Daily w Trojan
Volume LXVII, No. 57
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California
Thursday, December 12, 1974
Only 326 undergrads vote in PAC election
BY MARJIE LAMBERT
Associate Fditor
Only 326 students voted in this week's election of 12 undergraduate representatives to the President s Advisory Council from the College of Letters. Arts and Sciences.
The election was held this fall to function as a runoff election for last spring's election when 1.247 students voted.
Those elections were heid under a bylaw that required that one-third ofthe students vote for the elections to be considered valid and representative.
But when only 17'% ofthe students voted, the students elected
were seated on an interim basis until this week's election could be held.
The council voted last week to abolish the bylaw requiring a certain percentage of students voting. This week's election resulted in a student turnout of less than 4<7r.
Both the Row and the residence halls each retained their two interim representatives and filled a third vacant seat.
Four of the six interim commuter representatives were reelected, one lost, and one tied for sixth place. The elections commissioners could not say how that situation would be re-
Editor of ‘Row Run’ accused by IFC of
fund mismanagement
BY NANCY SHINABARGAR
Staff Writer
The editor of the Row Run has been accused by the Interfraternity Council of mismanaging funds for the newspaper.
Mike Lawler, a senior in Delta Tau Delta fraternity and editor of the paper, was named in a complaint filed by the council with Robert L. Mannes. dean of student life. Lawler will come up for a closed hearing before the University Row Judicial in January. The hearing was postponed from Dec. 17 to give Lawler more time to prepare his defense.
The complaint accuses Lawler of inept management of several hundred dollars the IFC loaned him to start the newspaper in September.
“The IFC, as I understand it. authorized some funds for the Row Run, and their understanding was that after some advertising had been obtained, they would be repaid." said Mannes.
No time limit was placed on the return ofthe money, he said.
Mannes would not discuss the
case further, saying it was the policy of the university not to prejudice the individual’s right to a fair hearing.
“He solicited the ads personally. You can get about $200 for a full page ad. and he had a full page ad in each issue. Then he collected the money for the ads personally. And that's all anyone here knew about the money, until the IFC finally wised up,” John van Dalen. production manager of the Daily Trojan said.
Van Dalen also supervised production of the Row Run for two months.
After the November issue the council decided to stop sponsoring the newspaper, and told Graphic Services to stop working on the it. The December issue was paid for by Lawler personally. An eight-page RowRun would cost about $320.
Although the content “sometimes stepped on peoples toes,” the writing quality was not the issue, a student said.
“Our complaint is with the finances. We’re really pissed off at him.” the student said.
solved, but a runoff election is possible.
Results are as follows:
For commuters: David Blackmar. 65: Joe Flanagan. 63: Randy Higashida. 57: Jim Lamb. 56: Leanne Renolds. 53: and the tie is is between David Gomez and Mitzi Hamaguchi. an incumbent, with 50 votes each. The first four are incumbents.
Cyruse Davis came in eighth with 48 votes and Charlie Solomon ran ninth with 47 votes.
For the residence halls. Barbara Barton and Tom Carter, incumbents. came in first and second with 71 and 69 votes respectively: the third seat, which had been vacant, was filled by Hunt Bralv, who had 56 votes.
Jim Ishii. an incumbent, came in first for the Row with 65 votes, followed by Cindy Allison with 56. Brent Noyes, an incumbent, received 40 votes and will fill the third seat.
Runners-up for the residence halls were Alan Friedenthal with 49 votes and June Brown and Steven Crosby with 44 votes each.
Richard Reitzell received 29 votes for the Row. and Robert Eltman got 25.
The Student Caucus will meet today at 2:30 p.m. in the President’s Conference Room in Administration Building 152.
Only one complaint was filed against a candidate who is currently on the Washington D.C. Semester. The student, Steven Marks, withdrew when he was informed of the complaint.
Students did complain, however. because of the short campaign period and the fact that voting was on-campus. The President’s Advisory Council voted last week to delete a provision from the bylaws that required balloting by mail.
Some of the students dis cussed proposing a bylaw to the council requiring voting by mail, or including it in the bylaws of the Student Caucus ofthe council. The bylaws are currently being written by a caucus committee.
ART SALE—A variety of art prints are on sale at an exhibit between the Student Activities Center and the Student Union. The sale, which is sponsored by the Student Union Board, will continue through 4 this afternoon. DT photo by Michael Sedano.
Programming fee decision expected by Christmas
A decision on the future ofthe programming fee will probably be reached before Christmas. James R. Appleton, vice-president for student affairs, said in an interview Wednesday.
Appleton said he would recommend to President John R. Hubbard that the voluntary plan recommended by the Student Caucus be adopted.
That plan called for a voluntary fee of $4.50 to be collected by the administration at registration. The fee would be allocated by a programming panel appointed by the caucus.
If the plan is approved in time—and Appleton said he doesn’t anticipate any timing problems—the voluntary plan would be implemented in the spring semester.
The caucus' recommendation is a result of a referendum held last spring in which students voted to abolish the mandatory programming fee.
Approximately 29ct ofthe students voted in that election, the largest student response in an election at the university.
The caucus initially recommended the same plan with a check-off system at time of payment. Students payingthe fee would check-off the activities and programs they wanted funded by their fee. and the board would be bound to spend 75^f of the funds as designated.
But a study by a caucus committee showed that time constraints would not allow the materials to be printed and included in the registration packet, so the check-off plan was abandoned and the other recommendations forwarded.
(Continued on page 3)
Formula for
faculty tenure and promotion called complex
Teaching, research, university service and public service—that is the simple formula for faculty promotions.
What kind of priority list each faculty member should have, how promotion and tenure are granted, the role of student evaluations, the importance of length of service, the amount of politics involved, if any—these are the questions that make the formula more complex.
Interviews by the Daily Trojan indicate that many faculty members are confused about the process. A number ofcommittees have researched tenure and promotion and are only now beginning to develop definitive statements.
President John R. Hubbard isexpected to make a policy statement on promotion and tenure within the next few months.
Various reports indicate that a rough time schedule for the average faculty member would be 50rr student or teaching time. 40rr research time, and 5% each university and public service time.
But averages are misleading, and this, being only a rough formula, might not apply to anyone.
Under the report on faculty loads, commonly called the Spitzer Report, an individual faculty member will design his own profile in consultation with his department chairman.
Nancy Woods, chairman ofthe Faculty Senate committee on academic policy and procedure, said a subcommittee is studying the extent to which that report was implemented.
‘Some departments took that report very literally and increased faculty loads immediately and followed it to
the nth degree, while other departments adopted a wait-and-see attitude to see if it was adopted.” she said.
Woods added that information from recent committee meetings has indicated that the report was being followed closely.
But Theodore Sackett. chairman of the Department of Spanish and Portuguese, questioned whether the faculty understood the basis for promotion and tenure.
“One ofthe things we are very concerned about is a certain lack of clarity—first, in the real criteria for promotions and tenure—what the committee, the deans and vice-presidents are looking for.
“Second, the Spitzer Report defines faculty loads, but there’s a big gap between the report and what the university is looking for after the faculty do it.” he said.
Larry Berg, associate professor of political science, was one of nine faculty members promoted in the College of Letters. Arts and Sciences last summer. He supports implementation ofthe Spitzer Report.
Berg is also in favor of strict standards for promotion —standards which have been tighter in recent years.
“It’s not something that should be granted just for doing ti me. so to speak. It s a responsibility, a trust that you will continue to perform under professional standards.
“That places a special responsibility on people. It should be based primarily the way it is. I think the system here may be a little rigid." he said.
Faculty have noticed that the number of promotions in recent years has declined sharply.
(continued on page 5)