Oregon daily emerald., January 31, 1978, Image 1

Vol. 79, No 90
Eugene, Oregon 97403
Tuesday, January 31, 1978
| Can you
. hack it?
Here it is, folks, The Rick
and Tom Show. Today
they're demonstrating the
game of Hacky, an activity
you can really kick up your
heels to. Hacky is played
with, naturally, a hacky
sack - a small leather bean
bag. In case you couldn't
guess, the object of the
game is to keep the sack in
the air using feet and legs.
Photo by Erich Boeketherde
Tuition: No gift in store next year
By RICHARD SEVEN
Of the Emerald
Surprise! Tuition will probably go up
again next year, according to Keith Jack
son, budget director for the State System of
Higher Education.
Jackson says the main reason for the
increase is the same reason all other prices
are rising — inflation.
‘ Oh yes, tuition will probably increase
next year,” says Jackson, although he adds
it's too early for exact figures.
Jackson says his department must find
the rate of cost not only of direct instruction,
but also of the various student services a
vailable. His department must then com
bine these costs with the other state col
leges and find the average cost.
Jackson says his department should
have next year’s tuition figures ready to re
commend to the State Board Finance
Committee at its April meeting. The board
as a whole is expected to finalize the figure
at its May meeting in Ashland.
In determining the expected tuition costs,
higher education officials divide the number
of full-time equivalency students (FTE) by
the expected cost of instruction. If the total
cost of instruction is estimated at $100,000
and 10,000 students are expected to enroll,
the total cost of instruction per student
would be $100.
The Legislature has a policy of charging a
resident student only 25 percent of his or
her actual cost of instruction. Bill Barrows, a
legislative analyst, told the Emergency
Board in Salem Thursday, that students
were actually overcharged for tuition this
past year.
The Emergency Board decided that
$540,000 out of the $1.7 million of un
budgeted tuition income should be used to
help offset future tuition increases.
Much of the increased tuition income has
been a result of a greater than usual
number of out-of-state students attending
state colleges.
University Pres. William Boyd says he
doubts if the figure is large enough to make
a substantial difference. “I think it was
mainly a gesture of good faith,” he says.
One possible cause of soaring tuition
costs is the decrease of FTE’s. According to
Ralph Sunderland, University director of
management and budget, the Legislature
subsidizes higher education for every FTE,
which is 15 hours or more.
Working in the current biennium, if the
University were to lose a great number of
FTE’s, it would only lose that amount of
tuition. In the second period of the bienium,
which is next year, the University would
lose both the students' tuition and the legis
lative subsidy.
“The second year of the biennium is us
ally more costly in terms of tuition because
of inflation and related salary increases,”
Sunderland says. He feels however, that a
drop of FTE's would be directly responsible
for a tuition increase unless accompanied
by a different “mix” of students.
The “mix" comprises the non-resident
students as opposed to the residents. Out
of-state students are charged 100 percent
of the actual cost of their education. It is
their tuition that has given higher education
its $1.7 million tuition surplus.
Sunderland says tuition used to be set for
a two-year period. “We sort of got away
from that,” he says. “The increase in tuition
cost after the biennium was always too
great of a percentage.”
Instead higher education sets tuition
rates every year to make the percent of the
change more gradual.
Horton rejects unethical behavior claims
By GARY NORRIS
Of the Emerald
Pat Horton, Lane County district attorney
Friday denied making “erroneous and mis
leading statements” at a Jan. 13 Oregon
Government Ethics Commission hearing to
investigate alleged unethical behavior on
his part.
The hearing was requested by Eugene
Attorney Charles Porter, who claims Horton
and Deputy DA Thomas Meehan reached
an improper plea-bargaining agreement
with the attorney of a California man ar
rested for transporting cocaine.
The commission dismissed the com
plaint against Horton and Meehan, but Por
ter, in a Jan. 18 letter to the commission,
said Horton made “erroneous and mislead
ing statements”, and asked that the com
mission re-schedule his complaint.
According to Porter, Horton acted impro
perly by having the defendant, John Arthur,
turn over a $7,500 camper to the Lane In
teragency Narcotics Team (LINT), and he
misled the ethics commission by stating
that Arthur had also agreed to return to
California and work as an undercover nar
cotics agent for a year, which was not men
tioned at Arthur’s sentencing.
Horton called Porter's charges "a sham.’’
He said the forfeiture of vehicles is provided
for in the “narcotics forfeiture statute" either
before or after a conviction has been ob
tained.
"I have no doubt that it (forfeiture of vehi
cles) is within the law”, Horton said.
Horton said the statute dates back to
prohibition days when bootleggers used the
state’s highways, and was recently updated
to apply to narcotic travelers.
Arthur had also agreed to do undercover
work, Horton said, but he said no mention of
that was made at the sentencing because,
since sentencings are on the public record,
identifying Arthur as an informant would
have destroyed his cover.
“It was obviously a part of the agree
ment,” Horton said. "I mean, why else
would this guy mysteriously disappear, and
then show up a year later for sentencing?"
However, Arthur’s attorney John Hal
pern, has denied that Arthur agreed to be
an informant.
“As his attorney, the agreement was
made through me," Halpem said. “It was
absolutely not a part of the plea agreement
that Arthur work as an undercover agent for
anyone.”
The commission will consider Porter’s
request for a new hearing at its Feb. 23
meeting. But according to Lewis Hampton,
commission chairer, the only charge it can
try Horton and Meehan for in this case is
“use of public office for private financial
gain.”
“Based on what was before me then,”
Hampton said, “there was clearly no indica
tion of private financial gain. Our concern
was whether LINT was a for-profit corpora
tion.”