C A L I F O R N I A
INSIDE
BASEBALL: Titans head to San Luis Obispo this weekend for a threegame series. —See Sports, page 6.
VOLUME 66, ISSUE 16
Titan
S T A T E
The
Daily
U N I V E R S I T Y ,
F U L L E R T O N INDEX
C alendar & B riefs O pinion D etour S ports
F R I D AY
MARCH 13, 1998
Students say no fee, complex n SURVEY: In the first of
several Daily Titan surveys, the count is 40-12 against paying for a new fitness complex. By NATHAN ORME
Daily Titan Executive Editor Over the next couple weeks, before the special election on the Fitness Center referendum, the Daily Titan will conduct a series of informal surveys to find out how students feel about the proposed fee increase to
No profits for profs on custom texts?
build the recreation complex.
Students reacted with enthusiastic “yes”es, adamant “no”s and a few uncertains when asked about the idea of paying an extra $150 per semester to pay for a new sports complex on campus. But overwhelmingly, students said they do not want to pay extra for this new luxury. Out of the 64 students surveyed, 40 gave responses indicating they would not vote for the fee increase. The reason? They did not think that they would use it and they did not want to
pay the extra money. A positive response was given by 12 students, who indicated dissatisfaction with the current equipment and facilities. Several answers specifically referred to the old and outdated weight room equipment. Then there were those who were not quite sure. Some said they did not know enough about it to make a decision; others did not know if they were going to vote; and some even said they had no intention of voting. “I don’t care. I think this is a great school. I probably won’t vote though,” said Ara Akoubian, a sophomore busi-
ness major. Most people, however, were more decisive. “They spent how much money on the stadium which we don’t use,” said Kathleen Estrada, a biochemistry major. “Now they want to spend all this money on a freakin’ sports facility?” “Thumbs down,” said history major Dave Matias. “I’m against it because it’s not fair. If I was into fitness I would go to a club.” “By the time I graudate and it’s built I’ll have a full-time job and see
see SURVEY/
Who is your daddy?
unions say CETI has too many holes and does not protect employees. by JOAN HANSEN
posal may prohibit professors from profiting from required custom publishing texts.
Daily Titan Staff Writer
By JOAN HANSEN AND MARYANNE WARDLAW Daily Titan Staff Writers The Academic Senate discussed a proposal Thursday to keep faculty from profiting from required class materials. The proposal would stop conflict of interest on the part of faculty who require material from which they receive royalties. The proposal states: “No faculty or administrator shall personally profit from material required or assigned to any course for which they have any responsibility in assigning material.” A state bill proposed two years ago would have made it illegal for faculty to assign material from which they profit. The bill was tabled, but it raised the issue on campuses around the state. Professor Wayne Hobson said that financial matters may have an undue influence over some faculty selection of materials. He said that that some professors make anywhere from $600 to $2,000 a semester from material they develop and sell. “The original policy has had despicable abuses,” said professor Bill Meyer, adding that some professors have used larger type size just to receive more royalties for the
“No faculty or administrator shall personally profit from material required or assigned to any course for which they have responsibility in assigning material.” Academic Senate proposal
additional pages used. Another faculty member said that integrity is more important than the money professors stand to lose. Senator Donald Finn suggested that an ethics committee could achieve the same results without a blanket prohibition. An amendment which would allow faculty to receive royalties with the dean’s approval prompted further debate. The issue may be settled at the Academic Senate’s next meeting on March 19.
CETI proposal has union foes n TECHNOLOGY: CSU
n ACADEMIC SENATE: Pro-
RON SOLIMAN/Daily Titan
Cherry Poppin’ Daddies lead singer Steve Perry sways for the crowd that showed up at the Becker Slab to see the band’s performance. —See photos and related story in the special edition of Detour on pages 5 and 8.
2 4 5,8 6
Three Cal State University unions agree that the California Education Technology Initiative proposal may not have employees’ best interest in mind. They also agree that the partnership is moving too fast and that CETI’s most recent attempt to still the waters may prove to be the heat to boil the pot. Recently, corporate partners of CETI answered 100 questions compiled by the statewide Academic Senate, California Faculty Association, California State Employees Association and the California State Student Association regarding intended policy changes if the CETI partnership with CSU is approved in May. Instead of creating support, the answers may have reinforced fears from those most personally involved— the unions comprising the backbone of CSU employees for the last 20 years. Union representatives said that vagueness and non-commitment linger throughout the 17-page questionnaire. Terms like “it is not our intention” and “should not impact” are causes for concern, and 14 questions were answered with “STATUS: In negotiations.” Question: The CSU has adopted the “retention of CSU employees” policy as one of its foremost principles. Define “retention.” Does retention include both permanent and temporary employee? Will the relationship between CSU and its employees change? The overall question is, “who is the employer? Will employees of the limited liability companies (separate companies of contractors or subcontractors, or LLC) replace or displace bargaining unit work employees?
Answer: Retention means that, as a result of CETI, current staff will not be laid-off or outsourced. Maintenance and expansion of the CSU employee base will be as it is today, subject to market forces and changing needs. Collective bargaining agreements will apply. Employees of the industry partners will not displace current CSU employees; they will augment CSU employees. Assignments of CSU employees may change as a result of changing technological and service needs as has been the case over time. Question: What will happen to vacant positions occupied by CSU employees, will they be filled with CSU employees or LLC employees, will new positions be filled with CSU or LLC employees? Answer: It is not the intention of the CSU to displace any current employees in order to use limited liability, company, trained technological workers. However, the CSU may contract with LLC to use subcontractors to perform work on information technology services. As an option, the CSU may decide to contract with the LLC to provide these services. Three CSU employee unions CFA, CSEA, and SETC responded to CETI’s attempt at simplifying confusing and complex issues. “There are two problems,” said John Connor, a State Employee Trade Council SETC executive board member. “The possibility of the loss of jobs, and outside workers being brought in, that I am opposed.” SETC members include electricians, carpenters, maintenance, plumbers, auto building service engineers. He said that outside people from another company should not be brought in to work side by side with state employees. He said that this should not be allowed.
see CETI/
Enrollment ‘Tidal Wave’ may not crash quite so hard n ENROLLMENT: State
analysts’ and Cornerstones reports’ theories on future enrollment differ greatly. By CINDY JIMENEZ
Daily Titan Staff Writer
The so-called “Tidal Wave II” that is supposed to flood California college campuses may be just a ripple after all. A report by the state’s Legislative Analysts Office projects an annual growth of 0.3 percent from 1991 to 2005 which is “not of ‘tidal wave’ proportions.” The report claims that enrollment growth will actually be lower than the 2.7 percent growth experienced Copyright ©1998, Daily Titan
by the three systems between 1970 and 1991. The LAO predicts that enrollment at the CSU will only run 3,000 students higher in the 200506 school year than in 1991. The Cornerstones Report, developed by CSU faculty, administrators, trustees and students, puts the number at 69,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) students by the year 2005 in the CSU system alone. While comparing statistics derived from different methods seem to be harmful, there is still a sharp disparity in the two reports’ conclusions on funding requirements. The Cornerstones report states that “under the most optimistic scenario,” funding increases will range from five to six percent annually through 2005. Called the
“growth gap,” the CSU estimates a minimum funding gap of $58 million by 2005 if “enrollment demands are met.” But, according to the LAO’s findings, there is no enrollment growth that will necessitate additional funding. “This is all based on projections,” Cornerstones staff member Frank Wada said in response to the LAO’s report. “We are taking all this with a grain of salt,” he said, referring to the LAO’s projections. The overall CSU prediction for the three systems would put the enrollment at 2.3 million students by 2005. That is about 450,000 more than the 1.85 million enrolled in 1993. It appears, however, that the
see ENROLL/