CREDITS ISSUE
Runner denies class irregularities
By Robert Buttitta
Billy Mullins, a world class sprinter on the university track team, denied all allegations concerning irregularities in his athletic program at a news conference held at the Los Angeles Press Club Thursday.
Mullins, reading a prepared statement drawn up by his attorney, Johnnie M. Sanders, said,
"1 deny that I received any credit for classes that I did not attend and I would like for the record to show that 1 did the necessary work for each class. I deny I have done anything immoral, unethical or illegal."
According to a story in the March 6 edition of the Valley News, Mullins received credit for 28 units taken at four junior colleges to become eligible for the university's 1978 track team.
The two-year community colleges from which he received credits in the fall 1977 semester are Pasadena, Rio Hondo, West Los Angeles and Los Angeles.
A March 10 Los Angeles Times article questioned how Mullins could take almost double the normal course load of a junior college student. It also thought it unusual that the 22-vear-old sprinter was able to attend classes so far awav from his home.
Pasadena City College and Rio Hondo (in Whittier), for example, are on the opposite side of the county from Mullins' West Los Angeles home and each is about 40 miles from West Los Angeles College. Rio Hondo is 20 miles from Pasadena City College.
After Mullins read his statement, both Vem Wolfe, head track coach, and Ken Matsuda, assistant coach, pledged their support.
"I feel very badly that Billy Mullins has been subjected to unproven allegations concerning his academic performance. He has my support and the support of his teammates," Wolfe said.
"During the time that 1 have known and worked with Billy," Matsuda said, "I have never known of an occasion where he has done anything wrong. He has shown himself to be a young man of the highest moral integrity."
When Wolfe and Matsuda finished their statements, Sanders announced that she would soon file a $5 million lawsuit on Mullins' behalf for damages incurred due to bad press.
Sanders said that she is not sure who will be named in tfie suit because her investigation was not completed. She did say that some of the schools who allegedly released his transcripts without consent might be named.
(Continued on page 3)
Cost of bus passes may be raised $10
By Kathy McDonald
Staff Writer
University students who depend on the Southern California Rapid Transit District bus system fo transportation may have to pay as much as $10 more per month for their student bus passes beginning May
1.
Student bus passes are now $14 a month, but if a fare change, • recently proposed by the RTD goes through, the new rates could be anywhere from $18 to $24 a month, said Teresa Quijas, an RTD spokesman.
"Rates will increase across the board (if the proposal is passed)," she said.
The RTD Board of Directors will hold a public hearing April
10	at the Southern California RTD Administration Building in Los Angeles to hear comments and suggestions on the proposed fare changes.
trojan
Volume LXXXVIII, Number 33
University of Southern California
Friday, March 21, 1980
The proposed increases will also affect the basic fare paid on the bus, the regular monthly bus pass price and the bus pass price for handicapped and elderly persons, Quijas said.
The basic fare is now 55t per ride and an additional 5c for transfers. If the increases are approved, bus passengers would probably pay 5-10C more.
The regular monthly pass is now $20. With the increase, the price* could be $24 to $26 monthly. Monthly bus passes are $4 a month for the handicapped; they could rise in price to $12 a month.
"It is mainly because federal and state funds are not sufficient to meet our needs," Quijas said. "The fares go up whenever it's necessary, whenever we are short of funds. The fuel situation could very possibly have something to do with it."
Bus rates are evaluated once a year, Quijas said.
RTD fares last increased in September, 1979, but affected only basic fares and not monthly bus passes.
Proposed state bill offers aid to fifth-year students
By Kathy McDonald
Staff Writer
Students in special five-year academic programs — such as architecture and engineering — may soon benefit from California State Scholarships extended into their fifth year of study, if a bill currently before the state Senate is passed and Proposition 9 is defeated.
The bill — AB 1065 — was put before the state legislature by Marilyn Ryan, a state assemblywoman representing the 51st district.
"The university was very much behind the proposal," said Houston Flournoy, vice president of governmental affairs.
Floumov said that the university would like to see the bill pass, but in order for it to take . effect Proposition 9 would have to be defeated.
Proposition 9 would reduce personal income taxes by approximately 50% and reduce tax revenues by $4.9 million in 1980-81.
AB 1065, which would extend state financial aid into the fifth year for students in acceptable five-year undergraduate programs, contains a disclaimer which makes the bill "null and void if Proposition 9 passes."
"The disclaimer was included in the revised draft of the bill because Mrs. Ryan feels that these special cases (of five-year students with financial need) would have a lower priority if Proposition 9 is approved," said Maxine Johnson, one of Ryan's aides.
Ryan is presently at a conference in Sacramento.
"If the bill is allowed to take effect — on January 1, 1981 — it will amount to $183,025 annually in these extra scholarships or grants," Johnson said.
About 45 students in the special programs will benefit if the scholarships are extended into the fifth year, Johnson said.
"Thev are mostly from pri-
vate colleges — mainly USC," she said.
Students v\ill go through the same application process as other college undergraduates. Grants will be awarded based on the student's financial need, just as they are with other applicants.
Much work is needed for this bill to be able to take effect, because of Proposition 9, Flournoy said.
"The university is part of the statewide association of private colleges, and we're concerned about this issue (the bill and Proposition 9)," he said.
AB 1065 has been passed by the state Ways and Means Committee, the state Assembly and the Senate Education Committee. It will be up before the Senate FinanreCommitteeMon-dav. If it is approved there, it wiil proceed to the Senate floor and Gov. Jerry Brown.
"We're not too worried about it passing," Johnson said.
Photo by Jennifer Boiler
JACKPOT! - KSCR staff members Dee Dee Snell and Max Edwards announce the grand prize winner in a fund-raising contest jointly sponsored by the student radio station and Tam s Booksellers. The grand prize of a $30 certificate to Tam’s was won by Maria Longo at a 1 p.m. drawing.
Faculty Senate rejects increases as merit raises
By David Romero
Staff Writer
A motion that many faculty members felt would define salary increases above the base 11% hike planned for next year as merit increases was voted down by the Faculty Senate Wednesday.
The motion concerned a resolution passed bv the senate last September which defined goals for faculty salary structure.
The senate has tried to maintain salary levels to match inflation increases for the area, but will accept the proposed 11% salary hike for 1980-81. This increase remains short of the 15.7% cost of living increase reported in the consumer price index for the Los Angeles-Long Beach area.
The motion would have allowed faculty to receive salary hikes above 11% based on merit.
George Jones, a professor for systems management, said salary hikes below the inflation rise should not be considered merit increases. He interpreted Wednesday's motion by Donald Lewis, chairman of the senate's Employment and Remuneration committee, as calling increases amounting to less than a 15.7% hike merit increases.
Others objected to its urging that faculty members not make differential merit ratings to be used for differential salary allocations. Allocation differentiation would presumably be made for faculty whose performance quality is in question. Merit increases, based on faculty members' performance, academic and research involvement, are hikes beyond yearlv salary hikes.
Some senate members indicated they want to approach the topic at the senate's next meeting in April.
Some senate members opposing an across-the-board merit increase plan argued it would be too similar to civil service merit increases. They preferred the university's present system which allows more selective determination of merit promotions.
Jim Stancill, of the School of Business, said producers and nonproducers would share alike under the merit scale plan. He said some faculty who might not necessarily be worthv, might receive automatic merit promotions. Lewis said the Employment and Remuneration Committee has considered a merit increase format similar to that used in the University of California system.
The committee recommended a pay-scale schedule be published, which would be adjusted periodically to match economic conditions. The UC system format for merit increases outlines multiple steps within faculty ranks from instructor to professor, Lewis said.
Lewis said a problem with the present merit system at the university can occur when faculty members who are involved in longterm research projects apply for merit increases in years when there are budget problems.
Kirby Scherer, a professor of chemistry, presented an outline ot what was needed for a salary scale to the senate.
"I see this as putting a little more system into the present chaos," Scherer said.
"There is at least a weak assumption that merit is a function of experience."