The official minutes of the University of South Carolina Board of Trustees are maintained by the Secretary of the Board. Certified copies of minutes may be requested by contacting the Board of Trustees’ Office. Electronic or other copies of original minutes are not official Board of Trustees' documents.
Board of Trustees
October 17, 2002
The University of South Carolina Board of Trustees met on Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 12:50 p.m. in Ballroom C of the Russell House.
Members present were: Mr. Mack I. Whittle, Jr., Chairman; Mr. Herbert C. Adams, Vice Chairman; Mr. Arthur S. Bahnmuller; Mr. James Bradley; Dr. C. Edward Floyd; Mr. Samuel R. Foster, II; Mr. Alexander English; Mrs. Helen C. Harvey; Mr. William C. Hubbard; Mr. Toney J. Lister; Mr. Miles Loadholt; Mr. Robert N. McLellan; Ms. Darla D. Moore; Mr. Michael J. Mungo; Mr. James A. Shuford, III; Mr. M. Wayne Staton; Mr. John C. von Lehe, Jr.; and Mr. Othniel H. Wienges, Jr. Mrs. Inez M. Tenenbaum was absent. The faculty representative Professor Robert Wilcox, and the student representative, Mr. Ankit Patel, were both present.
Others present were: President Andrew A. Sorensen; Secretary Thomas L. Stepp; Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost Jerome D. Odom; Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Richard W. Kelly; Vice President for Information Technology and Chief Information Officer William F. Hogue; Vice President for Human Resources Jane M. Jameson; Vice President for Student and Alumni Services and Interim Vice President for Development Dennis A. Pruitt; Interim Vice President for Research Harris Pastides; General Counsel Walter (Terry) H. Parham; Vice Provost and Executive Dean for Regional Campuses and Continuing Education Chris P. Plyler; Chancellor of USC Aiken Thomas L. Hallman; Dean of USC Beaufort Jane T. Upshaw; Dean of USC Lancaster John Catalano; Dean of USC Sumter C. Leslie Carpenter; Dean of USC Salkehatchie Ann Carmichael; Dean of USC Union James W. Edwards; Dean of the College of Pharmacy Farid Sadik; Interim Dean of the College of Social Work Leon Ginsberg; Associate Dean, College of Liberal Arts, John V. Skvoretz; Director of Athletics Michael B. McGee; Assistant Treasurer Susan D. Hanna; Director of the Office of Budget William P. Bragdon; Assistant to the Vice President, Office of Business and Finance, Ken Corbett; Librarian for Administrative Services, University Libraries, C. J. Cambre, Jr.; Manager of Visual Media, Distance Education and Instructional Support, Steve Adams; Director of Periodicals, University Publications, Chris Horn; University Legislative Liaison John Gregory; Director of the Department of Student Life, Division of Student and Alumni Services, Jerry T. Brewer; Chief of Staff of the Student Government Association Andrew L. Richardson, Jr.; Institutional Affairs Director, Student Government Association, Jessica Steadman; President of Carolina Productions, Russell House University Union, David Schroder; Palm Campus Ministry Chaplain Scooter Scott; Bond Counsel Brent Jeffcoat and Ray Jones of Parker, Poe Adams & Berstein, L.L.P.; Director of the Office of Public Affairs Russell McKinney; and members of the media.
Chairman Whittle stated that notice of the meeting had been posted and the press notified as required by the Freedom of Information Act; the agenda and supporting materials had been circulated to the members; and a quorum was present to conduct business.
Chairman Whittle welcomed everyone and invited Board members to introduce themselves. Mr. McKinney introduced the members of the media who were in attendance.
At Chairman Whittle's invitation, Chaplain Scott delivered the invocation.
Chairman Whittle stated that there were personnel matters with respect to an honorary degree nomination, honorary faculty titles, an appointment with tenure/transfer of tenure, Board of Visitors nominations, and contractual matters with respect to gift naming opportunities which were appropriate for discussion in Executive Session. Mr. Mungo moved to enter Executive Session, and Mr. Bahnmuller seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
The following persons were invited to remain: Dr. Sorensen, Mr. Stepp, Dr. Odom, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Jameson, Dr. Pruitt, Dr. Pastides, Dr. Plyler, Mr. Parham, Mr. McKinney, Ms. Tweedy, and Ms. Salmons. Dr. Floyd excused himself from Executive Session discussions.
Return to Open Session
Secretary Stepp noted that the August 9, 2002, Board of Trustees minutes contained an error; Jody Carpenter, rather than Jeff Miller, should have been listed as the Board of Visitors' appointee from the 15th Judicial Circuit. This error had been corrected in the official record of Board minutes.
There were no further additions, deletions or corrections to the minutes; therefore, they stood approved as corrected.
The following individuals would be awarded the title Distinguished Professor during their final year of service. That title would change to Distinguished Professor Emerita effective with their retirement:
The following individuals would be awarded the title Distinguished Professor during their final year of service. That title would change to Distinguished Professor Emeritus effective with their retirement:
The following individual would be awarded the title Emerita Professor effective with her retirement:
The following individuals would be awarded the title Emeritus Professor effective with their retirement:
On behalf of the Academic Affairs and Faculty Liaison Committee, Mr. McLellan moved approval of these honorary faculty titles. Mr. Mungo seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
In addition, to permit the handling of an omission from this listing, Mr. McLellan had deferred one additional honorary faculty title to the Executive Committee for action.
On behalf of the Academic Affairs and Faculty Liaison Committee, Mr. McLellan moved approval of the request to award tenure to Dr. Maxie Myron Cox, Jr. at the rank of Associate Professor at USC Lancaster effective with his appointment as Associate Professor at USC Lancaster. Dr. Cox's tenure would be transferred from USC Salkehatchie to USC Lancaster. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
On behalf of the Academic Affairs and Faculty Liaison Committee, Mr. McLellan moved approval of this College of Liberal Arts departmental name change as presented. Mr. Hubbard seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
In addition, and on behalf of the full Board, the Executive Committee had approved a USC Beaufort fee increase for the business administration degree with a management specialty. Previously, USC Aiken had offered this program at the USC Beaufort campus. Because USC Beaufort had received permission to develop as a senior teaching institution, USC Aiken would not offer this business management degree on the Beaufort campus following the 2003-2004 academic year. The program will be approved by the Commission on Higher Education and will satisfy the SACS (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools) accreditation requirement for a four-year degree granting institution.
During the Executive Committee meeting earlier today, the Committee had approved the renewal of a contract with ScienceDirect.
The University anticipated issuing a separate series of Athletics Facilities Revenue Bond Anticipation Notes or Bonds sufficient to pay the principal and interest due on both the Notes and Series 2002A notes at their respective maturities.
Mr. Bradley moved approval of the Athletics Facilities Revenue Bond Anticipation Note Resolution in the amount of $9,400,000 to refund and refinance the Athletics Facilities Bond Anticipation Notes (BANS) issued on February 20, 2002 and maturing on November 20, 2002 as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Mr. Shuford seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried. [Exhibit A]
Mr. Bahnmuller moved approval of a $20 student activity fee increase as presented. Mr. Long seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
Mr. von Lehe moved approval of the Board of Visitors' nominations as presented. Mr. Staton seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
Because this particular Board meeting was the biennial organizational meeting, Chairman Whittle distributed the following information: (1) Bylaws of the Board of Trustees; (2) Organizational Chart of the University; (3) Job Description of the President; (4) Job Description of the Secretary of the Board; (5) Job Description of the Treasurer of the University; (6) Job Description of the Internal Auditor of the University. Chairman Whittle noted that this information was dynamic and would hopefully provide a roadmap for the University as it moved forward.
USC Aiken had reported that the largest freshman class in history had filled campus housing; plans for additional housing would move forward in the fall. Numerous goals were addressed, some of which had included improving the current recycling program on campus and increasing student awareness of paper usage.
USC Beaufort will sponsor a Spring Fest with a velcro wall, a dunking booth and other fun activities. In conjunction with the spring festival, an International Day will be held. Additionally, the third annual Club Fest had been planned; all clubs will display posters about their organizations on the front lawn of the campus.
USC Lancaster hoped to increase student participation by offering activities of interest to students. Planned events included a Halloween bash, a voter registration function, and a spring fling.
USC Salkehatchie had anticipated scheduling at least one major activity each month for students to get them more involved and connected to the campus. On-going community service activities including the March of Dimes, the American Cancer Society, and Relay for Life were planned. Two traditional annual events will be held -- a Feast Day in Allendale and a luau in Walterboro. In addition, USC Salkehatchie will co-host a hot chilli-pepper eating contest with the Opportunity Scholars Program.
USC Spartanburg had witnessed an increase of over 22 percent in the student population. Groundbreaking for a new dormitory, the National Guard Armory Readiness Center, and six new soccer fields built in partnership with Spartanburg County had recently taken place. During the previous spring semester, two students had graduated with a minor in non-profit administration, the first students in the nation ever to do so. The Honors Program had also experienced an increase of more than 50 new students.
USC Sumter had reported that the campus was in the process of transforming approximately 18 acres of unused land into a backyard habitat for a wetland/dryland conservation organization; the project will support the preservation of woodlands. A welcome week had been recently scheduled on campus. Other activities to encourage student participation included a Halloween carnival and a Holiday Fest. Also scheduled were town meetings with Dean Carpenter and students.
USC Union hoped to increase freshman involvement. Extra advertisements would help new students realize the benefits and functions offered to them. A Welcome Back social event had been held. Plans for a Halloween carnival had also been made. In November, an evening snack box will be provided for students attending late classes. A Thanksgiving dinner and a collection drive for canned foods was also scheduled.
USC Columbia had reported that the process was underway to fill student positions for all of the student and faculty committees. One of the goals had been to make the committees more useful and to offer better opportunities for new ideas to all students.
Improvements had been made to the shuttle system with the addition of four air-conditioned Carolina shuttles. Evening hours had been extended from 6:00 p.m. until 12:30 a.m. to accommodate an increased demand. A route had been added to the shuttle system with four new stops including the Greek Village; express routes were planned for 2003.
A request to increase the student activity fee had also been presented. The last increase in 1998 had only targeted the student media. Areas designated to receive increases included Carolina Productions, late night programming, the student government budget, and the Russell House University Union. A $10 increase was proposed for Carolina Productions. That increase would generate approximately $300,000 which would permit the expansion of programs. In addition, a $3 increase had been proposed for late night programming. This program was modeled after a highly successful program utilized at the University of Florida. With the support of this Committee, the student fee increase request had been forwarded to the Executive Committee for consideration.
President Sorensen had announced that Sports Illustrated Magazine had recently ranked the University of South Carolina as the 5th "America's Best Sports College" in the nation. He believed that this achievement was a testament to the breadth of athletic excellence at this institution particularly because of the current emphasis on gender balance in sports and the emphasis on balance between athletics and academics.
Dr. McGee had reported that construction of the Carolina Center would be completed within two weeks. The first event, a grand opening gala, was planned for either November 20 or 21. On December 9, a concert featuring Bruce Springsteen was scheduled. Dr. McGee anticipated that all of the tickets for this event would be sold; to date, 14,000 had been sold.
Within the past several weeks, the Athletics Department had hired two key individuals. Ms. Marlynn Jones, former Assistant Commissioner for Compliance and External Affairs for the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference, had been employed as the Assistant Athletics Director for NCAA Compliance at the University, reporting to both the Athletics Director and directly to the President. In addition, Mr. Jeff Talent, a graduate of the University and a CPA (Certified Public Accountant), would assume the Athletics Department budget director position.
The Men's Soccer Team was currently ranked in fifth place. And, the volleyball team had won three of the four games played for a 3-0 ranking in the SEC. The Women's Soccer Team had improved from the previous season to an 8-2 record.
On September 24th, Dr. McGee reported that he and President Sorensen had accompanied the Women's Track Team, the 2002 national champions, to The White House for a special recognition ceremony. He congratulated Coach Frye for this accomplishment, the first national championship in the history of the University.
Dr. McGee had stated that the goal for Men's Basketball season ticket sales had been recently surpassed; more than 11,200 season tickets had been sold to date. Approximately 3,300 - 3,500 seats in the arena would be reserved for students. There had also been a tremendous interest in seat priority among Gamecock Club members, causing a considerable increase in Gamecock Club memberships and contribution levels.
Dr. McGee had indicated that the Athletics Department had been working on the North End Zone Project, also referred to as the stadium expansion project. A feasibility study had been conducted to explore overall design possibilities and the financial implications of this expansion.
Dr. McGee remarked that President Sorensen had approved a project to construct a new weight training and weight development facility which would also include an indoor 60 yard straightaway. This training feature had become increasingly important as a means of development for the sports programs.
The $3 - $3.25 million project would be financed totally with private donations. The building will encompass approximately 28,000 square feet and will be constructed in an area underneath the South End Zone, an area which was no longer available for parking because of security concerns. He believed that this facility would greatly increase the attractiveness of the athletics program at the University.
The current locker space will be utilized to expand the Athletics Department training room; part of the area will remain as a weight room. Dr. McGee had commented that many of the Olympic Sports athletes trained in that particular area. Some of the area will be renovated to create improved rehab areas and an updated training room. Dr. McGee had also presented several preliminary architectural drawings of the proposed facility.
At the conclusion of the report, the Committee had extended its congratulations to Dr. McGee for the Sports Illustrated ranking.
Mr. McCoy had reviewed the following four internal audits: Department of Athletics; College of Social Work; Office of Financial Aid and Scholarships; and Office of Financial Services - Student Loan Accounting.
Mr. McCoy had remarked that Mr. Edwards, Assistant Athletics Director, had corrected most of the Athletics Department findings before the report had been published. Incorporation of a travel advance policy and a courtesy car policy would resolve inconsistencies in these areas.
The College of Social Work audit had revealed several findings primarily in the business area. Because this audit had been recently completed, more time was needed to correct the various findings. Mr. McCoy had expressed concern about the Korean Program indirect cost finding; at the time that the program had been created, a decision had been made to waive the eight percent indirect cost charge for this program. It was decided that the administration would present a detailed response to this audit report during the next Fiscal Policy Committee meeting. Included in the report would be an analysis of the Korean Program revenues and expenditures; at that time, an appropriate course of action would be decided.
For the Office of Financial Aid and Scholarships audit a large sample of students had been surveyed to ascertain whether students had received the appropriate financial awards. Of the 30,000 annual applications, less than 5 percent required professional judgment because of questionable information. It was also determined that the administration will research the possibility of the University assisting students who encounter unforeseen financial hardships during the semester.
Mr. McCoy had briefly reviewed the Office of Financial Services - Student Loan Accounting commenting that departmental management had taken action to address the four findings. He believed that within a short period of time corrective measures would be instituted.
Based upon the length of time between two of the findings which had been reported from the previous audit, the possibility of enlarging the Internal Audit staff to decrease the time span of approximately seven years between departmental audits had been discussed.
Chairman Whittle called on Mr. Shuford who commented that the October 4th Homecoming Weekend had been very successful. The Alumni Association had hosted a luncheon on Friday for the Class of 1952; approximately 80 alumni had attended the function. Following the luncheon, those individuals had been presented their Centurion Medallions. Mr. Shuford was pleased to announce that 550 alumni and guests had attended the Alumni Awards Banquet Dinner in the evening. The Black Alumni Council had sponsored a jazz social at the Sheraton Hotel after the dinner. This organization had also hosted a well-attended tailgate on Saturday morning prior to the football game. And, following the game, the traditional Carolina tea dance had been held.
Mr. Shuford also referenced information which Board members should have received regarding Alumni Association travel programs. He noted that ten events had been scheduled beginning in January 2003 and continuing until September 2003. Destinations included Ireland, France, and Canada, as well as other outstanding locations. Mr. Shuford encouraged everyone to consider participation especially because each travel event included an educational component. He explained that these programs had been very successful in the past and that the Alumni Association was fully anticipating a continuation of that success during the upcoming season.
Chairman Whittle recognized Dr. Sorensen who initially thanked those individuals who had participated in the "Bow Tie Bus Tour" campaign; four of the eight scheduled tours had been completed. He had thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity of meeting South Carolinians throughout the state.
Dr. Sorensen particularly thanked the regional campus deans and chancellors for their support during these tours. He had visited six of the seven regional campuses and was planning to visit the remaining one the following week. Dr. Sorensen expressed pride about the many contributions these institutions had made to the University. It was his goal to achieve greater coherence among the campuses through the development of a collective mission while respecting the unique qualities of each institution. As concrete evidence of this desire, Dr. Sorensen noted that he and Mrs. Sorensen had posed with the Student Government Association presidents from the eight campuses for the official 2002 University Christmas card. He also encouraged these student leaders to meet together in order to discuss possible ways of generating coherence among the respective student organizations.
Dr. Sorensen explained that the first element of his formal report would entail an update of the implementation of the SDI (Strategic Directions and Initiatives) Committee recommendations as adopted by the Board of Trustees. He asked Provost Odom to present an overview of the status of all major recommendations.
Provost Odom distributed a detailed progress report of the various initiatives noting that one year ago the Strategic Directions and Initiatives Committee had been immersed in the review of reports from deans and other campus leaders during numerous scheduled open meetings. In January 2002, this report had been submitted to President Palms for consideration and had been subsequently examined and discussed by the appropriate Board committees and other University factions including the Faculty Senate. And, finally, Board members had approved the SDI Report as presented by Dr. Palms during the April 2002 Board of Trustees meeting. Provost Odom reminded everyone that the primary objective of establishing the University as an efficient, nationally-respected comprehensive research institution in five years had guided this process within the framework of the Board of Trustees' and Faculty Senate's approved goals as well as other documents including the recently-submitted SACS Report for University reaccreditation.
Provost Odom initially discussed the recommendation to adopt a University-wide Value-Centered Management Approach to Budgeting. A University committee of faculty, staff, and administrators chaired by Mr. Kelly, Vice President for Business and Finance, had been formed. Provost Odom indicated that Mr. Kelly would discuss this committee's progress later in the meeting.
The second recommendation involved the Creation of a College of Health Sciences by combining the current Schools of Medicine and Public Health and the Colleges of Social Work, Pharmacy and Nursing. Each unit would be named a school and headed by a dean; the deans would answer to a Vice President for Health Sciences who would report to the Provost.
Provost Odom explained that Dr. Harris Pastides, Dean of the The Norman J. Arnold School of Public Health, had been appointed as Interim Vice President for Research following the departure of Dr. Harris. Because of various pending issues in the health sciences area, it had been decided that Dr. Pastides would proceed slowly with the recommendation in order to begin the process of forming ideas and action steps. Provost Odom noted that the various issues could possibly impact the future direction of this particular recommendation.
As part of the health sciences recommendation, the SDI Committee had proposed the integration of the six basic science departments in the School of Medicine (Departments of Biochemistry; Cell Biology and Neuroscience; Developmental Biology and Anatomy; Microbiology and Immunology; Pathology; and Pharmacology and Physiology) into one department. In addition, it had been recommended to fund faculty appointments for nine months rather than twelve months to encourage extramural funding. Provost Odom stated that the focus of this recommendation was the identification and formation of core research areas and clusters.
To date, the six basic science departments had been compressed into three units; the realigned departmental faculty had chosen a research focus area. The new departments and focus areas were: (1) Pathology and Immunology/cancer biology; (2) Pharmacology, Physiology and Neuroscience/neurosciences; and, (3) Cell and Developmental Biology and Anatomy/developmental biology of cardiovascular diseases.
The next recommendation addressed the development of an Enrollment Management plan which President Sorensen would review later in the meeting.
With respect to the Honors College, the SDI Committee had recommended an increase of a minimum of 25 students per year until an enrollment of 1,500 had been reached. Provost Odom indicated that an additional 30 freshmen had been admitted to the Honors College for the Fall 2002 semester. The average SAT score had increased from 1374 to 1397.
The SDI Committee had recommended Elimination of the Transitional Year Program no later than Fall 2003. Provost Odom noted that the TY Program had reduced enrollment 50 percent for this academic year; it would not be offered the following year.
Provost Odom briefly reviewed the status of the SDI recommendation regarding the Reallocation of Resources Within Colleges and Schools. He explained that each dean had been asked to submit a strategic plan in Spring 2002 which addressed:
(a) the reallocation of college or school resources to high priority initiatives, and particularly those which would support increased research and scholarly productivity; and (b) departmental consolidation or reorganization for the purposes of reducing administrative overhead and enhancing research and scholarly productivity. These plans were discussed in several meetings with the Faculty Budget Committee and various Academic Affairs administrative staff members. Provost Odom stated that President Sorensen had instructed each dean to set aside five percent of a school's current budget to prepare for another cut in the fall while protecting those high priority areas which had been identified.
Regarding the SDI recommendation to Enhance Training and Diversity in the Development of University Leadership, it was noted that the current budget contained funds for the development of a leadership training course. Ms. Jameson, Vice President for Human Resources, and Provost Odom were studying the various offerings at other institutions and would develop an appropriate leadership course for the University.
Provost Odom summarized the status of the recommendation to Restructure Graduate Student Assistantships. A committee comprised of the Graduate School Dean, Director of the Research Foundation, individuals from the Office of Business and Finance, and Associate Provost Olsgaard were in the process of developing a time line to implement the various recommendations during a three-year period. It was planned to raise the minimum levels of full-time graduate assistantship stipends in order to competitively attract outstanding doctoral graduate students who would contribute toward research and scholarly productivity efforts at the University. Also planned was a decrease in the number of master's students and a concomitant increase in the number of Ph.D. students receiving assistantship support. In addition, beginning July 1, all proposals submitted to the federal government had included assistantship tuition charges for those students to be supported on a particular grant. It was also hoped to raise the level of state agency assistantships during the following year.
Provost Odom addressed the SDI recommendation concerning the Reallocation of the Indirect Cost Recovery. It had been proposed to place 14 percent of all indirect cost recovery funds into a reserve for the purpose of underwriting institutional bonds to build new research facilities. As of July 1, 2002, action had been taken to fulfill this recommendation.
The recommendation to Integrate the College of Criminal Justice, its faculty, students and resources, into the College of Liberal Arts had resulted in the formation of the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice in this college beginning July 1, 2002; a departmental chair had also been appointed.
Of prime importance was the recommendation to address Information Technology (IT) issues at the University. It had been decided that the Vice President for Information Technology and Chief Information Officer, Dr. William Hogue, would present an overview of this topic during the Academic Affairs and Faculty Liaison Committee meeting on November 8, 2002.
Provost Odom indicated that Mr. Kelly would also address the deferred maintenance recommendation during his presentation later today.
The recommendation to Merge the College of Journalism and Mass Communications and the College of Library and Information Science had been accomplished. Board approval had been given to the formation of the College of Mass Communications and Information Studies effective July 1, 2002; the appointment of Mr. Charles Bierbauer as the dean had been approved. Two schools comprised this college -- the School of Journalism and Mass Communications and the School of Library and Information Science. Provost Odom remarked that SCETV (South Carolina Educational Television) had asked Dean Bierbauer to host a 30 minute weekly program every Thursday evening featuring topics of interest about the University as well as various invited speakers from the institution.
Provost Odom commented that a Vice President for University Advancement would address the recommendation to Develop Communication and Marketing Strategies. Currently in progress was a search to hire an individual for this position.
It had been recommended to generate a strategic plan which would advance the College of Education toward state and regional leadership. Further, it had been determined that undergraduate degrees in early childhood and elementary education should be developed. Also proposed was an increased emphasis on discipline-focused teacher preparation for secondary education.
Provost Odom stated that the College of Education had submitted to him a very detailed strategic plan. He emphasized the importance of the distance education component in order to reach all areas of the state. Of particular success had been a reading initiative program which the Board had approved within the past two years; most of the elementary teachers throughout South Carolina had been exposed to this program.
In addition, proposals had been developed in early childhood, elementary, and middle level education; internal approvals had been obtained as well as CHE (Commission on Higher Education) approval. Undergraduate degrees would be offered in these areas with a particular focus on early childhood and elementary education.
Regarding the SDI recommendation to Review Centers and Institutes, the Office of the Provost had recently crafted a policy which required the review of any center or institute every three years; of particular concern would be the financial status of these units. Provost Odom stated that closure would be considered if a center or institute was unable to become self-supporting within a five year period.
Provost Odom also noted that another part of this recommendation had involved the review of the School of the Environment. In progress was the selection of an outside team to review the school either later this year or early in the 2003 calendar year.
The SDI recommendation which proposed the Modification of the McKissick Museum operation had generated extensive discussions between the museum's director and the College of Liberal Arts' dean. It had been decided to focus on four broad areas: (1) to involve the Department of History in the process because this unit offered a very successful museum management program; (2) to offer more educationally focused and research oriented exhibitions; (3) to consider student internship and formal training possibilities; and (4) to enhance the program in order to specifically attract undergraduate students.
Provost Odom reviewed the recommendation to Move the University ROTC Departments and the TRIO Programs currently located within the College of Liberal Arts to the Office of the Associate Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Affairs. After extensive discussions, it had been decided that the ROTC departments would remain in their current academic home; the TRIO program had been moved to the Office of the Associate Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Affairs effective July 1, 2002.
The recommendation to Merge the Three Foreign Language Departments into a single department of languages, literatures and cultures within the College of Liberal Arts had been accomplished effective July 1, 2002. The Board of Trustees had also approved a requested new departmental name of the Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures. A department chair had been chosen and the faculty were in the process of establishing new tenure and promotion criteria.
The final SDI recommendation specifically addressed the USC Press. It had been proposed that this unit should continue the development of indicators to determine the scholarly impact of the various Press publications at state, regional, and national levels. Also proposed was a decrease of the University's budgeted allocation to the USC Press. Provost Odom indicated that the former director had resigned; Curtis Clark from the University of Alabama had been hired to fill this position. In addition, the unit had absorbed the specified budget cut for this year; discussions were in progress concerning the upcoming USC Press budget. It had been projected that this unit would print fewer publications and would determine specific areas to be considered.
At this time, Mr. Kelly discussed the status of the SDI recommendation concerning Value-Centered Management.
Mr. Kelly initially stated that the SDI Committee had recommended that the University adopt a university-wide value-centered management (VCM) budgeting approach in FY 2004 after running a parallel model with the current system in FY 2003; charge student academic fees on a credit hour basis to allow more direct accounting of fees collected and more direct distribution to the units; establish procedures to monitor entrepreneurial efforts and activities of the colleges; adopt a new University policy controlling the allocation and transfer of physical space among and within academic and administrative units.
To date, the following organizational actions had been accomplished:
Established a website to provide University community with direct links to written articles based on the implementation of VCM at other institutions.
Established an e-mail address to collect VCM related comments, suggestions, and questions from the University community.
Appointed a committee of faculty and staff to develop a system to assess the best approach for the University.
Established a VCM team monthly meeting schedule beginning April 2002.
In order to facilitate the development of an appropriate VCM system at the University, a "straw man" model had been set up. It had been decided to address this concept from two perspectives: revenue and expenditure. As a result, three subgroups had been formed under the direction of Dr. John Olsgaard: (1) tuition and state funding; (2) service areas; and (3) research. As the model had been constructed, the various subcommittees had developed specific processes using the Value-Centered Management concept.
Based on previous VCM models, it had been initially decided to allocate 75 percent of the tuition revenue to the teaching unit; the remaining 25 percent would be allotted to the college of enrollment to address associated student costs such as counseling activities which required funding. In addition, each academic unit would be granted expenditure authority based on tuition estimates and future expectations.
Mr. Kelly explained that a technology group had been specifically developing an electronic format in response to these evolving processes. Data was being pulled from the University's Data Warehouse to expose revenue and expenditure reporting. The various academic deans had also been polled to determine information they wished to receive about their particular college in order to help decision-making processes.
Mr. Kelly summarized the progress toward the allocation of service unit costs. He indicated that the VCM Service team, under the direction of Alton McCoy, was identifying service units which should be considered self-supporting; service units whose costs could be allocated to the academic unit level; units which provided services to all the campuses within the USC system. Mr. Kelly commented that additional work was needed to identify that portion of these units' costs which only benefitted USC Columbia and to develop a method for allocating these costs to other service and academic units. He believed that this plan would place "money in the hands of the people who can best use it most efficiently" including the deans and the department heads. In addition, such a plan would offer the ability to measure the effects of the service units as well as to expose areas of under funding particularly within maintenance and operations and utilities.
The final component addressed the allocation of research dollars. Mr. Kelly commented that the VCM Research team had developed draft recommendations concerning indirect cost recoveries; graduate assistantship abatement costs; and incentives for scholarly activities.
Mr. Kelly stated that the proposed elementary VCM model detailed the FY 2003 "A" Fund program budget (tuition and state allocation) for each academic unit; fringe benefits paid by the general fund; future allocation of service costs for both facilities and other services; total recurring budget needs; allocation of tuition revenues based on the SDI approach of FY 2001 tuition by credit hour to the unit that owned the course; and, amount of state subsidy required to keep the unit whole. He again iterated that a research component had been recently added. The resulting model was beginning to reflect a more accurate cost of operating a particular college or unit. Mr. Kelly reviewed a spreadsheet which enumerated the figures in the various categories for several University units. Of particular note was the impact of teaching vs. research dollars -- "we are starting to build models where you can see more accountability, if not teaching then research."
Chairman Whittle asked if the FY 2001 tuition allocation figure had been based on the individual college headcount; Mr. Kelly responded that this number reflected actual enrollment credit hours taught. He further explained that, under this model, for example, the College of Science and Mathematics would receive 25 percent of the tuition cost for a chemistry major student taking a course in the Moore School of Business; the Business School, as the teaching unit, would receive 75 percent of the tuition cost.
President Sorensen noted that there were two types of units within a research university which required special attention under this type of mechanism: (1) cathedrals of excellence or areas which may be chosen to receive additional funding because of their potential for development; and, (2) those programs or schools which had little or no capacity for generating indirect cost recoveries from research grants such as the School of Music.
Dr. Floyd questioned the meaning of the column entitled "State Subsidy" in relationship to the Commission on Higher Education's MRR (Mission Resource Requirement) funding formula as impacted by headcount. President Sorensen specifically referenced the College of Nursing which was required to maintain a ratio of ten students per one nursing faculty member in clinical courses to maintain accreditation unlike a Business School survey course which did not have that limitation. "It's impossible to have absolute parity because some parts of the University can and should teach a lot more than others." In effect, therefore, the University was subsidizing School of Nursing teaching because of specific requirements. Mr. Kelly further commented that "state subsidy" referred to "money needed to associate with tuition to make the budget whole."
Mr. Kelly commented that yet to be completed was the development of many additional steps and further careful analysis before the adoption of a satisfactory University VCM system. Information gathering continued to be the driving force at this point; no final decisions had been rendered regarding this process. "It's just a management tool; it's not a punitive tool."
President Sorensen remarked that his goal was to drive academic decisions further down into the units to increase accountability within individual colleges and schools. Under consideration was the possibility of making colleges responsible for their own utility costs in order to enhance fiscal prudence.
President Sorensen also noted for information that of the nearly $660 million annual University budget, the state appropriation was $260 million, or less than one-third of the total.
Mr. Kelly concluded his VCM presentation by stating that it was very challenging to implement a value-centered management system while experiencing revenue reductions because this method exacerbated the concerns and the fears which people held regarding job performance and security.
As requested, Mr. Kelly briefly summarized the status of the SDI recommendation concerning Deferred Maintenance. Data had been collected about the 169 facilities on the USC Columbia campus with a total gross square footage of 9.5 million; the estimated cost of the replacement of the campus infrastructure and facilities had been valued in excess of $900 million.
The University had available $20 million per year for the maintenance and operation of the nearly 10 million gross square feet or approximately $2 per square foot; this figure also included the cost of utilities. Mr. Kelly stressed that this amount was far less than adequate particularly when considering laboratory space and other highly specialized areas. He compared the campus to a large city "that we are trying to maintain and take care of." Between 1950 and the middle of the 1980s, USC Columbia had experienced a large growth of new facilities which currently, because of their age, required attention.
Mr. Kelly also quoted the deferred maintenance figure of $154 million, of which $25 million was needed for utilities infrastructure. Under consideration were various creative methods of financing including the possible privatization of a portion of the utility structure and the selling of deferred maintenance needs to corporations for tax benefits.
Although it had been recommended to raise $5 million annually to address the deferred maintenance problem, Mr. Kelly commented that the funding was not available at this time. However, he referenced the University's recent purchase of the BellSouth Building which had included a budget component to adequately address future maintenance needs. Mr. Kelly believed that the BellSouth Building purchase exemplified progress toward the resolution of this problem.
Mr. Kelly also listed the most recent building renovation projects which had included Sloan at $3.5 million and Calcott at $3 million as well as the funding of $6 million toward the renovation of the Jones Physical Science Center. He believed that those renovations had addressed approximately $4.5 million of the deferred maintenance total. If the Legislature approved the upcoming capital improvements bond bill, Mr. Kelly anticipated that another $5 million would be reduced from the total.
At this time, Dean Pastides updated the Board of Trustees regarding progress toward the SDI recommendation to Reorganize the University Health Sciences Units. He noted that research integration had been the primary focus because the recommendation had specifically addressed the expansion of this area in the health colleges.
Dean Pastides indicated that the associate deans of the five health sciences colleges had been meeting weekly and had adopted an ambitious research expansion plan to double the University's sponsored research within 5 years. During the past year, these units had been responsible for approximately $44 million of research income or 40 percent of the University's total in that area. It was believed that various factors including the expanding federal budget, expanding foundation budget, and the bio-medical focus of economic development activities in the Midlands and the state would bolster the accomplishment of this ambitious goal.
Dean Pastides stated that the bio-medical science field included basic science disciplines, biologists, biochemists, health scientists (i.e., epidemiologists and pharmacy researchers), behavioral and social scientists, biomedical engineers, health service researchers and health economists, and individuals involved in surveillance and detection of anthrax and other related bio-defense agents of interest. The announcement of a major grant award to the University in the area of bio-terrorism was scheduled the following week.
It was anticipated that this reorganization would expand beyond the five health sciences units; faculty from the non-health sciences colleges as well as the regional campuses had been invited to participate in the discussions.
A major initiative had involved the development of a closer working relationship with colleagues from the Medical University of South Carolina; several faculty working groups had been established to identify potential successful collaborative areas in the large grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dean Pastides cited the $11 million colon cancer grant initiative recently awarded to the University as well as a comparable grant of equal value awarded to MUSC; increasing the "critical mass" was believed to be the key for receiving these grants. Also under consideration was the possible submission of a "center of excellence" proposal in the area of bio-medical research. Yet to be accomplished was the development of efficient and economic techniques for sharing space and infrastructure.
Dr. Pastides envisioned that the next steps toward the comprehensive reorganization of the health colleges would include collaboration in the areas of academic programming and outreach activities.
Provost Odom commented that these reports had summarized five months of intense activity following Board approval of the SDI recommendations. He emphasized the fact that the process would continue to be very dynamic and would ultimately "make us a better University of South Carolina."
Chairman Whittle was very pleased that the entire process had been handled "in a manner that the Board understands and was trying to articulate through their goals that were set forth three years ago."
Because of time constraints, it was decided to defer Dr. Pruitt's presentation of University Housing until the next Board of Trustees' meeting.
At this time, President Sorensen discussed USC Columbia enrollment management goals for the upcoming 2003-2004 academic year. He also noted that the other campuses were in the process of developing suitable plans.
President Sorensen initially summarized the factors which influenced enrollment goals: (1) quality as measured by SAT scores; (2) diversity by race; (3) diversity by residency (in-state vs. out-of-state); (4) size of the freshman class; and, (5) various financial factors.
Quality As Measured By SAT Scores -- To address this factor, the University was in the process of eliminating the Transitional Year Program; TY students typically had a lower average SAT score. The University would also continue to grow the South Carolina Honors College; the average SAT score for freshmen enrolled in the Honors College was 1397, the median SAT score for entering freshmen at Harvard, Princeton, and Yale Universities. Other areas under review were the University's scholarship program, innovative academic programs, and the management of college enrollments, or intentional and calculated caps on enrollment.
Diversity By Race -- President Sorensen noted that a point of distinction for the University of South Carolina was the fact that a high proportion of African American students attended this institution, the highest proportion in the Southeastern Conference. Sustaining that status while remaining sensitive to SAT score averages was his intent.
Diversity By Residency -- President Sorensen indicated that it was very common for universities to import "intellectual capital" from other states; students from each of the 50 states and more than 100 countries attended the University. "We can be more selective with out-of-state students than we are with in-state students in terms of SAT average scores." These students netted tuition revenue for the University at a rate of 2 1/2 times more than the in-state fee; however, they expected sizeable scholarship offerings.
Size Of Freshman Class -- President Sorensen commented that the size of the freshman class influenced investment dollars; selectivity and the SAT score average; student educational experience; course/faculty/student ratio; length of time to degree; retention rates; and national ranking. An increased freshman class size also required a concomitant increased recruitment cost allocation. In addition, of equal importance when considering this factor was the capacity of the infrastructure to provide a quality experience for every entering student.
Financial Factors -- President Sorensen summarized the financial factors which influenced enrollment goals including effects of pricing, discounting, and need-based merit aid; bond obligations; future of state, private and grant funding levels; investment dollars; and auxiliary dollars generated from such areas as the bookstore, the football program, and other sources of revenue.
After careful consideration of these various factors, President Sorensen proposed the following enrollment goals for 2003-2004:
President Sorensen briefly presented a historical review of the following topics: undergraduate FTE and headcount enrollment; African American FTE, headcount enrollment, and percent as undergraduate enrollment; available residence hall beds and occupancy rates; freshman full enrollment, SAT scores, and core GPA; graduate and professional school headcount and FTE.
In the year 1994, 2,408 freshmen had enrolled at the University; this figure had gradually increased every year until 1997 which was followed by several years of decline. In the year 2001, the University had experienced a large increase from 2,501 in 2000 to 3,218; in 2002, that figure had again increased to 3,500 and tentatively proposed for 2003 was a headcount of 3,300.
Factors influencing the 2003-2004 enrollment goals included private-public competition for state funded scholarships; long-term vitality of state scholarship programs (will lottery money continue to be available in the future); enrollment goals of competing institutions; pricing decisions which de-valued scholarships particularly as tuition increased; investment of dollars for the advancement of institutional brand identity to distinguish the University from its peers.
President Sorensen reviewed the various initiatives needed to accomplish the proposed enrollment goals. He stressed the importance of re-valuing and increasing the number of scholarships awarded; providing more need-based merit aid for outstanding students; increasing the dollars spent per recruited student; introducing academic innovations (i.e., an Arts & Sciences residential college); and increasing retention rates.
At President Sorensen's request, Mr. Kelly discussed the financial implications of the proposed enrollment goals. He explained that full-time undergraduate tuition revenue projections had been based on 3,300 freshmen during the first year with a residency mix of 75 percent in-state and 25 percent out-of-state. In the fourth year, a full-time undergraduate enrollment of 14,335 was estimated generating approximately $78.4 million of tuition revenues. It was anticipated that the projected FY 03 full-time undergraduate tuition of $81.8 million would create a revenue shortfall in the fourth year of $3.4 million because of a decreased headcount from the current 3,500 to the projected 3,300; therefore, a tuition rate increase of 4 percent during the next four years would be required to offset this revenue shortfall.
In order to meet the goal of 3,300 students at a level of quality the Board had requested, a required annual scholarship funding increase of $3.8 million had been projected; over a four-year period this figure would equal $15,330,000.
President Sorensen briefed the Board concerning the various tensions regarding the University's scholarship program:
On the one hand, if we reduce the number of students and have the effect of increasing SAT scores, we have to offer more scholarship dollars. You can't have it otherwise. You can't have brighter, more talented students come to us and say, ‘we want you here and we are going to raise the tuition, but we are not going to raise your scholarship support! That's number one.
Secondly, we have a legislative cap on how much of the tuition revenue that we raise that we can give to tuition dollars. We can't use 100 percent of the increment to pay for the scholarship support.
Thirdly, as we do this rebranding to try to distinguish ourselves and create a more special identity for the University, we have to pay money to staff to work on that and to disseminate the message and to be more aggressive in our recruiting.
To summarize the effect of all of this would be to try to develop an optimal size for 2003-2004, continue our progress on academic selectivity and academic quality toward the SDI articulated goal for 2005 of having an average 1175 SAT score, to maintain minority and particularly African American enrollment as a University of South Carolina point of distinction, and the more selective we are the more likely we are not to be able to keep that proportion. It also would require an increase in the population of non-resident students attending the University of South Carolina. And, we also need to provide resources for investments to accomplish our enrollment goals.
In summary, this is merely a proposal that I am making to you. This is not cast in concrete and we are continuing to evolve it.
Dr. Floyd asked the "maximum capacity of our school to educate were we to use our facilities to their maximum." In response, Mr. Kelly referred to the current academic year in which 3,700 freshmen had been initially admitted for the fall semester. He indicated that all of the available facilities and infrastructure had been used; no new buildings had been constructed. Off-campus housing had been required for approximately 300 students. "Our campus can handle from an infrastructure standpoint between 3,500 - 3,600 incoming freshmen." In order to accommodate this freshman class, the Board had approved an additional $600,000 above the $250,000 from the previous academic year to support the increased teaching load of the colleges.
Provost Odom supported the proposed 3,300 freshman class size as the most ideal for the University to provide a quality education without overburdening the system financially and academically.
President Sorensen also noted that the proposed 3,300 freshman class size was "a compromise between on the one hand wanting to be selective and improve our academic reputation, but on the other hand wanting us to be accessible and available to the citizens of the state."
Mr. Mungo expressed concern about the impact of transfer students from the technical schools who applied for acceptance to the University following completion of a two-year degree program. Supporting this concern, Chairman Whittle remarked that "this is about total headcount, not just the freshman class. If there is a way to improve the freshman class academically but maintain the headcount by recruiting from Midlands Tech and others, then we have accomplished both objectives -- the overall headcount, but have been gradually able to increase the quality of that freshman class as well."
Dr. Floyd did not support the idea of increasing the SAT score requirement while decreasing the class size. "If we can gradually increase our SAT's, I think we have done a service to our state. I think we have a responsibility to educate the people of the state of South Carolina and I just believe that we should gradually increase our student body and gradually develop the facilities to accompany that growth."
Mr. Shuford questioned the various implications of this plan for the regional campuses. President Sorensen anticipated a more developed and carefully articulated relationship with the other campuses as a result. He had instructed Dr. Pruitt to indicate in a letter sent to individuals who did not qualify for admission to USC Columbia during the fall 2003 semester that, based upon their location, "your scores and grade point average qualify you for admission to USC Beaufort (for example). If you maintain a B average in all of your course work at USC Beaufort and you choose to transfer to the University of South Carolina Columbia the beginning of your sophomore year, we guarantee you a place."
Chancellor Hallman of USC Aiken stated that a more selective USC Columbia admission process would increase the pool of applicants from which the regional campuses could choose. He also indicated that USC Aiken had admitted students with the above understanding for several years.
President Sorensen stated that "in sum my goal is to increase the number of students in the system. I want to improve the retention rate so that when students come here they are more likely to graduate from here."
Ms. Moore asked that the Board of Trustees "take a look at what has happened in our state funding. There was a time when we were a state-supported university; today, we are two-thirds a private institution and that requires, I think, some change in attitude and mentality on how we perceive ourselves if we are going to be realists as a university. We can't think the way we thought 25 years ago because we are not in the same position."
Mrs. Harvey asked that the Board of Trustees consider the many private institutions in the state which also offered excellent post-secondary educational opportunities. "I think we play a major role in having excellent graduate programs in the state. I hate for us to cut back too much on those programs."
President Sorensen thanked Board members for raising various questions which had not been addressed in the presentation. He assured everyone that he would seek their approval before launching a particular enrollment management program and further remarked that ten months remained before the beginning of the next academic year. Also projected was an additional $13 million reduction in the University budget for the current fiscal year; therefore, Dr. Sorensen stressed the importance of framing these issues within the parameters of the anticipated financial requirements.
Chairman Whittle applauded those individuals who had generated the enrollment information to permit an informal Board discussion at this early date. "This is a great opportunity for feedback and for us to understand exactly where we are going."
Mr. Bradley stated that it had been his good fortune two years ago to nominate Mr. Whittle to serve as Chairman of the Board of Trustees. He was very pleased again to nominate Mr. Whittle to serve in this position for another two years. Mr. Mungo seconded the nomination and moved that the nominations be closed. Secretary Stepp explained that the motion was that the nominations be closed and that Mr. Whittle be elected Chairman of the Board of Trustees by acclamation. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
Mr. Staton nominated Mr. Herbert Adams to serve as Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Mr. Bradley moved that the nominations be closed and that Mr. Adams be elected Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees by acclamation. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
In response to Chairman Whittle's call for nominations of the members of the Executive Committee, Mr. Bradley nominated Mr. Mungo; Mr. Hubbard seconded the nomination. Mr. Adams nominated Mr. Bradley; Mr. Bahnmuller seconded that nomination. Mr. Mungo nominated Dr. Floyd; Mr. Wienges seconded the nomination. Mr. Staton moved that the nominations be closed and Mr. Bahnmuller seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
Chairman Whittle stated that Mr. Bradley, Mr. Mungo, and Dr. Floyd had been nominated to serve as members of the Executive Committee. Mr. Long moved election to the Executive Committee of those persons nominated and Mr. Shuford seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
Chairman Whittle stated that an additional request for an honorary faculty title had been submitted for approval following the September 13, 2002, Academic Affairs and Faculty Liaison Committee meeting. It had been mailed with the materials for the Executive Committee and Board of Trustees meetings. In order to process this request in a timely manner, Chairman McLellan of the Academic Affairs and Faculty Liaison Committee had graciously permitted Executive Committee consideration of this recommendation earlier today. It had also received all other appropriate approvals.
Professor Susan C. Towery would be awarded the title Emerita Professor concurrent with her retirement on September 15, 2002. Mr. Hubbard moved approval of this honorary faculty title as presented. Mr. Bradley seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
At this time, Chairman Whittle indicated that the Executive Committee would meet following the conclusion of the Board of Trustees' meeting to approve new committee memberships; each of the committees would then meet briefly to elect a chairman.
Since there were no other matters to come before the Board of Trustees, Chairman Whittle declared the meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas L. Stepp
Secretary