Student News Service finds funding — see page 2
trojan
Volume XCIX, Number 38
University of Southern California
Thursday, October 24, 1985
V" '--Jutv>y
Students wait for payday
By Eric Di Giovanni
Staff Writer
An inordinate amount of students this fall have found themselves without a paycheck come payday, allegedly due to the university's continued inefficiency in the distribution of the payroll funds.
"There are a few late paychecks every year," said Dennis Dougherty, vice president of finance. “But this year it seems to be worse than ever."
Late paychecks have been a problem for both students and staff members for several years now, several students complained.
"I have been employed by this university for almost five years as a teaching assistant or a research assistant and rarely during that period have I received a check on time," said Ronald Mandel, a graduate student in psychology.
Bob Ingersoll, a senior majoring in international relations, also reported that he received his first check this year late.
Ingersoll said that in his three years of working for the university he re-
ceived a late paycheck only once before. He said, however, that at this time he was especially worried because he knew members of his fraternity who had been unable to pay rent because of their numerous late checks.
Ingersoll said that he went to the payroll department to complain when his check did not arrive, and Dorothy Jackson, assistant manager of payroll personnel, told him that there were 62 other students who had yet to receive their paychecks.
"The runaround they are giving the students is ridiculous," Ingersoll said. "Payroll seems to be blowing the whole issue off."
Ingersoll said that he had to sit in the payroll office and demand to see the manager. When he finally spoke to the person in charge he was told that the university was having problems entering all of their new employees' paperwork into the computer system.
Ingersoll said that his paycheck was finally typed up and given to him, but "only after I complained."
(Continued on page 6)
BILLER^ DEFENDS DECISION
Senate demands answer for firing of Irwin Lieb
By Nancie Mack
Assistant City Editor
Dissatisfied after hearing from one administrator last night regarding the dismissal of Irwin Lieb, former dean of the College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, the Student Senate passed a motion demanding that President James Zumberge and Provost Cornelius Pings reveal which of Lieb's duties he did not fulfill as LAS dean.
The motion followed two hours of discussion of Lieb's termination with Robert Biller, executive vice provost, and Timothy Ferris, head of the print sequence of the School of Journalism, in a standing-room-only meeting attended by senators, students, faculty and administrators.
The requirements that will be used to evaluate Lieb's performance are the same ones specified in a letter, issued October 15 from Pings to the members of the LAS Dean Search Committee, concerning the selection of Lieb's replacement.
The letter said the new dean will be expected to strengthen the LAS faculty, student body, quality of scholarship and research, and the division's endowment.
"There is no deep or unusual or strange thing here," Biller said. It is merely the question of the working relationship, trust and confidence between Lieb, Pings and Zumberge, he said.
"I'm pleased that the provost and the president did everything possible to protect" Lieb’s reputation, Biller said.
Ferris complimented Biller on his articulate and forthright defense of what he said is really a "monumentally stupid act by this administration."
Lieb was a first-rate scholar and administrator whose dismissal is troubling because the faculty was never consulted
and there are no substantial grounds for it, other than the excuse of incompatibilities, Ferris said.
Incompatibility is not a good reason for termination; this is a university, not a corporation or military' organization, Ferris said.
Biller said Lieb was fully aware that he was being asked to leave. At a meeting in May of 1984, Pings and Zumberge looked Lieb in the eye and told him he no longer enjoyed their confidence. Biller said
But Ferris contended that Lieb never did, and still does not, understand why he was asked to resign.
When asked to give specific cases of disagreements, Biller said that "the president and the provost have just declined to go into chapter and verse" of the incidents, and that he was in no position to list them.
Biller said he would "respectfully like not to comment" regarding the issue of Lieb's fund- raising for LAS. The dean's job is a complex one and "Chet did some of those (things) with great excellence, and some just did not gel" as they should have, he said.
Ferris questioned the need for a perfectly meshed relationship at a university dedicated to teaching students how to find things out for themselves rather than blindly following authority.
Ferris asked, "What does that say for the president and the provost" if someone is fired because he does not get along with everyone? "Is it the right decision to dismiss him (Lieb) or them (Pings and Zumberge)?"
Biller said Pings had originally recommended that Lieb be considered for the LAS deanship, and Lieb and Pings had worked together in the past.
Students were able to take their appetites on a trip around the world Wednesday in Alumni Park at the International Food Fair. The above customer stops off at the German booth.
Legal squabbles stop showing of Brazil to Cinema students
By Pablo Lopez
Staff Writer
The School of Cinema was caught in a power struggle Friday between a guest lecturer who wanted to show his film and the studio that owns the rights to it.
Terry Gilliam, a director from England's Monty Python comedy troupe, came to the university's Norris Theater Friday to show his movie, Brazil. But two hours before the film's screening, university officials stopped him.
At about noon Friday, Sheldon Mittleman, an attorney for Universal Studios, telephoned Roy Heidicker, operations manager at the School of Cinema, and told him that the special screening of Brazil "had not been authorized." Universal owns copyrights to the film in the United States and Canada.
"I can't comment on why Universal would not let us show the movie," Heidicker said Monday. "But I want to make it absolutely clear that the university was not threatened or intimidated in any way, shape or form. There is absolutely no reason to believe that at all."
Heidicker said Mittleman telephoned him and said the screening did not have Universal's approval. "He didn't specify we couldn't show clips or an entire screening of the film," Heidicker said. "He just said it wasn't authorized."
But Heidicker, under the direction of Russell McGregor, director of the School of Cinema, would not allow the film to be shown.
Gilliam, who left for London Tuesday and was unavailable for comment, said in an earlier interview that Sidney Sheinberg, head of Universal Studios, thinks the film needs a "radical rethink" and
should not be shown until the ending is changed.
The film was shown later that same day at the California Institute of the Arts in Valencia.
Brazil is about an individual being forced to comply with the system and to accede blindly to authority. There are three cuts of the film — an international version that has been in distribution for months, Gilliam's own version, and the version Universal is still working on for release in the United States and Canada.
Gilliam told the audience at the Norris screening of the power struggle between himself and Sheinberg over the film.
A source close to Gilliam said Universal does not like Brazil's downbeat, pessimistic ending.
"It's not a happy ending and they feel it's not commercial," the source said. "I think Terry is anxious to see the light of day, so he might be doing this to provoke attention and expedite his cause.
"I think once Universal makes their decision on their version, then they will decide what movie has better commercial value. They surely don't want outside critics to tell them what decision to make and how to run their publicity," he said.
Mittleman said yesterday that Universal had no comment. "It's already been blown way out of proportion. The (Las Angeles) Times article was rather clear. Gilliam was the director of a picture we are distributing. It's a contractual intrepretation and an unfortunate matter," he said.
The Times reported Monday that Gilliam was going public with a bitter behind-the-scenes battle with Sheinberg over control of the film, despite a gag order in Gilliam's contract that prohibits him from speaking critically of Universal's version of
(Continued on page 12)