Vice president choice: a secret decision of few
No search committee used for Robinson selection
By George Aguilar
Assistant City Editor
Despite the announced nationwide search for the new senior vice president for university relations, the selection of John Robinson was made w'ithout the advice or approval of the committee formed to recommend candidates to university president James Zumberge.
In May, Zumberge assembled an advisory committee to review candidates for the position vacated by Michael Radock June 30.
However, the committee convened only once — at Zumberge’s request — the morning Robinson's selection was made public. It was then that it learned of the president’s decision.
Those who made the selection were kept to a select few\
The committee members were Dan Dunmoyer. president of the Student Senate: Irw'in Lieb. dean of letters, arts, and sciences; Nancy Warner, professor of pathology; Kenneth Servis, chemistry professor: and university trustees Phillip Riley and Lorna Reed. Cornelius Pings, provost and senior vice president of academic affairs, headed the committee.
“Zumberge called them in the morning before the announcement to apologize about not letting them in on the selection,” said George Abdo, executive assistant to the president.
As it turned out, several of the members were not present at last week's meeting and found out about the
selection by other means, w'hich reportedly left some bruised feelings.
“I found out about it at 8:30 in the morning,” said Dunmoyer. “Chet Lieb told me he found out about it at 10:30. And when I find out about something before he does, I know' something is w’rong.”
Dunmoyer maintains the committee never met and never interviewed anybody.
The attempt to find qualified candidates succeeded, Abdo said. “It's just that John Robinson emerged head and shoulders above everyone.”
‘Mr. Robinson has not had experience with major traditional academic units. I hope he surrounds himself with a very able staff. ’ — Irwin Lieb
Abdo outlined the selection process as follow's: Through advertisements in the Los Angeles Times and the Chronicle of Higher Education, the university received almost 70 resumes from people in development positions throughout the country.
Pings narrowed the list to 18 qualified candidates, and by mid-September the number was reduced to six by Pings and Zumberge. The committee was given copies of some resumes without revealing identities.
By the time Robinson was selected on Oct. 9, the number of candidates was down to three. It has been
learned that among those considered in the search were two university administrators.
Abdo said some of the candidates were from eastern universities.
Some members said they could understand the need for secrecy in the appointment of Robinson. Lieb said that revealing Robinson’s candidacy might have had a negative effect on the university’s football team and on Robinson’s final decision.
“This is not uncommon with an advisory committee,” Lieb said. “It was a very surprising appointment. A very unusual appointment. They have a special conception of what the development office should be. John Robinson is an enthusiastic man and is a sterling spokesman for the university.
“Mr. Robinson has not had experience with major traditional academic units. I hope he surrounds himself with a very able staff."
There has been speculation about who wras considered. James Appleton, vice president for development, admitted that he might have been considered, but said the process did not worry him because he was preoccupied with his own duties.
“I felt that it was pretty important to concentrate on being vice president," he said, adding that his reaction to Robinson’s appointment was not unlike that of others.
"It was a bold move and a little surprising. But on reflection, it is going to help us an awful lot. I hadn’t expected it. but now I see the wisdom."
Students voice acceptance of possible tuition increase
Belma Johnson
Staff Writer
Seventy-eight percent of the student body would tolerate another tuition hike, according to figures recently released.
And over half the students prefer the former flat-rate tuition' policy to any other, the report shows.
However, these results do not mean students desire a tuition increase.
“It just looks as if they are saying that if there's going to be an increase, they’d like it to be as low as possible,” said James Ford, who teaches statistics at the business school.
"There's really no w'ay to tell how representative this is. (The numbers) are saying that, of those students w'ho voted, this is what you've got.”
Dan Dunmoyer. Student Senate president, said he delivered the results from the recent referendum vote to university president James Zumberge Wednesday.
The vote, held Nov. 18, 19,
22	and 23, represented the “least emotional, most direct, biggest sway of influence with the administration,” Dunmoyer told the senate.
Ingrid Calle. senate financial affairs chairman, said, "Right now, the administration is doing projections with figures from 9 percent to 13 percent.”
Of the nearly 2,000 students who voted, about 86 percent opted for increases less than 9 percent. Dunmoyer pointed out.
He is expected to request an official statement from Zumberge to the students.
Zumberge will discuss the results in an executive meeting Dec. 6, Dunmoyer said. Zumberge could not be reached for comment.
The meeting will include Jon Strauss, senior vice president of administration; Cornelius Pings, senior vice president of academic affairs: Jim Dennis. (Continued on page 15)
REFERENDUM VOTE RESULTS
STUDENTS ON TUITION
Increase No change Tie to CPI Decrease
r	7 C	if	1.									
	' I	> /	C									
					rr							
				i								
								1 C	i			
								TT	f ^			
										1	%	
STUDENTS ON FLAT RATES
15-18 units 12-18 units
12-20 units No flat rate
f	- X r		-f.									
V	)s.	I J	c									
					r	I						
												
							1	71				
												
										I	i%	
trojan
Volume XCII, Number 59
University of Southern California Friday, December 3, 1982
Health science students may face cutbacks in financial aid, loans
By Alan Grossman
Assistant City Editor
A branch of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed new regulations regarding the Health Professions Student Loan Program in August which, in their original form, could endanger the university’s financial aid program to medical students.
The seven-point plan by the Bureau of Health Personnel Development and Service currently prohibits universities and colleges from granting the loans to students u the institutions are not under a student default rate of 5 percent by March 31, 1983.
Jimi Bingham, director of student financial operations, said the default rate of medical students at the university is now' about 15 percent, while dentistry and pharmacy students are at 8 and 9 percent, respectively.
Betty Penn, a spokesman for the department’s Rockville. Md., division, said the regulations were introduced because Congress and the public “insisted w»e do something about the amount of defaulted loans.”
She said that a Senate subcommittee, a report from the Office of the Inspector General and an in-house analysis found that colleges and univer-
sities could improve the federal government’s collection quotient in several of the following
ways.
—	By joining a credit bureau, schools could establish monthly repayment schedules for borrowers.
—	By making the eligibility and selection process of loan applicants more stringent. In doing this, institutions would have to ask applicants to submit a financial aid transcript to help determine the “credit-worthiness” of students.
—	By including an “acceleration" clause in promissory notes, which schools could use on delinquent loans.
—	By requiring schools to employ collection agents, sue delinquent students if necessary and notify their credit bureaus, which would, in effect, place a “black mark”on a student’s credit rating.
—	By requiring schools to prepare and submit quarterly reports on their loan programs, as well as retain records of denied applications for five years after a student ceases to be a full-time student.
—	By forcing institutions to remain at or under the 5 percent default rate or be ineligible for the
(Continued on page 5)
Departmental minors approved
Implementation expected in fall o3
By Ellen Plotkin
Staff Writer
For many years, students at this university have voiced their desire to implement a major/minor system. Those voices are now stilled.
The university executive curriculum committee Wednesday approved guidelines for departmental minors.
Irwin Lieb, vice president and dean of the college of letters, arts and sciences, proposed the idea for departmental minors, said Janet Chaudhuri, staff associate in the provost office.
Lieb was unavailable for comment.
The Student Senate acted
upon Lieb’s idea and proposed it to the curriculum committee. Chaudhuri said.
Cornelius Pings, provost and senior vice president of academic affairs, has yet to endorse the plan. But, Chaudhuri said, “I don’t foresee any problems there.”
Pings’ decision is expected within the next few weeks, and with his approval, the program would take effect in the fall of 1983.
If it is approved, a student w'ho has already taken all the classes required for a minor is assured of a minor without taking any more classes.
The guidelines approved by the committee would require
students who declare a minor to complete no less than 16 and no more than 24 units within that program.
Depending on w'hat specific guidelines LAS approves, a student would need, for instance, only four French classes (16 units) to qualify for a minor, as opposed to eight classes for a major.
If a person were an English major and he wanted to take courses in French, but did not have the time for a second major, he could declare French as a minor.
The basic principles for the minor program have been considered by the committee. Cur-(Continued on page 5)