Committee approves law school fee hike
By TODD MEERIMAN
Of the Emerald
Portland (Special) — The
finance committee of the Oregon
State Board of Higher Education
voted Thursday to recommend
full Board approval of a fee in
crease plan for University law
students after certain revisions of
the plan have been made.
Following testimony by
University representatives
supporting a proposed plan for
reorganization of the Law School
fee and tuition schedule, the
committee decided to adopt parts
of the plan proposing new law
fees while diluting provisions for
student financial aid.
The reorganization plan,
submitted by Law School Dean
Eugene Seoles, calls for the
creation of four new fees for law
students while making provision
for partial or total waiver or
deferral of the new fees in cases
of “extrme hardship, need or
merit.”
Committee chairer John
Mosser expressed concern that
the committee, by adopting the
proposal, would set a precedent
whereby all the schools in the
state system could apply for
special fees to be applied toward
special needs.
Mosser also questioned
whether law students should be
exempt from regular incidental
fees. Clark agreed and indicated
that the incidental fee provision
of the proposal would be altered.
Calling the proposal “too big an
increase with too big a remission
program,” Mosser cast the tie
breaking vote to defeat a motion
to recommend Board approval.
The committee then
unanimously voted to have
Mosser prepare a modified
version of the plan, to include the
fee increases except for the
special law incidental fee, to
submit to the Board on May 22.
Mosser said his proposal would
include a “phase-in” of the new
fees with a maximum 30 per cent
waiver. Under his plan, the
waiver would be decreased
yearly, Mosser said.
Funds generated by the fees
under Scoles’ rate schedule are
earmarked for the Law School.
The proposed fees are:
—A $20 School of Law ap
plication processing fee, to be
paid by all applicants. It is
estimated that this fee will
produce about $30,000 a year.
—A $200 School of Law ad
mission acceptance fee, to be
paid upon admission to the
school. Based on an entering
State Board to review plan
to replace Amazon foundations
By TODD MERRIMAN
Of the Emerald
PORTLAND (Special) — One
hundred twenty apartments in
the University’s Amazon Housing
Complex may receive new
foundations as a result of action
taken Thursday by the Oregon
State Board of Higher Education
building committee. The com
mittee voted to recommend to the
board that a contract be awarded
for the replacement of struc
turally unsound foundations in
the Amazon Complex.
But it was apparent that the
recommendation will be closely
scrutinized when it is considered
by the board on May 22. Board
member Edward Westerdahl,
citing the estimated $170,000 cost
of the project, questioned the
wisdom of making major repairs
on “facilities that have outlived
their usefulness.” Westerdahl
said he supported the concept of
providing low cost housing for
students but said renovation of
the World War II era buildings
was contrary to “good business
policy.”
Board member Elizabeth
Johnson suggested the Amazon
issue will provide the board with
an opportunity to review policies
on low cost housing administered
by the State System. Guidelines
are needed, Johnson said, to
insure that occupants of such
housing are needy and are
making adequate progress
toward degrees.
University President Robert
Clark defended the foundation
replacement project. Clark told
the committee that some
students “desperately need” the
Amazon housing in order to meet
educational expenses.
The foundation replacement, if
approved by the board, would be
funded from University married
student housing, and general
repair, reserves.
The project will not result in
rent increases for Amazon
Housing, Clark said. But he
added that other factors may
soon force a rent hike.
In other action the committee
recommended that the board
deed two acres of land south of
the Autzen Stadium parking lot to
Lane County for use in a proposed
waterway in Alton Baker Park.
In exchange, the county would be
required to return land adjacent
to the stadium parking lot, and of
equal value, to the board within
three years.
The committee also com
missioned Chancellor Roy
Lieuallen to compile a report on
the effects of the energy crisis on
the state system of higher
education. Lieuallen agreed that
there is a need for such an in
vestigation. “This crisis is a real
one and it may be upon us before
we know it,” he said.
For collective bargaining
AFT wants separate agents
By JOHN KNOWLTON
Of the Emerald
The University is an independent campus unit.
When collective bargaining for faculty employees
becomes a reality, the bargaining agent should
bargain separately with employers rather than
having a bargaining agent represent all seven of the
schools in the state system.
That is the position the American Federation of
Teachers (AFT) is taking in their recently
published newsletter, “AFT Advocate.”
According to the newsletter, independent campus
bargaining should be pursued “because at the
campus level faculty have the greatest opportunity
to participate in and influence the daily operational
policies and decisions that most immediately affect
them: pay increases, promotion and tenure
criteria, teaching loads, local grievance
procedures, budget allocations, etc.”
This position is in opposition to the one taken by
the Oregon State Employees Association (OSEA)
which has a collective bargaining stand that would
encompass all of the state supported institutions of
higher learning.
“OSEA wishes to have a statewide unit because
they are the only strong statewide organization and
such a unit would be to their benefit,” says
Nathaniel Teich, AFT executive committee
member.
An important consideration in collective
bargaining is the definition applied to the
bargaining unit, exactly who is being represented.
Reich says AFT’s definition of the bargaining unit is
different than the definition used by other teaching
organizations.
“It’s unclear who would be included in the
bargaining unit in OSEA or ASUP based upon
membership because they have administrators
listed as members,” says Teich. AFT limits its
membership to “full-time and part-time teaching
and research faculty” and excludes administrators,
which Teich defined as “department heads on up.”
“The AFT has a philosophy more similar to an
industrial labor philosophy,” Teich says. He said
there should be a separation of the faculty and
administrative interests in collective bargaining.
Recent statements by Sen. Lynn Newbry (R
Talent) on collective bargaining have pleased
Teich. Newbry has suggested that in place of having
the State Board be responsible for allocating money
to the universities, the money should be given to
the university in a lump sum and each university
should disburse it. Teich says such a suggestion
“shows that the Legislature is anticipating
collective bargaining by faculty and they are
looking for ways to meet it.”
An additional “bargainable issue” seen by AFT
is a change from the 100 per cent merit system of
salary increase. “There’s a certain
sentiment in faculty across the state for a cost of
iiving increment instead of merit pay. That would
guarantee that everybody gets something where
now some people get nothing,” said Teich. (See
related story, page 13.)
class of 150, this fee will produce
$30,000 annually.
—A $300 Law Study resources
fee, to be paid each year ($150 a
semester) by all law students.
Scoles’ plan proposed partial or
complete wiaver of this fee for
currently enrolled law students.
With waivers for exisitng
students, this fee will produce
$60,000 the first year and increase
to $120,000 in four years. The law
study resources fee, is intended,
in lieu of tuition increases, to give
the money to the law library and
to cover other instructional
—A $60 law student incidental
fee, to be paid each year ($30 per
semester) by all law students.
Under Scoles’ plan, law students
would not pay the ASUO con
trolled incidental fee but would
maintain access to “general
institutional activities” while
contracting with the ASUO for
specific activities. The majority
of the funds generated by this fee
would go to support law student
oriented activities.
A provision of the Scoles plan
provides that if the waiver and
deferral authority is not ap
proved, the amount of the
resource and acceptance fees
should be reduced to $100 an
nually for each fee for students
presently enrolled.
Scoles and Donald Chalmers,
president of the student bar
association, urged the committee
to recommend Board approval of
the new fee structure with waiver
authority.
The majority of law students
support fee increases in lieu of
tuition increases, Chalmers
said. Law students must bear the
“stigma” or “distinction” of the
school from which they are
graduated, Chalmers said, ex
plaining the desire for increased
fees.
Comparing it with “the county
library in Drain, Oregon,”
Chalmers said the University law
library was in “dire straits” due
to lack of funds. Chalmers added
that law students have a “vested
interest” in insuring that faculty
salaries are competitive with
good law schools.
Scoles reminded the committee
that the law school will convert to
a semester system in the 1973-74
year, resulting in less working
time for law students this sim -
mer. To grant a fee increa^se
without providing for waivers,
Scoles said, would produce
“extreme hardship” for re
turning students.
University President Robert
Clark seconded Scoles’ ob
servation. Clark noted that law
students, once forced to leave, do
not have “an effective chance to
change institutions.”
The committee, however, was
reluctant to grant the Law School
any special waiver authority.
Committee member Edward
Westerdahl II said that law
students are “the one element
that probably needs it (waiver of
fees) least.”
Westerdahl characterized law
students as “able, articulate,
well-educated” students with a
“better potential for rewards”
than most undergraduates..
Annual walk benefits
self-help projects
Trying to break the economic trap that keeps people’s basic
needs from being met; that is the goal for the Walk for
Development, set for Saturday, May 12.
Volunteers will collect pledges from sponsors prior to the
34-mile walk which will begin at 7:30 a.m. from the Lane County
Fairgrounds. No one is required to complete the entire course
that includes 3-mile checkpoints offering food and drink.
Coordinator Gary Bond described the walk as different from
other walk-a-thons because the walk is locally run and 100 per
cent of the funds go directly to self-help projects in the Eugene
Springfield area. “Those community projects which relate to
people’s basic needs fit our criteria for funding. We are not a
charity; instead we’re trying to help people become self
sufficient,” Bond said.
Walks held in 1969 raised $21,000 while in 1971 a total of
$51,000 was gathered. Funds collected this year will be shared
between various projects, the amount being set by a student
board that represents the University, LCC, and the seven high
schools involved in the walk.
Bond noted that funds collected from prior Walks for
Development helped to take people off welfare through
education scholarships. One important goal, according to Bond,
is trying to support projects which locate, create, and train
people for jobs.
Projects to be funded relate to such basic needs as health
care, child care, counselling, education, job placement, food and
shelter. Such organizations as Growers’ Market, a non-profit
co-op food store; OUR Credit Union, a source for low-interest
loans; Goodwill Industries; Women’s Transitional Living
Center; Council on Aging; University Day Care Center; and
Economic Development Council, among other, are listed for
support from the Walk for Development.
“We’re not just helping the poor but helping people see their
basic needs met... Students at the University are most capable
of understanding what we’re trying to do,” said Bond.
Volunteers should contact Campaign Director Steve Jole at
689-3228 or Projects Director Gary Bond at 686-8097. Pledge
cards for the walk are available at the EMU main desk or at the
Walk for Development office at 610 Willamette.