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 19, 2001
The University of South Carolina Board of Trustees met Friday, October 19, 2001, at 10:30 a.m. in the Carolina Plaza Board Room.
Members present were: Mr. Mack I. Whittle, Jr., Chairman; Mr. Herbert C. Adams, Vice Chairman; Mr. Arthur S. Bahnmuller; Mr. James Bradley; Mr. A.C. Fennell, III; Dr. C. Edward Floyd; Mr. Samuel R. Foster, II; Mr. Alexander English (via telephone); Mrs. Helen C. Harvey; Mr. William C. Hubbard; Mr. Toney J. Lister; Mr. Miles Loadholt; Mr. Robert N. McLellan; Mr. J. DuPre Miller; Ms. Darla D. Moore; Mr. Michael J. Mungo; 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. Corey Ford, were both present.
Others present were: President John M. Palms; Secretary Thomas L. Stepp; Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost Jerome D. Odom; Vice President and Chief Operating Officer J. Lyles Glenn; Vice President for Information Technology and Chief Information Officer William F. Hogue; Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Richard W. Kelly; Vice President for Human Resources Jane M. Jameson; Vice President for Student and Alumni Services Dennis A. Pruitt; Vice President for Research William C. Harris; Vice Provost and Executive Dean for Regional Campuses and Continuing Education Chris P. Plyler; Chancellor of USC Aiken Thomas L. Hallman; Chancellor of USC Spartanburg John C. Stockwell; Dean of USC Beaufort Jane T. Upshaw; Interim Dean of USC Lancaster John Catalano; Dean of USC Salkehatchie Ann Carmichael; Dean of USC Sumter C. Leslie Carpenter; Dean of USC Union James W. Edwards; Dean of The Norman J. Arnold School of Public Health Harris Pastides; Associate Provost and Dean of the Graduate School Gordon B. Smith; Acting Associate Dean, College of Hospitality, Retail, and Sport Management, Donald E. Stowe; General Counsel Walter (Terry) H. Parham; Assistant Treasurer Susan D. Hanna; Director of Athletics Michael B. McGee; Budget Director, Office of Budget, William P. Bragdon; Assistant to the Vice President, Office of Business and Finance, Ken Corbett; Director of Facilities Planning and Construction and University Architect Charles G. Jeffcoat; Director of Planning Services, Facilities Planning and Construction, Donna Collins; Director of Student Life, Division of Student and Alumni Services, Jerry T. Brewer; Chairman of the Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education, Michael Seaman; Director of the Department of Internal Audit Alton McCoy; Director of Periodicals, University Publications, Chris Horn; University Secretary Emeritus George Curry; Washington Advisory Group representsatives Ernest Moniz and Joe Wyatt; Chairman of the Lancaster County Commission for Higher Education W.L. McDow; Bond Counsel Robert Galloway of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Brent Jeffcoat of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, L.L.P., Dianne McNabb of A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.; University Unitarian Universalists Minister The Reverend Patrick Price; 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 present. Secretary Stepp introduced George Curry, Secretary Emeritus of the University of South Carolina who served as Secretary of the Board of Trustees from 1974 to 1981.
Chairman Whittle invited those present to introduce themselves. Mr. McKinney introduced members of the media who were in attendance. At Chairman Whittle's invitation, the Reverend Patrick Price delivered the Invocation.
Chairman Whittle stated that there were personnel matters with respect to an honorary degree candidate and honorary faculty titles appropriate for discussion in Executive Session. Mr. Hubbard moved to enter Executive Session, and Mr. Bradley seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
The following persons were invited to remain: Dr. Palms, Mr. Stepp, Dr. Odom, Mr. Glenn, Dr. Pruitt, Ms. Jameson, Mr. Parham, Dr. Plyler, Mr. Kelly, Dr. Harris, Dr. Hogue, Dr. Hallman, Dr. Stockwell, Dr. McGee, Mr. McKinney, Ms. Tweedy, and Ms. Warren.
Return to Open Session
There were no additions, deletions, or corrections to the minutes; therefore, they stood approved as distributed.
The Health Affairs Committee met on September 13, 2001, and heard two reports.
A ten-year retrospective analysis and a fifteen-year projection were presented which outlined various information including the number of RNs and LPNs employed in South Carolina, and their educational levels, and race and gender percentages.
Strategies to promote nursing workforce development included implementing an aggressive recruitment campaign among youth, minorities and males; developing incentive programs for students to pursue nursing as a career; and establishing a South Carolina Center for Nursing with broad-based statewide representation.
Dr. Hoppmann noted that during the past five years, there had been a decrease in the number of medical school applicants both nationally and in the state.
Dr. Hoppmann also discussed the applicant evaluation process which included criteria other than academic preparation, such as letters of recommendation, personal statements, and life experiences. In addition, as part of the process, various members of the Admissions Committee interviewed each medical school applicant twice.
Additional statistical information about the overall Class of 2001, for example, the average age of students and the number of South Carolina colleges represented, was provided.
The following would be awarded the title Distinguished Professor during their final year of service. That title would change to Distinguished Professor Emeritus at retirement:
The following individual would be awarded the title Emeritus Professor at his retirement:
On behalf of the Academic Affairs and Faculty Liaison Committee, Mr. McLellan moved approval of these honorary faculty titles. Mr. Wienges seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
This request had received all appropriate approvals. On behalf of the Academic Affairs and Faculty Liaison Committee, Mr. McLellan moved approval of this College of Liberal Arts name change as described in the materials distributed for the meeting. Mr. Bradley seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
This request had received all appropriate approvals. On behalf of the Academic Affairs and Faculty Liaison Committee, Mr. McLellan moved approval of this College of Liberal Arts name change as described in the materials distributed for the meeting. Mr. Bahnmuller seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
This request had received all appropriate approvals. On behalf of the Academic Affairs and Faculty Liaison Committee, Mr. McLellan moved approval of The Norman J. Arnold School of Public Health departmental name change as described in the materials distributed for the meeting. Dr. Floyd 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 the Master of Educational Technology as described in the materials distributed for the meeting. Mrs. Harvey 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 the Bachelor of Arts in Russian as described in the materials distributed for the meeting. Dr. Floyd 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 the Masters of Education in Special Education—Visual Impairment at USC Spartanburg as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Mr. Loadholt 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 the Bachelor of Arts in Elementary Education at USC Salkehatchie as described in the materials distributed for the meeting. Mr. Lister seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
In addition, at the Committee meeting of September 13, Dean Sederberg of the South Carolina Honors College discussed the impact of the various scholarship programs on South Carolina Honors College enrollment figures and the importance of the University's offering competitive scholarships.
The Intercollegiate Activities Committee met Friday, October 5, 2001.
Dr. McGee provided the Committee a brief update of the progress of the arena construction. He explained that, as originally planned, the hockey season would begin October 31, 2002, and the basketball season would begin November 15, 2002. All necessary arena facilities and services would be available at those times pending unforeseen weather conditions which could possibly alter the construction schedule. Dr. McGee hoped to schedule a Board of Trustees tour of this facility in the near future.
Dr. McGee also discussed the status of Fall sports commenting that 3 of the 4 Fall sports were currently ranked in the top 20. He added that the women's track team will not only be ranked #1 in the nation, but could also have the most outstanding track class recruited at any school in the country. The baseball recruiting class had been ranked 10th. And, the football team had won all the initial games played; Dr. McGee anticipated an outstanding season this year.
Dr. McGee briefly summarized the annual competitive goals which coaches traditionally discussed as a key part of their yearly objectives explaining that the 100 percent graduation rate of those athletes who completed their eligibility at Carolina was the most important objective.
Dr. McGee also reviewed the SEC compliance report recently conducted on the USC campus. Suggested areas of improvement included the investigating process of potential violations; the development of formalized compliance education for all coaches; and closer maintenance of unofficial visits' activities. In addition, this review had praised the University athletics department for projecting a clear vision of the institution and the athletics department; managing each program with integrity to ensure the student athlete's welfare; and providing nationally-competitive programs in every sport. The report had been very positive overall.
The Fiscal Policy Committee met Friday, October 5, 2001.
Mr. McCoy reviewed the Audit Tracking Report explaining that only one minor problem in the Housing area, which had been successfully addressed, had been listed.
In addition, Mr. McCoy stated that audits of six University auxiliary activities within the Department of Business Affairs of the Division of Finance had been conducted and presented to the Committee for review. They were: Trademarks and Licensing; Carolina Mall; Gameroom; Vending; Class Rings; and Bookstore. Corrective measures had been incorporated as a result of various findings. Currently there was new leadership in these areas and the implementation of improved procedures was in place.
An audit of the Columbia Campus Cash Receipts had also been performed. Mr. McCoy indicated that the bursar had sent a warning letter to those department heads and deans who had not followed correct cash receipting procedures; a training program had been developed for all business officers to address this problem; and, in conjunction with Computer Services, a new system was being designed to provide on-line cash receipting procedures throughout the University System which should effectively eliminate or reduce compliance problems in this area.
Following an audit of USC-Sumter, it had been determined that the campus bookstore had not been able to generate a profit. Mr. McCoy believed that major improvements were needed in that operation. Dr. Carpenter, dean of USC Sumter, explained that management problems had been identified and a plan had been formed to improve the situation. He would also consider the possibility of an outside vendor's operating the bookstore.
Mr. Brian Jowers, Associate Dean for Administration and Finance at the School of Medicine, summarized the Medical School's bond capacity as reviewed in the audited financial statements of the USC School of Medicine Trust and Clinical Faculty Practice Plan.
And, finally, it was noted that the most recent University Quarterly Financial Report had been mailed to Board members at the end of the quarter. In the future, this report would be sent in the same manner so that trustees would receive this information in a regular and timely manner.
The Buildings and Grounds Committee met October 5, 2001, and discussed the following item:
Moore School of Business - Renovations: The Moore School of Business had requested the establishment of a state project for master planning and renovation of the facilities that housed the school. The scope of work would include development of a program to evaluate the building usage, evaluation of the existing building condition, and a general upgrade to meet existing building codes. A project had been established to select an architectural firm for the project and to fund the initial architectural engineering work. The budget was $150,000 which would be funded with private funds. The project would be presented for approval when the scope of work had been determined, a budget had been established, and additional funding had been identified.
On behalf of the Buildings and Grounds Committee, Mr. Loadholt moved approval to establish the Wade Hampton Mechanical Upgrades Project with a budget of $500,000 to be funded with Housing Funds as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Mr. Staton seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
During the May 24, 2001, Buildings and Grounds Committee meeting, a presentation had been given regarding the potential site for the School of Public Health. An option was being studied to locate the School of Public Health on the corner of College and Assembly Streets adjacent to the Carolina Plaza. A new four-story structure of approximately 70,000 square feet would provide classroom and lab space and the Carolina Plaza tower would provide office space. A parking study was also being conducted.
In order to proceed with further detailed project planning, it was necessary to identify a specific site.
On behalf of the Buildings and Grounds Committee, Mr. Loadholt moved approval of the site location for the new School of Public Health at the corner of College and Assembly Streets as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Mr. Bradley seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
It was proposed to increase the scope of the project to include renovation of the entire facility and to increase the project budget to the amount of funding currently available. The work would be implemented in phases as funding was identified.
On behalf of the Buildings and Grounds Committee, Mr. Loadholt moved approval to increase the scope of the project and to increase the budget for this project by $2.6 million funded with Asbestos Trust Funds. This increase would result in a total project budget of $5.6 million funded with $800,000 in Institution Tuition Bonds and $4.8 million in Asbestos Trust Funds as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Mr. von Lehe seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
On behalf of the Buildings and Grounds Committee, Mr. Loadholt moved approval to increase the budget for the total project by $72,000 funded with USCS Parking Funds. This would result in a total project budget of $412,000 funded totally with USCS Parking Funds as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Mr. Lister seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
On behalf of the Buildings and Grounds Committee, Mr. Loadholt moved approval to purchase/swap the real estate owned by the University Development Foundation, bounded by Gervais, Pickens, Senate and Bull Streets, and property owned by the University of South Carolina, bounded by Pickens, Pendleton and Henderson Streets plus the cash sum of $1,780,000. Existing State Capital Improvement Bonds allocated to the Law School project as described in the materials distributed for this meeting would provide the funding. Mr. Mungo seconded the motion.
Responding to Mr. Mungo's inquiry regarding the future of the Workshop Theater which was located on the museum property, Mr. Stepp responded that this organization had a long-term lease; however, University representatives had assured theater leadership that appropriate relocation endeavors would be conducted.
The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
During the Executive Committee meeting of September 13, the Committee approved the extension of Dr. Michael B. McGee's employment agreement with the University of South Carolina. Mr. Rick Kelly presented introductory information regarding the possible restructuring of tuition and fees in The Darla Moore School of Business. At the request of the Executive Committee, Mr. Mungo reported that he had reviewed Coach Dave Odom's employment contract with the University, determined that it was acceptable according to established guidelines, and asked the Committee to direct the Secretary to execute the contract.
Earlier today, the Executive Committee had approved the following contracts: Best Mechanical, Inc.; Cayce Company, Inc.; MSI Construction Co., Inc.; W.B. Thomasson Heating Co., Inc.; W.O. Blackstone & Co., Inc.; and South Carolina Manufacturing Extension Partnership (SCMEP).
The following three items were approved for recommendation to the Board:
An addendum to the motion stated that Mr. Bradley and Mr. Mungo would review various bond financing structures including the variable rate bond and the fixed rate bond to express an opinion on behalf of the Executive Committee regarding the most lucrative purchasing method.
Mr. Mungo moved approval of the Athletics Series 2001 Bonds Resolution as recommended by the Executive Committee. Mr. von Lehe seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried. [Exhibit B]
Mr. Mungo requested to amend the motion to state that "the University reserves the right not to pay down the principal amount in the event we decide to use that principal amount on the reduction of the total indebtedness to be borrowed against the arena."
Chairman Whittle noted that the motion as established in the Executive Committee meeting earlier this day included the review of the Athletics Series 2001 Bonds Resolution and the Athletics Facilities Year 2002 Bond Anticipation Notes Resolution by Mr. Bradley and Mr. Mungo in order to recommend the most economical method of bond financing.
Mr. Mungo moved approval of the Athletics Facilities Year 2002 Bond Anticipation Notes Resolution as stated in the Executive Committee. Mr. Bradley seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried. [Exhibit C]
He noted that it was a busy time on the campus with Homecoming today and tomorrow.
He complimented Jerry Odom for the work he was doing with the Strategic Directions and Initiatives Committee, noting that the SDI had met very frequently. He thanked trustee Herbert Adams for his participation in the SDI and the Board members for attending when members of the Washington Advisory Group had come to give briefings.
Dr. Palms reported on the tremendously successful visit to the Centennial Campus at NC State. He reported that about 40 people, including the Speaker of the House, the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and the Chairman of the Senate Education Committee, Nikki Setzler had attended as had Tommy Moore. The participants heard concepts that we had been wanting them to hear about investing in research universities, endowed chairs, facilities, and communications with industry.
Dr. Palms noted that the Board had received a copy of the SACS report and there was no doubt that the University would be reaccredited. He recalled arriving at USC and being so relieved that a ten-year reaccreditation report had just been finished.
In that report ten years ago, the University had 117 recommendations and 152 suggestions; in this report, the University had 15 recommendations and 17 suggestions. This spoke well for the faculty and their production and many other aspects of the University at this time. Dr. Palms noted the significance of the report and suggested that would be one of the first things candidates for the Presidency would ask about.
Dr. Palms concluded his report by stating that there was a reunion this afternoon of the class of 1951. There was an Alumni Council meeting this weekend (one member of the Alumni Council was Major General Katherine Frost, one of our graduates; she was in charge of the Pentagon cleanup from the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, and she was not going to be here; please keep her in your prayers).
Chairman Whittle explained that approximately one year ago, the Board of Trustees, under the leadership of William Hubbard, had formulated a set of University goals, both academic and nonacademic, which would raise the University to the next level and "set us in the direction of the AAU status which we had discussed over the years."
Anticipating extensive state budget cuts, administrative officials had invited the Washington Advisory Group (WAG) to assist in the creation of a University strategic plan using these Board of Trustees, goals as a foundation.
Working in tandem with this Group was the Strategic Directions and Initiatives Committee which "will deal with the short-term issues, those issues being the possible cuts that we may look toward having this year, and prepare for those in a manner so that they do not have a strategically negative impact on the goals that we as Trustees have set." A report of this committee's recommendations will be presented to President Palms before the end of the year.
As Chairman of the Presidential Candidate Search Committee, Mr. Hubbard had requested that this document be presented to the final presidential candidates for review. "That document would not only be a strategic plan which would leave enough leeway for the new president to have his own input on how the University could accomplish those goals, but also a document which was specific enough so that the candidates would know the direction that the administration, the faculty, and the Board want to see this University go."
Chairman Whittle believed that this plan, if developed properly, would contain a dynamic, ever-evolving strategy which should be reviewed on an on-going, annual basis, "but yet have some continuity year-to-year both on what we do short-term and what we do long-term."
Provost Odom indicated that this committee began meeting in mid-August and had initially reviewed the University Goals as established by the Board of Trustees the previous year. The Committee was in the process of addressing those academically-oriented goals by applying the following nine indicators of an outstanding research university: (1) annual federal research expenditures; (2) total research; (3) endowment; (4) annual giving; (5) national academy membership; (6) faculty awards; (7) doctorates awarded; (8) median SAT; and (9) postdoctoral appointees. He noted that most of these indicators had been incorporated into the University Goals. The University mission statement approved by the Board of Trustees several years ago was also examined; the Committee may request Board approval of a revised mission statement in the future.
Provost Odom defined the goal of the Strategic Directions and Initiatives Committee as "making recommendations to University leadership (the President and Board of Trustees) that would establish USC Columbia as an efficient, nationally respected, comprehensive research university within five years"--within the same time frame which the Board of Trustees had established for the University Goals.
The two objectives of this committee were:
Graduates: Increase GRE/GMAT/LSAT scores, GPA of entering graduate students and other nationally recognized discipline-specific criteria, graduate student fellowships awarded by outside agencies and placement upon graduation.
Provost Odom explained that the Committee was conducting an in-depth review of the entire University; based upon prioritization of instructional, research and service programs, and administrative support activities, recommendations would be submitted to President Palms.
Prioritization criteria included:Provost Odom remarked that the resulting Committee recommendations which were based upon established priorities would provide an accurate indicator of "where you can put money if you have it and where you shouldn't take money away from if you don't have it."
Provost Odom further explained that academic deans had been asked to base their presentations upon the following topics as outlined in Robert Dickeson's book, Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to Achieve Strategic Balance. The Committee was particularly interested in gathering information about the productivity of programs, revenue vs. cost, essentiality and impact of the various programs, and, finally, future opportunities of the programs. The Committee reviewed the following:
Provost Odom stressed that all of the meetings had been open to the public and had been attended by three reporters: one from The State newspaper; one from The Gamecock; and one from University Publications. He thanked Mr. Adams, Mr. Mungo, and Mr. Whittle for their participation and encouraged other Board members to attend any of the future scheduled SDI meetings.
In conclusion, Provost Odom noted that, based upon previously-examined productivity data, 25 "underperforming" degree programs had been terminated during the Fall semester.
The Strategic Directions and Initiatives Committee "was right on schedule with where we should be." Presentations would conclude in October; discussions and a draft report would be completed in November. By December 15, the finished report would be presented to President Palms.
Chairman Whittle commented that Committee members had been working very hard; the schedule had included bi-weekly, three-hour minimum meetings. He thanked Provost Odom and other participating faculty members.
Mr. Mungo asked that SDI Committee meeting minutes be distributed to Board members to facilitate a better understanding of the process. Provost Odom explained that a Strategic Directions and Initiatives Committee website was available which provided a wealth of information.
Chairman Whittle explained that Dr. Moniz was currently a faculty member in the Physics Department at MIT. Previously, he had been associated with the Department of Energy and had been involved in "multiple experiences with many universities, particularly processes like this in academia as well as in government."
Chairman Whittle also introduced Dr. Wyatt who had previously held the position of Chancellor at Vanderbilt University for approximately 18 years; Dr. Wyatt had been responsible for appointing the committee which had determined AAU membership criteria.
Dr. Moniz made the following comments:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have had several interactions with a number of the Board members on this trip and in previous trips. And, in fact, our work really is in the context, and only makes sense in the context of, the strong commitment of this Board. It has expressed that commitment to advance this institution as a research university and, thereby, also enrich the educational and service contributions to the state and to the people of the state, especially the youth.
Now, our work is also in the context of the timescale that you have set for developing this plan, namely this calendar year. And, a timescale that has been motivated, at least partly, by the ongoing search for a new president. In doing this, I should say, we have visited with the deans, chairs, and faculty of almost every school and college at USC over a series, now, of a few visits.
The first message is, upon completing or nearly completing that round of visits, there is certainly opportunity, real opportunity to accomplish this commitment that you have expressed to the future of the University.
Certainly, there is opportunity, as I say, to move to a next level. The key is that there are centers, numerous centers of strength and ideas for moving in new research directions that, in time, can help drive the state's economic, social, and cultural development. But, this need is, as Jerry's committee goes forward and comes to the Board through John, a very strong need for prioritization, for targeted support, for targeted recruitment of faculty, that builds on and builds the kinds of excellence that will be needed to move to the next level. This takes us, of course, to the SDI process that Jerry just outlined.
The WAG group has consistently emphasized three messages that we feel probably bear repeating in the context of the full Board meeting.
First, is the administration and the Board through the SDI process really need to develop and promulgate to the state government and to the state citizens, as well as the faculty, a vision of this University's opportunity for greater contribution, in fact, to the state as a flagship in helping to develop this state's economy in a knowledge-based world economy. The state, in this regard, is frankly falling behind its neighbors. Some of you saw, many of you did not, the presentation that we did in June which was a benchmarking of the University as seen externally by a set of objective data in comparison to neighboring benchmark public universities: NC State, Georgia, Kentucky, Florida State, as well as Clemson. Once again, there is opportunity because this benchmarking certainly suggested that those states have over a couple of decades made investments in flagship research universities as drivers of the states' economic and social development.
The first message is that the Board has a critical role in, as I say, promulgating the fact that the state [of South Carolina] needs to pick up the pace of making those kinds of investments. We have heard of positive signs, things like the discussions going on about creating a whole set of [endowed] chairs for the state, etc. Those are the kinds of directions to support the faculty who are and will be productive in their efforts.
In emphasizing the flagship aspect and what it means to a state in developing its economy, for example, we do, of course, stress that partnerships internally are important; partnerships externally are very important and, in particular, the state clearly has a set of research universities--the Medical University of South Carolina, Clemson, and USC --that need to move together to accomplish this vision that you have for this campus and its role in the state.
Also, I would note, a point that emerges from some of the discussions with some of the colleges is the very important need for the SDI group, and then the administration and the Board, to keep emphasizing to the faculty that your vision emphasizes synergy, not competition among research, education, and service.
The second major point is that, as we turn to the Committee itself, the SDI Committee, we are and will interact with the Committee. We have, in the past, submitted reports discussing the structure of the kinds of issues that we feel need to be addressed in the Committee. And, as Mack actually talked about in his remarks, the kind of a ‘tug' that one can have in the process from near term issues like, for example, the looming budget constraints. I think it is our job to keep re-emphasizing the critical importance of keeping the headlights up in this process.
This process is principally about defining a future. And, as both Mack and Jerry have emphasized, it's that future that can help guide you in near term decisions, including budget cuts. Or, if the situation were to materialize, how to spend additional resources. Last time I emphasized that there is often a fallacy that long-term planning is something you do when times are tough. You do it anytime because you can equally well hurt the future by making undisciplined decisions when times are good because eventually those poor investments will come back to drag you down as surely as a mistake made in cutting a potential long-term strength.
The vision that we have heard expressed by the Board we believe is one that must be constantly and effectively communicated to the entire faculty as they become more and more acquainted with this Board's commitment to the next decade, to the role of this University, again, in fostering economic and social development in the state. As they hear that, their role, their participation, their buy-in will rise accordingly. They will feel that they have both license and time to do it if they understand the impact it can have.
We look forward to interacting with the Board and the SDI, as Mack mentioned, in providing at least the perspective engendered by our group's collective experience, but, of course, always recognizing that the product must be USC's plan, and not WAG's plan. So, as Mack said, we will help, for example, William, in terms of framing some of his discussions. We will be interacting with Jerry as his group begins to outline the plan and come forward, again, to provide hopefully the benefit of our experience, but very clearly understanding it is USC's plan.
The third point with regard to the Board, and I should stress that we of course are happy to discuss more specific issues dealing with any of the schools, etc. But, the third broad point is to re-emphasize the critical role of the Board in defining and nurturing this new vision and moving it along the roadmap. To do so most effectively, the Board may wish to explore mechanisms that engage it more directly in the academic life of USC since this is about developing the intellectual agenda for the campus. We have made recommendations about the visiting committee structure, something that the University, in any case, needs to improve and formalize and being one that the Board may take some ownership of. That's only one root. But, again, that kind of engagement, I think, would really help you to define and sustain the vision that you have expressed.
So, those are three very broad issues that involve Board engagement. I think Joe Wyatt would now add some comments and then I suggest that we would take questions after Joe speaks.
Dr. Joe Wyatt made the following comments:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for taking some time to listen to what we have to say. As you have been told already, this is certainly, at best, a penultimate report. We are in the mid course of producing final conclusions--you are, with some help from us. But, I wanted to emphasize a couple of points....
The Board leadership that we have met with clearly is a group that is reaching above and beyond the call of duty. They have professional responsibilities, but they are certainly serving the University well. The reason I mention that is because we are dependent on it and you are dependent on it. And, I would say that based on my experience and the experience of other successful public flagship universities, this is just the beginning. It is going to take more effort on the part of every member of this Board, particularly involving themselves in the political structure of the state government and, to some extent, the federal government, as well as paying close attention to the University and its priorities.
Of course, you know that a couple of your neighboring states have done rather well with the integration into economic development for the state, the programs, and activities of the university. And, that's not new. I participated in the beginnings of Research Triangle Park (RTP) something over 30 years ago. It had a very difficult beginning, but those were the days when this was new. You have the advantage of these existing facts: the success of RTP, the success of Silicon Valley, and the very recent success of the San Diego Consortium that has happened over basically the last 10 years.
This country has now realized that the economic future of the country depends on the intellectual capacity of its educational institutions, and particularly research universities that.... do create, actually, the new knowledge that leads to new products and services. You need to be in that game more than you are and you have the opportunity to do so, I think. Although, I might add, it takes a whole lot of effort.
Let me just say that I think the vision needs to be continually portrayed to the legislative leadership in this state, to the governor of the state, and by continually, I literally mean that, you need to be present with your plan, with your prioritized plan, in every setting in which the resources of the state are allocated, so that your story is being told along side the story of every other competition for funding in the state.
That brings us to the point of prioritizing programs. Before I went to Vanderbilt to be the Chief Executive Officer, I was at Harvard for 11 years. During the last 6 years, I was Vice President there and learned that even Harvard, with its endowment, with its history since 1636, had come to the point where it could not do everything. The Widener Library couldn't collect every book; none of the departments could see themselves as being guaranteed to be the best in the whole world, although they strove to be. Choices have to be made.
You are engaged in a process, now, where your leadership is evaluating and assessing your strengths. The way to go ahead in the university area is to be competitive, be recognized as the best in a limited number of fields, and good in all of the rest.
So, what you are going to need to do is to pick those areas where you can attain success--in science and engineering, in the humanities, in all of those areas where you can be among the very best. And, be sure that those are supported well. It is not easy work; it is very difficult work because there will be some people who will feel that their programs are not being supported properly and you have to be sure that those programs that are supported, in fact, deliver on the support they receive.
I don't want to repeat what Ernie said, because I want to answer questions if you have any and I know that time is short. And, also, we will have, in fact, after these reports are done late in the year, an opportunity to participate, I assume, in some serious discussions about an action plan--an action plan to make some of these things happen.
But, I do want to say one more thing about your efforts. These are times when state institutions, particularly publicly-funded institutions, begin to need to work together in order to efficiently spend the monies of the state, in order to apply the expertise that exists in these institutions, even the best ones. In fact, WAG is working with the state of Ohio. Tom Caskey and I worked on the state of Michigan where the major universities in that state and the research institutes have established a consortium. And, they are going through the kind of evaluation that you are looking at for the University of South Carolina, for all of the universities together, particularly in the bio-medical research areas, to see if they can, in fact, move a step beyond what any one can attain.
That is the kind of effort, I think, that is now called for in your state. And, I believe it has already been discussed. I think that, as you look into the future, this is probably the most serious new effort, once you get your own priorities sorted out, in which you need to seriously engage. There is an opportunity, particularly, I think, for the Medical University of South Carolina and the strength we see here working together in the bio areas where the research is rather well funded, where the opportunities are significant, and where you already have some substantial strengths.
So, I think that there is a discussion in the state now about some lottery funds being made available to provide some resources for new professorial appointments, for new programmatic appointments. You will need both. You will need people; you will need resources. Blending your efforts into the consortium that you can put together, I think, is the key to doing that.
We will have more specific ideas for you, but let me echo, again, what you have been told all along. This has to be your plan. It has to be the plan of the faculty, the administration, and the Board. You have to understand it; you have to believe in it; and you have to promulgate it to your political leaders.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Whittle anticipated a clearly-defined plan which would markedly impact future discussions with the faculty and the legislature. "They need to understand what our goals, what our objectives are, and what the funding needs are going to be in order for us to get there and what the return on that investment is going to be."
Headquarters, Ninth Air Force and
Unites States Central Command Air Forces
524 Shaw Drive, Suite 200
Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina 29152-5029
7 September 2001
Please forgive my long delay in writing to thank you for your thoughtful gesture in sending me a copy of the "Spurs & Feathers" that covered our USO trip to the Middle East this summer. Passengers included the University of South Carolina's (USC) Dr. Michael B. McGee, Director of Athletics, and Mr. Lou Holtz, Head Football Coach. I was very pleased to read the article that highlighted their experiences from this trip. It was our pleasure to host these two fine gentlemen, and I can tell you that the armed forces personnel who were privileged to hear Coach Holtz' remarks were treated to the thrill of a lifetime. His inspirational comments on caring, concern, and character were well received by our men and women in uniform. I only wish Coach Holtz could have had more time to visit with other units in the region.
I recently had an opportunity to review the USC Athletic Department's Football Media Guide and was pleased to note that the trip, along with photographs, had also been included. We are certainly grateful to the university for its thoughtfulness in including the armed forces in its media coverage. Please express my gratitude to the members of the university's board of trustees. Again—my thanks.
Sincerely
As President Palms had referenced earlier, Mr. Fennell noted that Katherine Frost, an Adjutant General at the Pentagon, as a graduate of this institution, had been a great ambassador for the University and had maintained close contact with the Association office.
Mr. Fennell also commented that most of the Alumni Council members would be attending the Bicentennial Gala at the Coliseum later this evening as part of Homecoming activities; he anticipated in excess of 700 people at this festivity.
Later today, at the President's House, a Centurion induction ceremony was scheduled; approximately 50 new members from the Class of 1951 would be accepted into this organization.
The Alumni Association was selling bricks at $100 each for the Bicentennial Walk, a pathway located on the Horseshoe; this fund raiser was scheduled to conclude in the near future.
Mr. Fennell stated that Alumni Association membership was nearly 30,000, approximately twice as many as four years ago; membership had steadily increased, particularly since the Bicentennial emphasis. Student affiliation was one of the highest in the country; in fact, the USC Student Alumni Association boasted a very large on-campus group.
Alumni Association information was now available through the Internet; since the end of May, merchandise totaling more than $15,000 had been purchased through the web page. Mr. Fennell encouraged everyone to visit this site at www.carolinaalumni.org.
In conclusion, Mr. Fennell explained that the Executive Committee of the Alumni Association had endorsed a location for a new alumni center. Appropriate approvals would be requested in the near future. The selected site was adjacent to the Greek Village on Blossom Street. It was hoped that approval would be granted to construct a 35,000-40,000 square foot facility with parking accommodations for approximately 200-250 vehicles.
There were no further matters to come before the Board of Trustees, and Chairman Whittle declared the meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas L. Stepp
Secretary