Loyola Marymount University February 13, 1984
Calendar Change Conflict
By MICHAEL M. RIVERO
Editor-In-Chief
Sweeping changes in the 1984 - 1985
Academic Calendar were announced
near the end of last semester by
Academic Vice President Fr. Albert P.
Koppes, O. Carm., including the
abolishment of the interterm instruction
period.
The announcements were made in a
letter from Koppes dated December 13,
1983, and was distributed to faculty
members during final examinations.
The decision to abolish the interterm in-
Candidate
Selection
By CARYN McCANN
Loyolan Chief Writer
Hver the next few weeks, Jesuit
candidates for the position of
University President will be visiting the
campus, continuing with the long series
of interviews necessary for such a job.
The University’s Presidential Search
Committee has the responsibility of
showing the candidates all that LMU has
to offer. \ In addition, the committee
must address the candidates on such
primary concerns as faculty-
administrative communication.
The Presidential Search Committee is
composed of five members from the
Board of Trustees who will cast votes for
the Jesuit they feel best qualifies for the
job. The committee also includes Dr.
Virgina Merriam (Academic Assembly
Chairperson), Alberta Brinson (ASLMU
struction surprised -Juany faculty
members and created a unique ad¬
ministrative confrontation.
In a formal response, the faculty sited
an “apparent failure of the administra¬
tion to respond to solicited faculty in¬
put” in a return letter on December
19th,. 1983.
Because Koppes’ initial memo was
short and to the point, some viewed it as
an attempt to avoid confrontation
because it was distributed without ade¬
quate explanation.
However, Koppes explained that
because he was fighting deadlines, he
opted to announce the changes before
the end of the semester instead of waiting
until he had formally compiled his list of
explanations.
Speaking for the Academic Assembly,
Chairperson Dr; Virginia Merriam said
on Friday that “We are not uniformally
happy with the rationale [behind the
calendar] and the way it was presented
but we feel its important to have an ef-
fectiye and collegial relationship with
the administration. ”
Because students had also been in-
vloved in the calendar recommendation
process through questionaires and
Inside This Week:
,1984 - 1985 Calendar
see page 6
Hoopers Win Big
see page 22
President)* and alumnus Tim Psomas.
These additional members act only as
advisors, and do not have voting
privileges.
“We [the Search Committee] are the
ones who have to implement many of the
[policies] that come from, the
President,” stated Merriam.
“It’s not fair to evaluate recommen¬
dations from just one [faculty] point of
view,” she added. “A broader input of¬
fers a spectrum of perspectives.”
University • President Fr. Donald P.
Merrifield, S.J., whose resignation is ef¬
fective in September, feels differently.
“[The faculty] does not need to be
represented. The president reports to the
Board of Trustees. The Board alone
chooses him. The faculty are not in
charge of this university. However, no
president can run an institution if the
(continued on page 3)
government edicts, Koppes met with
members of the Student Senate and the
ASLMU Executive Board to discuss the
new calendar prior to this semester.
With the cooperation of Vice Presi¬
dent for Student Affairs, Dr. Henry
Durand, Koppes was able to hear direct¬
ly what is concerning students. “Student
input is needed, will be solicited, and
will be taken seriously but ultimately
decisions must be made by the ad¬
ministration,” Koppes clarified.
Included in the results of the meeting
was permission for The Loyolan to
reprint for students the letter of formal
explanations from Koppes sent to the
faculty in January.
I wish to respond to you individually
and to you as a member of a concerned
group of faculty. I appreciate your con
cern for processes at the University,
related in particular t(to the apparent
failure of the administration to respond
to solicited faculty input.” I am more
than willing to discuss this issue with the
faculty advisors or any group of faculty.
On my side, I am rather discouraged
that there is ((an emerging concensus ”
among the faculty that administrative
decisions are being made in an arbitrary
fashion, failing <( to consider the collec¬
tive judgement of the faculty.
Щ
In the last year and a half, many
things have occured at the University,
initiated by the faculty and supported by
the administration. To name but a few, I
would mention the faculty development
fund, the research centers, the library
improvements, increased sabbaticals,
remissions, stipends for chairs, merit
procedures, administrative evolutions, a
listing which would appear to challenge
the basic assumption that the decisions
are being made arbitrarily .
/
realize faculty need to be consulted,
(continued on page 3)
Academic Assembly Chair Merriam
Loyolan Photo by Michael M. Rivero
The Los Angeles
