Problems in staff training cited by women’s caucus
BY ;ent scho cnecht
Staff Writer
The Women’s Caucus has complained that a staff survey has resulted in the development of a training program that will not meet the needs of employees.
The survey was taken last spring when the President’s Advisory Council put together a task force to study the possibility of offering training courses for all staff members.
The survey had a greater response than any survey previously taken at the university.
It was hoped that a program similar to one offered by UCLA could be provided. Courses on communication skills, on-the-job assertiveness and relieving tension while working could be offered.
After the survey was completed and the results compiled, a report entitled A Training and Development Program for the Staff of the University of Southern California: The Report and Recommendations of the Task Force on Training and Development was issued analyzing the information from the survey. It was stated in
the objectives section of the report that “The program is a direct response to the expressed needs of significant numbers of our staff regarding their desire to have access to seminars, courses and programs beneficial to them.”
But the caucus said the seminars that will be offered as a result ofthe survey are not a direct response, and backed up its statement by citing examples of dis-crepencies in the report’s information and the resultant course offerings.
A paper provided by the caucus independently tabulated the results of the survey and found the five most desired courses for secretaries would be (in descending order of popularity): shorthand, written communication, interviewing techniques, computer training and accounting.
In overall selection—including all staff nonsecretaries—the same choices except accounting were chosen (budget was substituted), and the general order was different.
Neither written communication nor interviewing techniques, however, will be included in procedural courses offered by the university. But telephone manner, the next-to-last choice in the survey, will be offered.
The questionnaire itself was considered inadequate by some, said Elizabeth Koochoo, director of research for university affairs and an affirmative action representative for the women’s caucus. She said complaints were made to her that the questionnaire asked pointed questions, such as asking the desirability of training courses in affirmative action for super-
visors and not just workers in general.
“The words ‘for supervisors’ mean that most of the staff members would be ineligible to enroll,” Koochoo said.
The summary of the caucus-prepared paper said it was disappointing and of concern that the final choice of courses was restricted in areas of human interest, including classes such as group dynamics and role relationships. Also, it was pointed out that courses such as the affirmative action workshop could have included all employees instead of just the supervisors.
At a meeting held by the caucus on Wednesday, Gary Rice, training organizational development administrator, answered questions about the final choice of course offerings.
Rice coordinates the development of the courses.
A spokesman for the caucus said that Rice explained the situation by saying that the university administration wanted certain courses to be offered, regardless of position on the survey.
Rice was not available for comment.
Daily
Trojan
Volume LXX, Number 44
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California
Tuesday, November 30, 1976
FOREIGN OBJECT—This (below) is not a flying saucer that has landed near the Fisher Gallery, but rather, a two-man tent designed by students in a second-year architecture class. Sarah Dennison, left, and Paula Waller smooth out the wrinkles in the tent, which is supported by pneumatic tubes. DT photos by Shuji Ito.
Committee suggests 8.5% tuition, 7% wage increases
BY CLARA GERMANI
Staff Writer
An 8.5% tuition increase and a 7% wage increase for faculty, staff and teaching assistants were recommended by the Resource Management and Planning Committee last week, said Glenn Sonnenberg, Student Senate chairman.
The recommendations will be reviewed Friday by the President’s Advisory Council.
Preliminary recommendations for next year s budget had already been made by the Budget Commission and passed to the resource committee, where revisions were made.
Original recommendations by the Budget Commission for tuition costs were for a 5.08% to 5.93% increase, but these figures were raised to 8.5%, which would be an increase of $10 per unit—a $160 increase per semester for a student taking 16 units.
The resource committee also trimmed the wage increase requests, giving only a 7% increase to faculty and TAs alike. TAs had asked for an 18% increase and faculty and staff had requested a 9% to 12% hike.
“Students got screwed,” Sonnenberg said about the tuition increase. He said estimates of inflation for next year are 6%, which makes the tuition hike 2.5% higher than the rate of inflation.
He said it is important to keep tuition within the financial range ofthe middle income students, who
are in danger of being priced out of the university.
Rick Blevins, a member of the Teaching Assistants’ Representatives Council, said TAs are not happy with the readjusted increase in salaries.
“They aren’t attacking our arguments because they were reasonable and were a very fair evaluation of work loads and the cost of living,” he said of the Resource Management and Planning Committee.
“We didn’t have enough figures for them,” he said, because the only comparison made was with TA salaries at UCLA.
“We’re not very happy, so we’ll try to get the information and we may stand the chance of getting it raised a little.”
He said it is the consensus among TAs in the German Department, where he works, that a strike would be the only alternative if TA requests are not met by the Jan. 14 budget deadline.
Sonnenberg said the 7% wage hike for faculty and staff, not just TAs, is not enough. “Seven per cent will be gobbled up by inflation and taxes,” he said.
Budget recommendations must pass a line of committees in the President’s Advisory Council. A final budget is sent to Pfesident John R. Hubbard and ultimately approved by the Board of Trustees.
The budget will be reviewed by PAC and sent back to committee forTinal revisions due by Jan. 14.
Senate will consider programming fee hike
BY STEPHEN SASS
Staff Writer
A proposal to increase the student programming fee to $10 per semester will be considered Wednesday by the Student Senate.
The increase is recommended by the Program Planning Board, a unit of the senate that was inaugurated this semester in an attempt to increase the quantity and improve the quality of student programming at the university.
At present, a $4.50 programming fee is assessed on the fee bill to all students enrolled for six or more units. The fee was first self-imposed by the student body in 1967.
“The fee we pay is ridiculously small and way below that paid by students at schools of our comparable size,” said Hunt Braly, chairman of the planning board and of the Campus Activities Allocations Board (CAAB).
“Because of the small amount of money available for allocation, we have no flexibility to help new groups or new programs. Unfortunately, we have to stick with activities that we know have succeeded in the past, rather than take a chance on unproven programs.”
The board is comprised of the chairmen of CAAB, the New Activities and Services Agency, the University Speakers Committee, the Student Committee on Popular Entertainment, the Review Board and the Senate Selection Committee.
Increasing the fee is its main priority this year. Other efforts will include helping to develop programs that will appeal to broad sections of the campus community, including graduate and night students and better planning and cooperation among the agencies responsible for programming. It plans to begin an evaluation system to determine the effectiveness of activities funded by the fee, and increase publicity.
Last year, $167,482 was collected from students, of which CAAB allocated $125, 610.50.
Already this year, CAAB has received 51 budget proposals
totaling more than $205,000. About $109,000 is available for allocation.
“With the gap between funds requested and available, many worthwhile programs had to make serious budgetary cuts. Other programs were killed outright soon after their inception due to lack of funds,” the board reported.
Inadequate programming, resulting in a loss of students, is a problem facing the university, the board argues. It cites a 1975 survey of departing students, which revealed that the most influential reason for leaving was “a strong dissatisfaction with the social and intellectual atmosphere of the university.”
HUNT BRALY
“It is not possible to increase the amount of new programming or assist beginning programs unless the programming fee is increased. We feel that without an increase of the fee to $10 per semester it will be difficult to maintain the present level of programs and inevitably both the quality and quantity of programs will decrease,” states a two-page report on board priorities.
The proposal for an increase was developed after the Executive Committee of the President’s Advisory Council (PAC) asked for an evaluation of the fee and recommendations further consideration. The increase, if approved by the Student Senate, would have to move up through the PAC committee structure.
In 1975-76, CAAB received 94 budget proposals with a total (continued on page 9)