Delta Tau Delta fraternity members evicted after ‘pint night' disturbance
By Amy Alpern
Assistant City Editor
To Andy Proctor, president of Delta Tau Delta fraternity, the evictions came as a surprise.
“The Delt house has not been in trouble for the past year and a half. We have not had anybody sent to judicial and we have been financially solvent,” Proctor said.
But the shock for Proctor came Jan. 9: all members of the fraternity living in the house were evicted by the university as the result of a Nov. 23,1977 “pint night” that began at the fraternity and eventually moved to the 901 Club.
The fraternity members were then allowed to submit to an interview with the university and members of the national board to determine if they could be reinstated in the fraternity.
The panel of five interviewed 55 of the 73 Delts and allowed 30 of those interviewed to be reinstated. Each member had to present his academic and judicial records at the interview.
“We were looking at the attitude, scholarship and judicial record of each individual to determine which ones we felt would uphold the constitution of the Delta Tau Delta Chapter,” said John Yoeman, an alumnus on the panel.
The panel consisted of Hans Reichl, director of residential life, and Julie Lynch, assistant director of sorority affairs, representing the university, along with three Delta Tau Delta alumni.
“Right now the house just has to build itself up again with the members that it has. The members that were not allowed to return are still trying to get back into the house on an individual basis, but the house as a unit can’t really help them,” Proctor said.
He said the present situation is the result of a communication breakdown between the fraternity and the university. “We have maintained a ‘you leave us alone and we will leave you alone’ relationship and that has brought us to the situation we are in now. The only things that they hear about us are rumors.
“This year the ‘pint night’s’ purpose was for guys from different fraternities to sit down and drink together and get to know each other. It was probably not organized as well as it could have been and there were problems with things being broken, but everything has been repaired since then,” Proctor said.
“We have gotten a good start this semester toward building up our program, but we are having problems in organization and leadership. I have been restricted in the things that I can and cannot do,” Proctor said.
According to Yoeman, the purpose of the interviews was to make sure each of the members of the house knew the objectives of the Delta Tau Delta Chapter. No new or specific rules were set down for the chapter here.
Yoeman said it was the opinion of the panel that all of the members returning to the Delt house would uphold the provisions of the Delta Tau Delta constitution.
Daily
Trojan
Volume LXXIII, Number 1
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California
Tuesday, February 7, 1978
THE TREE AND THE TOWER — These sprawling branches in Alumni Park partially camouflage the Von KleinSmid Center Tower and the globe-like structure that tops it. DT photo by Doug Gray.
Security officers to be own bargaining agents
The USC Security Officers’ Assn. has received the right to legal certification as collective bargaining agent for the officers with the university.
The university alleged that the association was affiliated with Teamsters Union, Local 911, an organization that is not licensed to represent security guards.
By law, the association could not accept aid and assistance from a nonguard union beyond its formative stages. It is also prohibited from permitting the nonguard union to participate in its affairs and act as its spokesman.
The association used legal services offered without strings by Local 911. However, use of such services does not constitute affiliation with the Teamsters, officer spokesmen said.
The National Labor Relations Board rejected the university’s motion to revoke the association’s certification because of lack of evidence.
“The record is clear that petitioner (the association) acted independently. . .there is insufficient evidence of cont inuing assistance, control and interference from Local 911, especially in view of the fact that
(continued on page 2)
Trustees may approve 9% increase in tuition for fall
By Mike Schroeder
Staff Writer
If the administration’s budget is accepted by the university’s Board of Trustees, students will face a tuition increase of more than 9% this fall.
The 9.375% increase, totaling $180 a semester for full-time students, was proposed in the revised budget presented to the Resource Management and Planning Committee Monday night.
But in a repeat of a 1977 action, the Faculty and Student Senates teamed to present a counterproposal calling for a 7.81% tuition increase for the new year.
The counter-proposal would call for a tuition increase to $138 per unit from this year’s.base of $128, for a total cost of $165 per semester. The administration’s proposed increase would put tuition at the $140 per unit level.
The President’s Advisory Council committee, headed by Robert Biller, was expected to conclude its recommendations to President John R. Hubbard with its meeting last night.
Enrollment figures seemed to be the main difference between the two proposals.
Bill Dauster. president of the Student Senate, and Ken Servis, representing the Faculty Senate, presented the case for the report issued by committees within their organizations.
A shift of almost one percentage point in predicted enrollments by the administration was
noted as one of the key reasons for the report, Dauster said.
He said the administration’s figures changed
ever one weekend (Jan. 27-31) from a 1.5% increase to a .47% increase.
John Curry, assistant to the executive vice-president, explained to the committee that incorrect enrollment figures within three departments led to miscalculations in growth when the first figures were given.
Both Dauster and Servis answered questions from the committee on their proposal and were questioned on their figures by Curry and David Shawak°r, university budget officer.
Additional recommendations were also added to the committee’s midcourse report to the council. A 5.5% salary increase base for all categories in the budget was proposed, up from an originally planned 5%
A staff equity pool will be brought up from $70,000 to $125,000 in the commission’s final recommendation and a librarian’s equity pool of $37,500 is proposed.
The Faculty and Student Senates’ proposal in creases the library quality enhancement fund by $200,000 and adds $150,000 to the deferred maintenance category of the budget.
It ends with an “unexpended gap,” which a budget surplus that Dauster said his committee “would prefer the (Resource Management) committee deal with.”
University moves to purchase 102 housing units from Hoover project
The university has moved to lease 102 of the 150 newly completed housing units of the Hoover Redevelopment Project for use as university-owned student housing.
The pending action calls for the remaining 48 units to be used as housing for the elderly and low- to moderate-income families — the groups the 150 units were originally intended for.
The Hoover Project, located across the street from the university at the corner of Jefferson Boulevard and Vermont Avenue and adjacent to the Cardinal Gardens student housing project, has been the center of a controversy first reported in the December, 1977 issue o{ AllUsWe, a black students publication.
According to the AllUsWe article, members of the Hoover community were in strong op-
position to the university’s move to purchase the units.
But, according to James Stewart, pastor of the United University Church, and David Lewis, project manager of the Hoover Redevelopment Agency, a new agreement has recently been reached between the university, Ray Watt, project developer, and Los Angeles City Councilman Robert Farrell.
In a new agreement now pending, the university would immediately obtain the 102 housing units at the Hoover site, while promising the construction of
300	replacement units for com-, munity use to be built over a three year period at a new site near the corner of Exposition Boulevard and Vermont Avenue.
Much of the controversy con-
cerns the use of Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds in the construction of university housing.
According to the AllUsWe article, if new units were built at a new site, the HUD Section 8 benefit (subsidized rents for the elderly and low- to moderate-income families) could not be transferred.
A spokesperson in the Office for Residential Life, however, said the university would probably work in behalf of the community to insure the transfer of the HUD grant.
The AllUsWe article also questioned Councilman Farrell’s interest in working on behalf ofthe community. The article did add, however, that Farrell had set up meetings so the community could voice its opinion.