Daily If Trojan
University of Southern California
Vol. LXVI, No. 112
Los Angeles, California
Raises denied due to union talks, officers say
Wednesday, April 24, 1974
BY ELLEN NORMAN
Staff Writer
Four campus security officers have alleged that they did not receive a pay raise because of their efforts to unionize.
One officer, who preferred to remain anonymous because of possible retribution, said that the officers were denied a 57r pay raise in January.
‘The university did not like the talk that was going around about unionizing.” he said.
‘ Rumor has it that if we're still talking union in July, we won’t get a raise either.”
Security officers’ efforts to join the Teamsters Union were blocked by a provision in the National Labor Relations Act.
The officer also said that the chief of security. Jim Bowie, had said that the money had been set aside for the raise, but the university then withdrew it. He said the decision came from the office of Anthony D. Lazzaro, vice-president of business affairs.
Bowie, however, denied saying anything about the pay increase.
“I heard something about a raise, but that's about it." Bowie said.
Lazzaro said that the reports of a pay increase were rumors and that no raise was ever considered by his office.
He said that a survey that was conducted in July of 1973 was brought up because of the interest in union activity. The survey. Lazzaro said, was used to compare the salaries of other security and police officers in the Los Angeles area with USC’s campus security.
“Salaries of other guards were in line with our security, so the men were not even considered for a raise.” Lazzaro said.
John Lechner, director of campus security and parking operations, said that the average
pay of other guards was close to $670 a month. A USC security officer starts at $660 a month. UCLA's campus police, however. start at $830 a month.
After the survey in July was conducted, security officers received a 57r pay increase last year. Other workers in the physical plant area received a 3rA increase at that time.
Lechner also said that he was not aware of any efforts to raise the officers' salaries. He did say, however, that the officers would receive a 69< pay increase in July.
One officer said that Lazzaro had made a mistake in not giving the officers a pay increase.
“Now we have a very high turnover in security,” he said. “They just aren’t paying enough to draw good, qualified men.”
He said that out of a 36-officer force, 9 or 10 positions are not filled.
Another officer said that he was told by a supervisor that the men would receive no pay increase because of the union discussion. He also said that the decision came from Lazzaro’s office.
CONSTITUTION POSTPONED—Connie Seinfeld, Student Caucus chairperson, said proposed constitutions will not appear on the student fee referendum. Instead a constitution will be written after the fee question is decided. DT photo by Bob Chavez.
CHARTER TO BE WRITTEN AFTER VOTE
Constitution awaits fee decision
BY DANA ZINDERMAN
The referendum on voluntary or mandatory programming fees will not include proposed constitutions because at present it is impossible to draft a constitution without a refendum. Connie Seinfeld. Student Caucus chairperson said.
The assignment to write the constitution for the mandatory fees plan was given to George Bolanos two months before it was due. Seinfeld said.
“He didn’t come up with one until a few days before it was due. This is understandable as it’s the first constitution he ever wrote.” she said.
Bolanos. a caucus member, gave the constitution to the caucus about March 26. It was due about April 3. just before a meeting of the executive committee of the President’s Advisory Council.
The caucus was supposed to give it to the executive committee so the committee could
schedule it at a President’s Advisory Council meeting, Seinfeld said.
“George did not ask the programming board for input on it. as they asked him to do. They had some things to say, and George tried to convince us their objections were purely political. I found they were serious.” she said.
The caucus would have needed several day sessions over Easter vacation to draft a compromise constitution with the revisions they wanted.
A special meeting with the executive committee would have then been necessary so they could set it up with the council.
“The executive committee decided not to put the constitution on the ballot with the referendum in May.” she said.
Another referendum to ratify the constitution will be held in September. Until a constitution is ratified the programming board will handle all allocations
of funds.
“The Student Caucus, the elected representatives of the students, would have to make a recommendation on what to do if the constitution is not ratified,” Martin Levine, chairman of the President's Advisory Council said.
“The programming board members were OK’d for allocating funds for next year. In case mandatory funds are not voted out they will be prepared.” Seinfeld said.
“An attempt is being made to conduct the referendum in September with registration in the fall. We are trying to work with Dr. Appleton (James R. Appleton, vice-president for student affairs) and the registrar’s office,” Levine said.
The caucus will recommend a voting plan to the Committee on Credentials and Elections sometime this week for the referendum in May.
The caucus decided Monday to
hold the elections in booths on campus.
Stu Mollrich, who drafted the original voluntary fees plan, said the decision was made because of the cost of a mail vote.
“They claim a mail vote would cost $10,000 but it would cost under $2,500 if it had been done correctly. The last student caucus election was handled incompetently,” said Mollrich.
“The material, in a thick packet, was sent first class mail and it cost 20 cents for each piece. The campus could get a nonprofit status where it would cost 1.7 cents for each piece.”
“It was my impression that voting on campus would cost $2,000 to $3,000.’ John Griffith, executive secretary to the President’s Advisory Council, said.
“Bulk rate takes 10 days to deliver locally and we wanted the members seated at the April council meeting.”
A voter turnout of 107c is (Continued on page 3)
BY PETER WONG
Editor
Despite his heart attack last summer. Zohrab A. Kaprielian is still clearly the university's second-ranking official.
Unlike before, however. Kaprielian—vice-president for academic administration and research—is No. 2 in name as well as in fact.
A recent memorandum from President John R. Hubbard to Clarence N. Anderson, the university editor, makes this explicit.
Hubbard asked Anderson to include the following duties under the job description for the vice-presidency, academic administration and research:
•Functions for the president in his absence.
•Is responsible for academic policy and administration of the university.
•Is responsible for research policy and administration ofthe university.
•	Is responsible for overall university financial and business policy and administration.
•Reviews with the president the functions and operations of deans and directors.
•Coordinates with the president the functions and opera-
Kaprielian: despite heart attack he’s still No. 2 administrator
tions of the other vice-presidents.
The memorandum was dated March 22. Copies were sent to vice-presidents, deans and directors.
Faculty Handbook Anderson is currently supervising the production of the next edition of the Faculty Handbook in which this information would be included.
Upon reading Hubbard’s memorandum, one senior professor active in the university decision-making process said. “If the first point were deleted and thi* other points modified slightly, you’d have a job description for a president.”
The first point of the memorandum, which allows Kaprielian to act as president in Hubbard's absence, is a change in fact, however.
Previously, the senior university officer in Hubbard's absence was Milton C. Kloetzel,
academic vice-president, whose jurisdiction includes the graduate and professional schools.
_ The 1972-73 Faculty Handbook says. “If the president is absent or incapacitated, his duties shall be performed by the academic vice-president.”
Of course, whoever is next in line to Hubbard would presumably not act on major policy matters without consultation. But that still 1 eaves a temporary president with a great deal of discretion.
Such a change in the line of responsibility emphasizes the extent to which Hubbard trusts Kaprielian.
University officials—including theoretically equal vice-presidents — must go along with this latest memorandum, although most have recognized that Kaprielian generally has had strong presidential support for his endeavors.
The 1972-73 Faculty Handbook says, “All officers of the university except the chairman and vice-chairmen of the Board (of Trustees) shall be subject to the direction ofthe president.” Trustees elect officers
Although Hubbard does not directly choose his vice-presidents—the trustees elect them annually, as officers of the corporation that is USC—they act in his name and at his direction.
As for the rest of the memorandum, one question is unanswered. Why did Hubbard decide at this time to formally include in the Faculty Handbook additional responsibilities for Kaprielian’s position?
Was a story in the Daily Trojan inadvertently responsible for the move?
The story, headlined “Kaprielian: Hubbard's top adviser,” was published Jan. 4, 1973.
It said in part: “His influence
is such in academic policy than he has been called President John R. Hubbard's top adviser in this area—and he is also the chief budget officer.”
It indicated that the scope of Kaprielian’s responsibilities went beyond those stated in the 1972-73 Faculty Handbook and other official sources.
Kaprielian supervises major university research centers and all contracts and grants.
He was formerly responsible for some academic-related programs. Most of these have been transferred to other university vice-presidents, only because they had been placed originally under Kaprielian on a temporary basis.
Temporary jurisdiction For instance, the Admissions Office, Registrar^ Office and Student Aid Office were placed under Kaprielian’s jurisdiction July 1. 1972. while the search for a vice-president of student affairs proceeded.
But shortly after James R. Appleton assumed that vicepresidency. those offices were again placed under the Student Affairs Division.
Kaprielian’s chief concern then and now—academic plan- .
(Continued on page 2