<i rojan
University of Southern California
Vol. LXV1, No. 44____Los Angeles, California_Tuesday, November 20, 1973
Council Delays
Tuition Decision
BY KARI GRANVILLE
\ssistant City Kditor
The lack of a quorum caused the University Council to adjourn Monday night before it could decide to accept or reject a proposed tuition increase of $210 for 1974-75.
President John R. Hubbard and many council members left before the motion to act upon the tuition commission's proposals was called for.
EARLIER, the council unanimously voted to recommend to Hubbard the Student Caucus proposals to establish an interim programming board and to hold a referendum to decide the fate of student government.
Most of the meeting, however, was concerned with discussion of the commission's majority recommendation to increase tuition by $7 per unit, or $210 per year for 15 to 18 units, raising the annual rate to $2,910.
Another major council topic was the proposal to establish a permanent tuition commission to study the finances of the university and to formulate a long-range tuition policy.
Alan J. Rowe, chairman of the 19-member tuition commission and associate dean of the School of Business Administration, presented
the majority recommendations.
THE STUDENTS on the tuition commission, however, submitted a 28-page minority report to the council, which recommended that the majority report not be accepted at this time.
“We recommend that no decision be made at this time on the proposed $210 tuition increase because we believe the information brought forth at the commission's meetings is insufficient to support such an increase," the student report stated.
“We are not convinced that all the university’s so-called commitments are essential and we think the dollar
(Continued on page 6)
OPPONENTS—Alan J. Rowe, chairman of the tuition commision (1), argued at a University Council meeting Monday for the adoption of the majority recommendation of a $210 increase in tuition.
Peter Scolney, commission member and counselor, argued against it. The council failed to act on the matter because of the lack of a quorum. DT photo by Bob
Chavez.
Governance Questions Linger
BY BOB EVANS
Staff Writer
When students voted in last spring's referendum, it was to determine, finally, the future of student governance.
Yet now. seven months later, it is clear that the results of the referendum only left that future more in doubt than before.
There still is no student government, the questions of what to do about student representation and programming remain unanswered, and the relationship be-
TURKEY TROJAN—The usual pranks of Troy Week were overshadowed by this mysterious transformation of The T rojan to this rather crude facsimile of the familiar crosstown rival. A high-ranking campus official denied rumors that this graphic manifestation of the Bruin Wishbone would be known as Tommy Turkey. DT photo by Gehrig Ikeda and Michael Sedano.
tween the StudentCaucus and student governance has not yet been spelled out.
The future of even the Voluntary Student Association plan that won in the referendum is in doubt, as no VSA constitution has been presented to the students for ratification.
THE UNIVERSITY Coun cil adopted Monday the recommendation of its Student Caucus that a new referendum on student programming be conducted.
What went wrong with last spring's referendum? There had been high expectations that it would provide the opportunity for students to create a reformed student government.
Even the administration, which is very much concerned about the continuation of programming, wrote into the interim Student Programming Board’s charter the provision that the board would expire last April.
It didn’t seem likely then that the referedum would be unsuccessful, that student programs might be left without central leadership and supervision, and that some of their funds might even have to be withheld—but this is what happened.
WHY WASN’T the referendum successful? Students and administrators who have been asking that question
of the referendum as the reason for its failure to resolve the issues that it was supposed to resolve.
They see two weaknesses in the referendum’s design—it didn't provide for separate decisions on representation and programming, and it didn’t effectively provide for implementation of the results of the balloting.
The referendum should have calted for one decision on the future of student programming. they say, and another on the structure of the organization that would represent students and administer programming.
(Continued on page 3)
Coliseum Drinking:
No Way to Stop USC
BY SHERRI STRAUSFOGEL
Is tradition above the law at the Coliseum?
A law that dates back to the opening of the Coliseum in 1932 states that no alcoholic beverages can be sold or consumed at any professional, college or high school athletic event.
Last year the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board issued a permit to the Coliseum concessionaires allowing them to sell beer at professional football games.
THE	ALCOHOLIC
Beverage Control law asserts that it is illegal to bring any alcoholic beverages into a place where alcoholic beverages are to be sold. This law is enforced in bars and taverns as well.
The city code is such that alcoholic beverages cannot be consumed except at pro-
fessional events and sold by established concessionaires.
The National Football League prohibits any cans or bottles to be brought into any stadium where NFL football is played.
A state law prohibits anyone under 21 to possess, purchase or consume alcoholic beverages.
Yet students are drinking alcohol in this state, in this city, in the Coliseum at every football game right under everyone’s noses.
"IT’SKIND ofdifficult to enforce the law,"said Jerry Nielsen, assistant manager of the Coliseum.
Anyone bringing alcoholic or nonalcoholic beverages to professional games is stopped at the turnstiles for a claim check. All bottles or cans are taken away and can be reclaimed after the game.
“But people are still getting bottles and cans in."Nielsen said.
“We did nothing to stop people from bringing in alcohol before the sale of beer in the stadium for the Rams’ games. The Alcohol Beverage Control Board forced us to collect alcoholic bever ages at the gate.
A LTHO U G H en fo rc e in e n t is made at the turnstiles we cannot check drinking at the games 100rr.
“Just take a walk through the aisles after a game and take a look at all the empt\ cans and bottles. It is physically impossible to be iU0r; effective in keeping people from bringing in bottles and cans. When we are trying to l)ut through 80.000 people it can t be done.”
Recently, college students have been stopped at the
(Continued on poge 2)