Dai ly fp Trojan
University of Southern California
Volume LXVIII, No. 40	Los An9eles- California	Thursday, November 13, 1975
Committee proposes tuition hike near 6%, 8% faculty pay raise
Now they’re tearing up the parking lot to put in a paradise
By Carolyn Horn and Wayne Walley
associate city editors
It started out with a plan for no increase, then turned to a proposed 10.2% hike and finally landed somewhere between 5.5% and 6.5%.
That was the proposed tuition increase for 1976-77 that evolved after much compromising when the Budget Commission of the Resource Management and Planning Committee met Wednesday.
The commission also approved an 8% increase in the salaries of faculty and staff members after hearing a request for a 24% salary increase from the Committee on Employment and Remuneration of the Faculty Senate.
“Today involved a lot of compromising. None of the decisions are really final, however, because they have to go through so many more channels,” said J. Jerry Wiley, chairman of the commission.
The recommendation by the commission must be approved by the Resource Management and Planning Committee, the President’s Advisory Council and the Finance Committee of the Board of Trustees before a final decision is made by the trustees in late January.
If accepted by the board, students would pay $178 to $210 more per year on a flat-fee tuition basis.
Students ask no hike
The motion that there be no tuition increase was made by David Blackmar, the chairman of the Student Senate. The motion was based on a paper compiled by the senate.
“Tuition is not the only source of income for the university,” Blackmar said. “The paper is an attempt to show that, if the budget were reshuffled, a tuition increase would be unnecessary.”
The report recommended a 6%—or $3 million—increase in expenditures but only accounted for $700,000 in in-
creased revenue through budget restructuring.
Commission members did not feel that the report was specific in determining how the university could account for inflation and budget increases without raising tuition.
The motion failed by an 8-1 vote.
Faculty suggests 10.2% After that proposal failed, Paul W. Knoll, acting chairman of the Faculty Senate committee, moved that the commission approve a 10.2% increase in tuition.
He said the figure would be in line with the projected rise in consumer prices for next year.
Michael Scarpelli, the director of the Office of Financial Aid, disagreed.
“A two-digit figure creates a psychological barrier that would be unacceptable to both incoming and enrolled students,” he said. “The feeling of a 6% to 8% raise is a little easier to swallow.
“With a 10.2% increase, I would begin to worry how the Financial Aid Office is going to get money for the students.” Because of a 5-5 tie vote, the motion was defeated.
After considering the compensation recommendation and reviewing previous decisions on program development, the commission recommended that the tuition parameter be set between 5.5% and 6.5%
Faculty pay raise Members of the Faculty Senate felt that salary increases would not affect the cost of tuition and recommended a 24% increase in take-home pay.
“Up to a 35% increase in salary can be achieved with no increase in tuition, assuming a constant enrollment,” said Michael Deprano, associate professor of economics.
The members said that surplus funds and other previously undistributed monies to the amount of $20 mil-
(continued on page 2)
CATCH THE VIBES AND RAYS—As temperatures in Los Angeles reached the 80s Wednesday, the Downright August band performed a noon concert on
the Student Activities Center patio. Many students showed up to enjoy the sun and band, relax and eat their lunches. DT photo by Bob Selan.
Committee denies Student Senate recommendation for no tuition hike
By Sherie Stark
staff writer
A motion by the Student Senate for no tuition increase next year was denied at the Budget Commission meeting Wednesday by a vote of 8-1.
The student proposal asked for no tuition increase, but stated that if an increase were unavoidable, it should not exceed 2.84%, the figure cited in the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education as being the percentage of disposable personal income the average family has to spend each year.
There was some debate at the commission meeting as to the significance of the report’s percentage, because some members interpreted it to be in addition to the inflation rate, which would put the actual percentage in the neighborhood of 9%.
Glenn Sonnenberg, head of the senate financial affiars unit, said the motion for no increase was only a starting point for the compromises that will be discussed in the various levels of recommendation before the Board of Trustees makes the final tuition decision
He said he hopes that student recommendations will ultimately keep the increase below 5%.
The 15-page proposal his committee drafted calls for the financial demands of the university to be met by means other than tuition increases. Examples of these means, such as the elimination of administrative waste and the reordering of budget priorities, were explored by the student report.
The report recognizes the necessity for budget increases in certain areas, and calls for a 6%
increase in faculty salary beyond the 2% in fringe benefits already budgeted.
But it also suggests that the $l-million contingency fund proposal for next year be denied because of what it seen as an already substantial financial “cushion” for possible drops in enrollment.
Other cuts in the proposed budget are a 3% cut in staff members and using excess money from last year (due to an unexpected increase in enrollment) for program development, rather than raising tuition an extra 4% for development.
The proposal contends that if this surplus money is not used, whatever advantage the program improvements might give to the university’s drawing appeal would be offset by the negative effect of yet another exorbitant tuition increase.
“It becomes a vicious cycle that will eventually kill the university if no one speaks up and redirects it,” Sonnenberg said. “The more tuition is raised, the more people are forced to drop, the more tuition will have to be raised, etc. The answer to all financial demands cannot be simply to keep raising tuition.”
He said the decisions reached at the Budget Commission level are not final, and that student input is still needed to help with a rally, and proposal revisions.
“The thing is, the students involved with this report have put a lot of hours in the past weeks, but we can’t possibly have the time or resources to devote to this issue that the administrators have. The spread of the workload is just too thin, and if our proposals are to be heard we really need more input.”
With two parking structures under construction and parking spaces at a premium, the university has decided to replace one lot now in use with landscaping.
Work on a new landscape development project between Town and Gown Foyer and Allan Hancock Foundation began last week, and promises to add a touch of greenery to the parking area which once occupied that space.
The new construction will connect Childs Way with Crocker Plaza, located between the Law Center and Hoffman Hall.
Michael J. Bocchicchio, university architect and director of architectural services, said that the development will include a central walkway and brick pathways to different entrances ofthe two buildings.
He said the area is being designed similar to the landscaping in Alumni Park and Crocker Plaza.
In addition to making the area a pleasant place to rest or study, a brick pathway will provide handicapped students with an easy access to the Chapel of Silence, Bocchicchio said.
Harry E. Kyne, associate director of the physical plant, said the project should be completed about the first week in December.
DIG WE MUST—One of the hazards of living on an inner-city campus is a lack of greenery, but construction here is not going to result in more concrete. TVie
segment of campus near Town and Gown Foyer is going to be landscaped. This area was formerly a parking lot. DT photo by Bob Selan.