEVE BOUSQUET, Capital Bureau Chief

TALLAHASSEE -- An ice-cold Coke just before math class? Miami-Dade and Broward teens may soon be able to make that choice -- to the dismay of nutrition experts and school cafeteria managers.

Gov. Jeb Bush and the Cabinet are scheduled to vote next week on a proposal to allow the free flow of soft drinks at high schools throughout the state all day, not just in the afternoon.

Supporters say increased vending machine sales would pay for school uniforms, computers and other needs, but critics worry that the change would open the floodgates to soda sales in schools, with students spending lunch money on soda and bringing beverages into class.

``Are we exchanging short-term money-making efforts in school for our children's long-term well-being?'' asked Beverly Girard of Sarasota, leader of the Florida School Food Service Association, a trade group. ``This is very simply a money-making venture at the high school level.''

The 7,000-member group is intensifying its opposition to the idea and is asking its members to lobby Cabinet members to block the change. Bush and the six Cabinet members, meeting as the state Board of Education, will vote Aug. 12 in Tallahassee.

Current state law bans soft-drink sales until an hour after the end of each day's lunch period. But some cash-strapped school systems -- supported by the soft-drink lobby -- see soda sales as a way to help pay for football uniforms, computers and other expenses. Michele Springer, a spokeswoman for Coca-Cola, said that soda, in moderation, is not harmful to a child's health and that school districts need new ways to generate money.

``They have very tight budgets for public dollars, so it makes sense that they go to the private sector -- including the local Coca-Cola bottler,'' Springer said.

Florida Education Commissioner Tom Gallagher has taken up their cause. He has proposed a change in state rules to give school boards power to sell sodas on high school grounds -- as long as the same vending machines also stock fruit juice. The ban on soda sales during lunch and breakfast periods at high school would remain in effect, as would a daylong ban on soda sales at elementary and middle schools.

``The rule as proposed would give school districts the flexibility to allow soft drinks to be sold or not to,'' said JoAnn Carrin, a Gallagher aide. ``It just turns it over to the local school district as a local decision-making authority. The parents can have input, and community members can have input.''

In South Florida, the apparent beneficiary of the rule change is Coca-Cola, which has cut exclusive deals with some high schools to promote its products. Ads promoting Coke have become increasingly common on school marquees or football scoreboards.

Frank Rudd, executive director of the Florida School Food Service Association, calls soda sales ``a foot in the door'' that could lead to open sales of candy, potato chips and other junk food.

Critics say teens already drink too much soda at home when they should be drinking milk instead. They said consumption of sugary, carbonated drinks by teenagers is contributing to a nationwide surge in obesity in children, documented in numerous studies.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a food-watchdog group in Washington, says some teen soda drinkers consume more than five cans a day. The group calls soda ``liquid candy'' and says growing children should drink milk or fruit juice instead.

Judy Rodriguez, a University of North Florida nutritionist who spoke on behalf of Florida's milk producers at a news conference Tuesday, said schools, already functioning as surrogate parents to many children, have a responsibility to teach students positive nutrition habits. Said Rodriguez: ``Unlimited access to sodas creates an unhealthy environment.''

Bush's secretary of elder affairs, Gema Hernandez, has come out in opposition to the soft-drink proposal, saying it would undercut the efforts of the national school lunch program and could hurt the nutritional needs of adolescents.

Copyright 1999 Miami Herald

Mohonasen to look at funding scheme

Commercial sponsor idea discussed by board

By MICHAEL DeMASI

Gazette Reporter

ROTTERDAM (July 7, 1998)- If the Scotia-Glenville School District is considering letting commercial sponsors pay for new athletic scoreboards, why not do the same at Mohonasen?

That was the question posed by Mohonasen school board trustee Karen Dagostino Monday night. The answer will be explored by district officials.

Scotia-Glenville administrators are mulling over a $24,000 proposal from Coca-Cola to fund football and soccer field scoreboards in exchange for the right to sell Coke at games and other benefits.

The proposal raises questions about the propriety of giving private companies exclusive access to students. The Liverpool School District near Syracuse recently announced a $1.53 million deal with Coke, setting a precedent for such sponsorships in New York State.

There are no concrete proposals at Mohonasen, but Dagostino said she was recently approached by a Pepsi official interested in the idea.

Superintendent of Schools Audrey N. Farnsworth said she has to research the legality of the sponsorships and how Mohonasen would go about selecting a company.

"We want to look into it because it may be another revenue source for the high school," Farnsworth said.

* * *

Gazette Opinion

Live with limited ads in school

[June 25, 1998]  The scoreboard at Scotia-Glenville High School's football field is more than 30 years old and doesn't work as well as it used to. That the Board of Education hasn't sprung for a new one speaks well for its spending priorities, but at some point a new scoreboard probably wouldn't be a bad idea.

Coca Cola Co. will gladly take care of that - at no cost to the district. In fact, Coke will not only provide the district with a couple of nice, new scoreboards (one for its soccer field, too), it will give the district $1,000 a year. There are just a couple of small catches: The scoreboards will be emblazoned with the Coke logo, and the school must agree to market Coke products exclusively in its cafeteria.

We've frowned on this kind of commercialization in the past, especially in schools, but it's becoming harder to object, given the times we live in.

Advertising is inescapable: It's on television, radio, the sides of buses, even on the clothes we wear.

There are places that it shouldn't be - in school classrooms, for example - and we would still be opposed to something like Whittle Communications' Channel One, the advertising-filled TV news program that the state Board of Regents wisely voted to ban from New York schools several years ago.

But an athletic field isn't a classroom, or even a school corridor. It's a place that kids - and adults - go to watch a sporting event. It's also a place they might be interested in consuming a soft drink.

Obviously, an exclusive marketing arrangement would work hand in glove with the advertising to Coke's benefit, but the school would be getting something in return.

And Coke sells not only soda, but fruit juices, so-called sport drinks and other beverages less objectionable than sugar- and caffeine-laden Coke.

But the corporate logo should be discreet, not the dominant feature of the scoreboard. Nor should a contract be awarded by Scotia-Glenville or any other school district without an attempt to solicit offers from other responsible soft-drink companies (Pepsi). Finally, the deal must not violate existing contracts with food services, or laws that forbid participants in the federal school lunch program from selling soda before or at lunch.

S-G rejects `pouring rights' contract 
Exclusive arrangement causes concern

By SHIRIN PARSAVAND
Gazette Reporter


GLENVILLE [November 10, 1999]- Not wanting to give one company the sole right to put beverage vending machines in schools, Scotia-Glenville school officials have decided not to enter into an exclusive contract with a soda company.

The Scotia-Glenville Board of Education was considering proposals from Coca-Cola or Pepsi, which each wanted exclusive rights to sell its products in the schools' vending machines. But five of the seven board members rejected the idea Wednesday.

Several area school districts, including Schenectady, Niskayuna, Gloversville and Brunswick, have entered into so-called "pouring rights contracts" with either Coca-Cola or Pepsi.

Other districts, including Mechanicville and Amsterdam, have turned down similar proposals from the soft-drink giants. Some school officials see inherent commercialism in the contracts, which usually run from five to 10 years.

John Carpenter, president of the Scotia-Glenville school board, said he was at first undecided about whether the district should enter into a deal with Coke or Pepsi. But he found other board members' arguments against the idea persuasive.

He said he didn't like the idea of an exclusive arrangement, and he was concerned that the district would have trouble controlling prices in a long-term contract.

* * * *

NY pouring rights contracts must be competitively bid

Reference: Commissioner's Decision No. 14,489

The State Commissioner has ruled that "pouring rights" agreements have to be competitively bid pursuant to General Municipal Law Section 103 where there are annual expenditures over $10,000. (General Municipal Law 103 does not permit a Request For Proposal as allowed under Section104). The November 30, 2000 decision is available at the State Education Department page (it involved Westhampton) and was uploaded on
January 8, 2001. All the pouring rights agreements throughout the State that were not competitively bid are void and any continuing expenditure is illegal. Under the extensive and uniform Court precedent, the School Districts can keep the money paid, however, as the cola giants are presumed to know the law, the pouring rights aspect of any agreement is void and must be rebid.

The Cola giants are mainly interested in developing brand loyalty to their main cola brand. About half of the sales are of carbonated sodas.

Only 2% of our children meet all the nutritional guidelines and %16 meet none of them. Children, especially girls, need to have calcium deposited now in order to avoid broken bones later in life. In addition to the caffeine and sugar, the phosphoric acid rots teeth. And so even where these agreements are allowed, School Districts should exclude carbonated sodas from the agreement. Otherwise, the School District has a financial incentive to undermine proper nutritional goals, which tax dollars go to support under the federal lunch and breakfast programs.

The exclusivity undermines competition as to price and quality, stifles innovation, forces local businesses out of business, and prevents new business from developing.

Such agreements violate the state and federal antitrust laws by reason of the unreasonably anticompetitive nature of the exclusive dealing arrangement and the subversion of the competitive bidding laws.

Coke and Pepsi have both reimbursed the fees (as part of an "administrative procurement fee") associated with the incorrect legal advice that the pouring rights contracts did not have to be competitively bid. And so it is entirely equitable that they forfeit the up-front moneys paid (and it's also the law).

Ohio dentists battle soft drinks in schools

Published Tuesday, September 26, 2000, in the Akron Beacon Journal.

Ohio dentists battle soft drinks in schools
Toledo group says soda companies are marketing to captive audience, increasing cavity rate of pupils 

TOLEDO: The practice of selling ``pouring rights'' to soft-drink companies may be profitable for schools, but it's not in the best
interest of the students, a group of Toledo dentists says.

It is hoping to go national with its effort to educate apparently complacent parents about soft-drink marketing in schools and tooth
decay among children.

The dentists say their teen patients increasingly are showing up with cavities. The dentists blame part of that increase on the widespread availability of soft drinks in schools.

The Toledo Dental Society (4895 Monroe Street, #103, Toledo, OH 43623, (419) 474-8611) has given $10,000 to the local education campaign by the Soft Drink Task Force of Northwest Ohio. The Ohio Dental Association, sparked by the Toledo Dental Society, has given $10,000 to underwrite a similar statewide educational campaign.

Next month, the association plans to attend the annual meeting of the American Dental Association and encourage the group to take similar action.

``I'm proud Ohio is leading the country,'' said Dylan Bernstein, a native Ohioan, who works for the Oakland, Calif.-based Center for Commercial-Free Public Education.  His group was formed to fight what it saw as improper marketing to a captive audience -- students.

Granting exclusive ``pouring rights'' began three years ago, and about 200 school districts in the country have them now, he said.

Soft drinks have been in the schools for years, but the new contracts usually stipulate that machines be added and other actions
be taken to increase the exposure of soft drinks to children.

Michael Jacobson is executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said the efforts of the Toledo task force were unusual.

Jacobson, whose group attracted attention for criticizing Chinese food and movie popcorn because of their health risks, said increased soft-drink marketing in schools has met with little resistance nationwide.

School boards often are enticed by the chance to earn extra money in tough financial times, and the public doesn't see much of a problem with the practice or hasn't heard of the activity, he said.

``The basic issue is why do they sell junk food at all in the schools? When it comes to nutrition, schools are speaking out of both sides of their mouths,'' he said.

Schools hear call of commercialism

By BENJAMIN LESSER, Times Union Staff writer
First published: Saturday, November 4, 2000

 Schools hear call of commercialism
Corporations offer big bucks for soda pouring rights at districts Mega-corporations

 Coca-Cola and Pepsi are battling for the hearts and minds of students across the region. So far, they have poured more than a million dollars into at least five local school districts for "pouring rights.'' 

But most local schools are still just saying no to the lucrative deals and are fighting against what they view as creeping commercialism. 

Some districts, like North Colonie ((518.785.8591)), ban marketing in the schools. 

A marriage of public schools with private business will erode the quality of education, believes Dylan Bernstein, senior program director at the Center for Commercial-Free Public Education in Oakland, Calif. 

"It has scary long-term implications. You could have nutrition education brought to you by McDonald's or environmental issues brought to you by Exxon,'' he said. 

But Niskayuna School District Assistant Superintendent Mark Laplante said his district's 10-year soda pouring rights deal with Pepsi has already netted the district roughly $100,000. 

"This allowed us to do things on a broader scale and a quicker fashion,'' Laplante said.  The money was used to buy equipment like computers and to increase faculty training, he said. 

The 10-year contract is in its second year and could net the district close to $1 million in the end. Other than the vending machines, there is no advertising for Pepsi in district schools. 

But still, warns Bernstein, "It's a huge first step down a slippery slope.'' 

Other Capital Region school districts that have inked deals with Coca-Cola or Pepsi include Schenectady ($625,000), Cohoes ($380,000), Brittonkill ($150,000) and East Greenbush.

Districts that discussed the issue with soda giant representatives but either rejected the offers or tabled them for future review include Averill Park, Albany, Mechanicville, Waterford-Halfmoon, Shenendehowa, Lansingburgh, Ballston Spa and Schuylerville ((518.695.3255)).

Schenectady School District Manager of Employee Benefits Dick Yager said, "We were a little bit skittish because of that issue (commercialism). We wanted to evaluate it over the five years to determine whether this was a good or bad thing.'' 

Schenectady signed a five-year, $625,000 agreement with the Coca-Cola Corporation two years ago. 

A report on commercialism in public schools was issued last month by the General Accounting Office, a federal watchdog agency. It found school/business partnerships have increased sharply over the past 10 years. 

Although districts in New York are constrained in their ability to make such arrangements with corporations because of a state regulation forbidding commercial activities on school grounds, there are exceptions, including soda pouring rights.  Other forms of marketing to kids also exist. 

The Saratoga Springs School District has, in the past, given students coupons for free food at McDonald's, Pizza Hut or other fast food restaurants as reward for academic achievement. 

"The kids would get one as a reward for good attendance, good behavior, reading the most books, lots of things,'' said Superintendent John MacFadden. 

MacFadden said he understands why some schools would take the next step and sign pouring rights contracts. 

"One side says 'The kids are bombarded with it anyway, so what's the difference?' On the other side, the school has always been considered a sanctuary.'' 

Several districts, like North Colonie, forbid entering into arrangements with corporations. 

"We don't think commercialism in schools is a good idea,'' said Thomas Rybaltowski, business administrator.

Lansingburgh School District makes deal with Pepsi

By Jim Franco, The Record (Troy, NY)
November 09, 2000

TROY - Pepsi will have exclusive "pouring rights" in the Lansingburgh Central School District, and in exchange the soft-drink giant will pour $200,000 into the district over the next seven years. 

District Superintendent Lee Bordick said Pepsi vending machines will replace those that sell competing brands on district property. Pepsi will not be allowed, however, to use logos or other marketing propaganda.  A restriction that has the support of Bordick, as well as the state law. 

"This agreement is a low key approach, and it does provide an opportunity for educational enhancement for students," Bordick said, adding that he does not believe it opens the door to the commercial exploitation of schools. "We think it is a positive partnership." He called the transition "seamless" as the district already has some Pepsi machines in place. The most noticeable difference, he said, will be additional machines outside the buildings to cater to people attending outside events. 

The concept of using schools as an advertising venue to target the student population is controversial. However, districts, leery of raising property taxes and faced with the prospects of higher state educational standards, aged infrastructure and the advent of charter schools which siphon money from their general fund, are forced to be creative in their ideas to generate revenue. 

The General Accounting Office, a federal watchdog group, found a sharp increase in school/business partnerships over the last decade in a report submitted to Congress last month. They also discovered few, if any, restrictions that govern advertising on school grounds. 

Only 19 states address the issue, and all but a few leave the decision up the local school districts. In New York, there can be no direct advertising in schools or on school grounds, but a business can sponsor school events. 

Other area school districts that have entered into an agreement similar to Lansingburgh's, although some are with Coca-Cola, include Schenectady ($625,000), Cohoes ($380,000 (518.237.0100)), and Brittonkill ($150,000). 

In Lansingburgh, Bordick said, the money will be used to fund scholarships, purchase computer software, improve the facilities or enhance educational programs in the district.

"I think we have been very careful in crafting the agreement with Pepsi," Bordick said. "It's an opportunity to provide educational enhancement with safeguards and controls against the heavy commercial aspects that some people are worried about."

Pepsi deal may add middle schools
Wake (NC) board looks at federal law

By T. KEUNG HUI, Staff Writer
January 19, 2001

A sweet soft-drink deal from Pepsi could net the Wake County school system $6.3 million over five years, but critics say it would come at the price of students' health. Administrators will recommend Monday that the school board accept Pepsi Bottling Ventures' bid to exclusively sell drinks to students in Wake's high schools and, for the first time, at middle schools. School officials maintain that the deal, which would be one of the most lucrative in the nation, would provide Wake needed money and not increase consumption of soft drinks.

Wake would get $3.1 million in cash, and Pepsi says the school system could generate another $3.2 million in commissions from the sale of soda and noncarbonated drinks such as juices.

"It doesn't put any more soft drinks in the hands of students than they already have, while we put in what resources that come from that back to the classroom," said Wake Superintendent Bill McNeal.

But some public interest and medical groups, including the American Dental Association, have come out against the growing number of exclusive soft-drink contracts being signed by school systems around the country. Andrew Hagelshaw, executive director of the Center For Commercial-Free Public Education, said Wake is deluding itself if it doesn't think the deal would encourage students to drink more soda.

"There's a difference between kids bringing drinks to school and a campus actively marketing drinks," Hagelshaw said.

Pepsi would be able to put up advertising signs in schools with the permission of each principal.

School officials stress that it would be up to each principal to decide whether to accept any vending machines, which would sell carbonated and noncarbonated drinks. The principals would also decide how many machines to take, where to place them and what times they would operate. Currently, schools negotiate their own contracts. Eight high schools have contracts with Pepsi and six work with Coca-Cola.

If Pepsi's offer is approved, a policy will be adopted covering how to distribute the revenue. McNeal said Thursday he would push to guarantee that no school gets less money than it currently gets.

Broughton High School, the only high school that doesn't sell soda, would go along with the other schools if the deal is approved, according to principal Diane Payne.

The new contract could lead to a major expansion into the middle schools. Paul Strickland, head of the Wake school committee that reviewed the bids, said none of the middle schools told him they had soft-drink machines for students.

Federal and state law prohibits soft drinks from being sold during lunch time in secondary schools and at anytime during the school day in schools serving grades K through eight.

But Wake is questioning interpretation of the laws for middle schools, which serve grades six through eight. Although McNeal said he doesn't expect middle school principals to sell soda until after school, Wake has a legal opinion from board attorney Ann Majestic that the option to sell during the school day exists because middle schools are secondary schools.

Like most other school systems that have looked at exclusive soft-drink contracts, the incentive was money. Wake has talked about a systemwide contract since 1998, but not until this spring's budget problems did the idea get moving.

Companies are willing to pay more for exclusive contracts to get their competitors off the market.

"It's a way for us to creatively find more money without reaching into taxpayers' pockets," said school board Chairman Bill Fletcher. "The taxpayers will approve of it."

Wake officials maintain they can get more money marketing for all the middle and high schools rather than having them negotiate their own deals. Strickland pointed out that the 14 high schools that currently have individual contracts were projected to get $213,682 for half a year.

Strickland's committee is recommending Pepsi's bid over offers from six other competitors. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated, which offered the same commission per sale as Pepsi but guaranteed only $1.2 million in cash for a non-exclusive contract, came closest to matching Pepsi.

John Cantando, senior business development manager for Pepsi Bottling Ventures, declined comment Thursday until after the vote.

Exclusive contracts with soft-drink companies are the most common form of commercial activity in the nation's schools, according to a September report by the General Accounting Office, a nonpartisan congressional agency that audits federal programs. But the report found that arrangements vary greatly, ranging from a Grand Rapids, Mich., district that gets as much as $1.5 million per year to a Ludington, Mich., contract that paid the district $12,000 for a new scoreboard and commissions of about $4,800 per year.

Strickland said Pepsi is offering Wake about $29 per student.

Hagelshaw of the Center for Commercial-Free Public Education said Wake would be getting one of the largest annual payouts of any school system in the country. According to the center, the number of exclusive soft-drink deals nationwide has increased from 46 in April 1998 to 240 this past July. Since July, at least 10 school systems around the country have signed contracts, including the Winston-Salem/Forsyth schools.

Winston-Salem is projected to get $4.79 million over five years from Pepsi. Hagelshaw said Brunswick and Burke counties and Rowan-Salisbury schools also have exclusive contracts. Durham and Chapel Hill-Carrboro schools have looked at exclusive soft-drink contracts but opted against them.