Maroon

              The Loyola MAROON Volume 71 No. 12 Loyola University New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 November 20,1992 Down for the count—Celebration wXs In order as the Wolfpack defeated LeToumeau University, 87-85, bringing the basketball team Its first victory In 21 years./ See story, page 7 Book exchange approved by SGA By Chris Bonura Staff writer On Tuesday, the Student Government Association reaffirmed its decision earlier this semester to implement a book exchange program for Spring 1993 and approved a threepage proposal that outlines the practical aspects of the book exchange. Until Tuesday' s meeting, the SG A was considering two plans for implementing the book exchange—one in which SGA would actually collect the books, and one in which the SGA would publish and distribute a list of names and phone numbers of those who want to sell books. The plan that the SGA will pursue was compiled by the book exchange committee, headed by Katy Montgomery, Arts and Science representative andpolitical science freshman. It transforms the SGA storage room, located in the Danna Center behind the SGA office, into a used textbook trading post for five days at the beginning of the semester. During exam week, each SGA member will be required to spend a half-hour in the SGA office collecting books and another half-hour to help with sales. Students who wish to sell books will drop them off at the SGA office and fill out a form, indicating how much money they are asking for the book. To buy books, students will enter through the office, drop off their belongings, find the books they need in the storage area, and pay for their selections. The receipts will then be verified by an SGA member in the office. The next day, the SGA secretary will arrange for students whose books were sold lo collect their money. SGA will charge a 10 percent service charge on all books to offset the expense of forms, publicity, anv losses to theft, and, if there is a surplus, SGA will keep the profits. Vice president Erika Schwarz, communications senior, discussed the plan's advantages. She said it would give students an opportunity to observe the condition of the books they are buying and provide an opportunity for the student body to see their representatives in action. John Hernandez, law president and second year law student, questioned whether the executive staff would be ible to get members to devote the planned hour, and he claimed that a few people would get stuck with all the work. In response to Hernandez's objections, Elia Diaz, law representative and second year law student, asked to see a show of hands of who would volunteer time. An overwhelming majority raised their hands. Casey Stowe, business representative and business junior, pointed out that if the resolution was tabled, SGA would not get around to it until either next semester or next year. SGA secretary Suzanne Bennett, psychology senior, asked the congress to consider the publication proposal, in which the names and phone numbers of students who want to sell their books would be postedfor a fee of a quarter per book. Bennett said that this plan is "efficient, and it wouldn't cost a lot." She claimed that the publication plan would be easier on the staff. Jerry Collins, SGA Arts and Science president and communications senior, said Bennett, a non-voting, paid SGA employee, did not have the authority to sponsor a resolution. Teacher evaluations roadblocked by bickering ■y Charles Lussler Managing Editor The College Assembly of Arts & Sciences argued back and forth Tuesday about the merits and liabilities of a new proposal submitted by the Dean's Student Advisory Council (DSAC) which calls for the return of student evaluations of faculty. The college as a whole presently has no system of student evaluations owing to a budget cut several years ago which slashed funding used to purchase the actual forms, which were supplied by an outside vendor at a high cost. The proposal which has been on Assembly agenda since last May and was discussed briefly at the October meeting, received its first substantial criticism, occupying almost all of the hour-plus meeting's discussion. The meeting, attended by approximately 67 faculty and students, was marked by student/faculty bickering, and a proposal that appeared to need much more work than DSAC anticipated.The proposal, which is separated into five parts and was passed by DSAC May 5, is much different than the previous evaluation form. Its main points: •Subjective questions aimed at giving the school more specific information on individual professors and classes, rather than just the general results of objective forms will be added to the normal list of objective questions. Individual departments will draw up the subjective questions.•The questions themselves will be determined by the Excellence in Teaching Award Committee, which will most likely, according to DSAC members, employ the opinion of faculty experts from various departments in formulating questions. The committee will also tabulate the results of the objective section, and the subjective section will be interpreted by the professor in question and the chairperson of that department. •The proposal calls for the evaluations to be administered within the last two weeks of school and for teachers to be out of the classroom during evaluations. •It requests that these evaluations be used for the "process of retention, promotion, salary negotiations and tenure." •It requests the setting up of a database to inform students of every class in the school's "attendance policy, number and length of papers, number and format of tests, class format, etc. and should be made available through campus computer labs." The policy, however, does stop See DSAC/page 4 Inside this week... Drying out See page 11