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.
The Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina met on Thursday, October 22, 1998, at 10:30 a.m. in the Campus Room of Capstone.
Members present were: Mr. William C. Hubbard, Chairman; Mr. Mack I. Whittle, Jr., Vice Chairman (via telephone); Dr. C. Edward Floyd, Chairman Emeritus; Mr. Herbert C. Adams; Mr. Arthur S. Bahnmuller; Mr. James Bradley; Mr. Mark W. Buyck, Jr.; Mr. William W. Doar, Jr.; Mr. Samuel R. Foster, II; Mrs. Helen C. Harvey; Mr. Toney J. Lister; Mr. Miles Loadholt; Mr. Robert N. McLellan; Mr. J. DuPre Miller; Mr. Michael J. Mungo; Mr. M. Wayne Staton; and Mr. John C. von Lehe, Jr. Faculty representative Eldon D. Wedlock, Jr., and student representative Kim Dickerson were also present. Members absent were: Mr. William M. Gregg, II; Dr. Barbara S. Nielsen; and Mr. Othniel H. Wienges, Jr.
Others present were: President John M. Palms; Secretary Thomas L. Stepp; Executive Vice President for Business and Finance John L. Finan; Vice President for Human Resources Jane M. Jameson; Vice President for Student and Alumni Services Dennis A. Pruitt; Vice President for Development Charles D. Phlegar; General Counsel Walter (Terry) H. Parham; Director of Athletics Michael B. McGee; Associate Provost and Dean of the Graduate School, Marsha G. Welsh; Dean, College of Journalism and Mass Communications, Judy VanSlyke Turk; Interim Dean, College of Education, Frederic J. Medway; Interim Dean, College of Liberal Arts, Gordon B. Smith; Interim Vice Provost and Executive Dean, Regional Campuses and Continuing Education, Carolyn A. West; Associate Dean, College of Applied Professions, Thomas J. Davis; Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development, College of Engineering, Michael Reischman; Vice Provost for Research Marsha R. Torr; Chancellor, USC Spartanburg, John C. Stockwell; Dean, USC Salkehatchie, Carl Clayton; Dean, USC Beaufort, Chris Plyler; Dean, USC Sumter, C. Leslie Carpenter; Dean, USC Lancaster, Joseph Pappin; Director, Department of Internal Audit, Alton McCoy; Director of Business Affairs Richard D. Wertz; Director of Facilities Management and University Architect Charles G. Jeffcoat; Assistant Director for Planning Services, Facilities Management, Donna Collins; Director of Housing and Judicial Programs Gene Luna; Director of Presidential Communications and Research Pete F. Mackey; Legislative Liaison John Gregory; S.C. Senator W. Greg Ryberg; Mrs. William C. Hubbard; Baptist Campus Minister Bryant Spivey; Chief Executive Assistant to the President J. Lyles Glenn; Director of Public Affairs Russell McKinney; Associate Director for Periodicals, University Publications, Chris Horn; representative from Media Relations Jason Snyder; and a member of the media.
Chairman Hubbard called the meeting to order and 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. Secretary Stepp announced that Mr. Whittle was participating in the meeting via telephone. The Reverend Bryant Spivey, a Baptist Campus Minister, was invited to deliver the Invocation.
Mr. Hubbard welcomed everyone to the meeting and invited the members of the University family to introduce themselves. Jason Snyder introduced the press.
Mr. Hubbard said the meeting would normally have gone into Executive Session at this time to consider faculty appointments; however, since Senator Ryberg wanted to address the Board of Trustees, he would be afforded the opportunity at this time.
Comments from Senator W. Greg Ryberg
Many wish that they had never heard of Dr. Wade's situation. Unfortunately, though, it did happen. The key now to me is, and I am confident to you all, is how is the problem resolved. I am uncertain as to what you may have heard about me, and I guess I am uncertain too as to what source you may have heard it from. But I will assure you that I am a reasonable individual with a deep love for this state and what it has provided, not only for me and for my family, but what I believe it has provided for all South Carolinians. I also have a fond attachment to the University of South Carolina. I believe that it is our state's flagship institution, and I truly believe that it is critical not only to our educational, but also to our economic success for all of our citizens.
Over the past eleven months I have requested numerous documents in order to develop a better understanding as to where and what the problem was at the University of South Carolina Lancaster relative to the Early Childhood Development program. When the information was given to me I purposely read and categorized all of it. Upon reading those 8,000 pages, actually more than 8,000 pages - 8,000 plus pages - I believe I have a grasp as to what has happened, what happened at the University. I will assure you that at many times in reading, that many times reading the phone book would have been more interesting than my review of some of the data. But it is something that I became involved in, and I truly felt compelled to look into.
Since November 21, 1997, I have had an active interest and numerous conversations with many members of the faculty and many members of the Board relative to the University of South Carolina Lancaster. My goal from the beginning was twofold: 1) full disclosure; and 2) complete disciplinary action commensurate with any involvement with the University of South Carolina Lancaster diploma mill.
The Chairman and I had a telephone conversation on November 24 at which time I laid out my concerns relative to the situation. 1) What was to happen to those people that were awarded degrees? 2) What was the status of the professor and other people that were involved? 3) What disciplinary action was to be taken at Lancaster and at the main campus for allowing this academic travesty to take place? Let me go through each of those.
1) What was to happen to the degrees that were awarded? I stated to many of you, and of course stated in letters, that I felt strongly that the degrees should have been revoked. I do understand, and in many conversations I fully understand the potential legal problems with doing that. And I think that the step that you all took relative to sending the letters was a good step. I think what it did is it passed the onus from the Board of Trustees and from the University to those individuals that received the degrees in the program. Although I didn't have revocation, I think that what happened in light of the situation was probably as far as we could go.
2) What is the status of the professors involved? I, too, under-stand there that it has been turned over to the solicitor's office. And I hope that this Board will seek all actions against him for what he did to us - not only on a monetary standpoint, because a monetary standpoint was, as far as I am concerned, very, very small - but what he did to us from an academic standpoint and furthermore what he has done to us by putting those people out that have a degree which I think is tainted and, therefore, teaching the future citizens, the future leaders, of the state of South Carolina.
Lastly, relative to the discipline of those involved, I believe the issue of fair and equitable discipline is still an open issue. I think people most responsible from an admissions and administrative standpoint, for the most part, go along with little or no discipline. Without getting into names, which I have voiced to many people, I firmly believe that the University of South Carolina Lancaster situation requires the termination of those most responsible. Furthermore, the strong disciplinary action against Ose Henderson and Harvey Allen in the twilight of their careers, for me after review of the information, is difficult to understand. Based upon lines of responsibilities and many of the other factors inherent in the situation, these individuals seem to be the least culpable of a larger group.
In closing, I would hope that this Board of Trustees has been provided a complete accounting of the Lancaster situation. In my first conversation with the Board Chairman it was indicated that the internal investigator and the internal auditor would head two groups that would be investigating the situation. I hope you all have reviewed the work that they have done. To me, in closing, what an organization does immediately after a mistake tells more about the organization than the actual mistake itself.
Thank you for your time this morning.
Mr. Hubbard then stated that there were personnel matters with respect to appointments with tenure, honorary faculty titles, and tenure and promotion, as well as contractual matters regarding a potential gift and legal advice for a specific contract appropriate for Executive Session. He called for a motion to enter Executive Session. Mr. Bradley so moved, and Mr. Adams 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. Finan, Ms. Jameson, Dr. Pruitt, Mr. Phlegar, Mr. Parham, Dr. Stockwell, Dr. West, Mr. Glenn, Mr. McKinney, Ms. Hyatt and Ms. Medich.
Executive Session
Return to Open Session
I. Approval of Minutes: Chairman Hubbard said the following seven sets of minutes had been circulated by mail to the Board for review and were presented for approval:
There were no additions, deletions, or corrections to the minutes. They stood approved as distributed.
II. Committee Reports
A. Fiscal Policy Committee (The Honorable Herbert C. Adams, reporting)
The Fiscal Policy Committee met on August 27, 1998, and received Internal Audits for the Office of Legal Residency, the Blatt Physical Education Center, the Cash Receipting Areas of the Columbia Campus, and the University Library System. These audits were thoroughly reviewed by the Committee and were mailed to the Board in accordance with established procedures. Findings from the audits would be listed on the audit tracking report until they were resolved.
The external audit of the School of Medicine Educational Trust and Clinical Faculty Practice Plan was reviewed for the Committee by Dr. Faulkner. The audit noted that recommendations made in the previous year's audit had been implemented. Steps had been taken toward the implementation of recommendations in the current audit.
In the Designed Fund Budget report for fiscal year 1998, Mr. Finan had reported that about $43,000 less than the budgeted amount had been spent for designated fund activity. The fund balance on June 30, 1998, was $868,469.61.
Transfer of Funds to Bookstore Quasi-Endowment for Scholarships: During the discussion of the Bookstore operation, it was reported that revenue was somewhat higher than anticipated, in part because of a final settlement payment from the previous contract. The fund balance at the end of the fiscal year was $591,790. The Committee approved to recommend to the Board the transfer of $230,000 from the bookstore account to the bookstore quasi-endowment account for scholarships.
On behalf of the Fiscal Policy Committee, Mr. Adams made a motion to transfer $230,000 from the bookstore account to the Bookstore Quasi-Endowment account to be used for scholarships. Mr. Mungo seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
The fund balance for the Bookstore Quasi-Endowment at the end of fiscal year 1998 was $3,179,503. The fund balance for the Koger Center Quasi-Endowment at the end of fiscal year 1998 was $838,378. A report was received on University out-of-state travel for fiscal year 1998. This report was provided to the State Comptroller General every year. It listed the top 25 out-of-state travelers, the source of funds for the top 10 out-of-state travelers, and the travel amount and source of funds for each campus. It was reported that approximately 30 percent of funds spent for out-of-state travel came from appropriated funds. Much of the remaining travel was paid from grant funds.
B. Intercollegiate Activities Committee (The Honorable Toney J. Lister, reporting)
The Intercollegiate Activities Committee met on August 27 and received a report from the Director of Athletics. Information distributed by Dr. McGee at the meeting included a statement of the Mission and Goals of the Director of Athletics, a football season ticket price comparison for SEC schools in 1998 which showed USC and Kentucky with the lowest ticket price at $30, highlights from the 1997-98 sports year, and an update of some of the non-athletic activities of Carolina athletes.
In his report, Dr. McGee said that the softball facility was complete, and the baseball facility was expected to be completed within a few weeks. A new "short iron" facility was nearly complete for the golf teams on land donated by the University Club, with construction funded by private donations. Landscaping had been completed along Bluff Road at Williams-Brice Stadium.
The financial statement for the Department of Athletics showed an increase in the fund balance of $437,658, bringing the fund balance to $3.65 million. A thorough report was presented on plans for the proposed arena. A site had been identified and would be provided by the city, completely cleared and ready for construction, hopefully by January 2000. Construction should take 22 to 24 months. Further information on the project was contained in the minutes of the August 27 meeting.
A request for the Board to move forward with the Architectural/Engineering design of the arena would be presented by the Buildings and Grounds Committee later in this meeting.
C. Buildings and Grounds Committee (The Honorable Mark W. Buyck, Jr., reporting)
The Buildings and Grounds Committee met on September 3 and several items were presented and considered. The Athletics Department would construct a "Golf House" at the University Club Golf Course funded with private money, and the land would be donated. The golf team would use the facility to dress and to gather for practice. The total budget was estimated to be $240,000.
Nine sites were available for Greek Housing, and it was hoped to make 15 more sites available in the vicinity of the new fitness center. Four to seven fraternities should be ready to commit by next fall. The following items were approved for recommendation to the Board:
1. Patterson Hall Air Handler and Piping Replacement: This request was to replace the 36 year old air handler and piping system in Patterson Hall and to increase the chilled water supply to improve efficiency. Food Services would share the cost with the Housing Department.
On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Buyck moved approval of the project as presented with a total budget of $485,000 to be funded with $287,000 in Housing Maintenance Reserve Funds and $197,500 in Auxiliary Capital Project Funds, generated by Food Services. Mrs. Harvey seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
2. South Campus Housing - East Quadrangle: The South Campus Housing project was within the budget of $19.8 million. Additional funding was requested for campus improvements adjacent to the housing project. The proposal would add a landscaped pedestrian mall between the West and East Quads. The "pit" parking area at the corner of Blossom and Pickens Streets would be converted to a landscaped park, and additional site work would provide emergency vehicular access to the building.
On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Buyck moved approval to increase the scope of the South Campus Housing - East Quadrangle project as presented and to increase the budget by $1 million for a new total budget of $20.8 million to be funded with $19.8 million in Housing Funds and $1 million in State Institution Bonds. Dr. Floyd seconded the motion.
Mr. Buyck commented that the park on the corner of Blossom and Pickens Streets would make a beautiful vista into both of the new residence halls. Mr. Mungo said that the old arboretum on Blossom Street was in a terrible state of repair. Mr. Buyck said a landscaping firm had been asked to look at the arboretum and present some ideas as to what could be done with it. That information could be presented at the next meeting of the Board.
The vote on the motion to increase the South Campus Housing - East Quadrangle project was taken, and the motion carried.
3. Proposed Arena Project: Funding was requested for Architectural/ Engineering design work to develop a premier collegiate basketball arena and to assess provisions for hockey in the facility. The proposed project included approximately 330,000 square feet with 19,000 to 20,000 seats for basketball, over 16,000 for concerts, and over 10,000 for minor league hockey. An outside financial management firm would review the pro forma and data relating to the Coliseum to comment on the overall financial impact of a new arena on the University.
The city of Columbia would provide the site, currently owned by SMI Owens. The site would be cleared, with all environment studies completed. The delay in land acquisition had delayed construction, postponed the original targeted completion date, and increased the estimated cost to $53.8 million. It was hoped that construction would begin in January 2000 and be completed by November 2001.
Consideration would be given to creating movable stands in the "end zones" to offer the flexibility of a large floor for hockey and a short floor for basketball. This proposal was estimated to cost an additional $4.4 million.
Sources of funding the construction were $28 million from the issuance of bonds serviced by the Athletics Department; $7.5 million from accommodations taxes collected by the city of Columbia and Lexington and Richland Counties; $12.5 million from state appropriations; and $6 million from corporate gifts.
The proposed sources of funding did not include pre-paid suite or premium seating funds which would be applied to the annual operating budget. Any money received in connection with naming opportunities would be used to reduce the obligation of the Department of Athletics.
On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Buyck moved approval of the Architectural/ Engineering design of the Arena Project with a total budget of $1 million to be funded with state appropriated funds. Dr. Floyd seconded the motion.
There was extensive discussion of the project. Mrs. Harvey asked Dr. Palms to explain how the new arena would contribute to the goal of the University to be an AAU institution. Dr. Palms responded that there was not a direct connection; AAU membership would be the result of academic achievement. The new arena would help the University's visibility, and it would affect the recruiting of outstanding student athletes. It would be funded principally by Athletics Department income and private gifts in partnership with the city, counties, and state. Dr. Palms said the new arena would not take away from the University's ambition to become an AAU institution. Mr. Mungo pointed out that when USC joined the SEC, the University represented that it would improve its athletic facilities as it was able to do so. He said it had cost $50,000 to join the SEC, and the University received around $5 million a year from the SEC.
A pro forma for the new arena, including the impact on the Coliseum and Koger Center, would be presented in January. Dr. Floyd asked what the appraised value of the land was that the city would provide. Dr. McGee said it was in the range of $8 million. There were 22 acres including some to be used jointly with the city's conference center for parking.
The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
4. Alumni House Renovations and Addition: This proposal would renovate the Alumni House and construct an additional 2,600 square feet to increase meeting space; update restroom facilities; add offices, a kitchen, an elevator, and an elevated patio; enhance the gardens; replace the sun porch; and add a reception area. The project was subject to approval by the Architectural Design Review Committee.
On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Buyck moved approval of the project as presented with a total budget of $1.5 million to be funded with private money. Mr. Doar seconded the motion and then spoke to the Board on the need for this project. Mr. Bradley asked if the $1.5 million was in hand. Dr. Pruitt responded that the money was in the bank, but it was the intention of the Alumni Association to raise private funds for the renovation. If the funds were not raised, arrangements had been made to borrow the funds from the Development Foundation. The Alumni Association would then pay off that debt. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
5. Renovation of Historic Sloan College: This building was included in the projects funded by the General Assembly in 1997 to renovate and maintain historic academic buildings. Carolina's share of that fund was $14.4 million. Renovation of Sloan would be first, then Callcott, Barnwell, and Petigru. If there were remaining funds, then Hamilton, Moore, and LeConte would be renovated.
In June 1997, Board approval was given to proceed with the design/development with the understanding that it would be reconsidered by the Board before actual renovations began. The renovations would provide classrooms, laboratories, faculty offices and administrative space for the Department of Sociology. One classroom would be equipped with multi-media presentation capabilities. To meet building codes, 2,900 square feet would be added for fire exits and toilets. Also, windows would be replaced; the exterior painted; the roof repaired; new interior finishes added; and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems updated. Fire sprinklers and wiring for computer access would also be added.
On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Buyck moved approval of the project to renovate Sloan College with a budget of $3.5 million to be funded with Capital Improvement Bonds. Mr. Foster seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
6. Computer Center Annex Renovations: This proposal would renovate the second floor of the Computer Center Annex to accommodate additional office modules; provide new finishes; make electrical modifications; replace the HVAC; and address code requirements. The new space would be shared by Communications and the Network Support Group for efficiency.
On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Buyck moved approval of the renovation of the Computer Center Annex as presented with a total budget of $625,000 to be funded with state appropriated funds from Computer Services. Mr. Bahnmuller seconded the motion. Mr. Mungo asked if the renovations would be accomplished in a manner which would permit flexibility of space as technological needs changed. Mr. Jeffcoat responded that there were fixed walls on the perimeter, with flexibility for the interior walls. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
7. USC Spartanburg (USCS) Projects
a) Recreational Complex (USCS): Spartanburg County would invest $500,000 to create seven soccer fields. The fields would be used by county youth on Tuesday and Thursday evenings and on Saturdays. USCS would maintain the fields and have access at all other times for camps, soccer practice, and intramural events.
The complex would be located on a section of the north campus adjacent to areas identified for recreational and athletic activities in the Conceptual Master Plan. Three existing storage buildings would be removed; the cost of demolition and construction of replacement buildings was included in the proposed project.
On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Buyck moved approval of the USC Spartanburg Recreational Complex, as presented, with a total budget of $500,000 to be funded with Spartanburg County funds. Mr. Lister seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
b) Athletics Complex (USCS): This project included a baseball field, a softball field, a soccer stadium, a tennis complex with nine courts, and a support building. The $5 million project included parking, roads, irrigation, lighting, landscaping, and infrastructure. USCS received $850,000 from Spartanburg County for the soccer stadium, and an additional $100,000 had been received from private funds for the baseball field.
On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Buyck moved approval of the USC Spartanburg Athletics Complex project with a total budget of $5 million to be funded with $4,150,000 in private funds and $850,000 in Spartanburg County Funds. Status of the receipt of private contributions would be reported periodically to the Buildings and Grounds Committee. Mr. Lister seconded the motion.
Mr. Mungo asked if the funds would be in hand when the project was to be started. Dr. Stockwell responded that the funds were in hand to build the soccer complex. Each additional project: the baseball field, softball field, and tennis complex would come back to the Board when those funds were in hand. Dr. Stockwell said permission was being requested at this time to do the entire architectural design and proceed with the soccer field.
The vote was taken, and the motion carried. Dr. Palms commented on the extraordinary cooperation the University was receiving from Spartanburg County. It indicated the increasing importance of USC to the entire Spartanburg area.
c) Performing Arts Center Parking Lot Replacement (USCS): This project was initially established with a budget of $245,000, but the bids which had been received were unsatisfactory. USC Spartanburg requested the addition of $100,000 to the project which increased the budget to a level requiring approval of the Board of Trustees.
The proposal was to renovate the large parking lot, add curbs and gutters, replace base material, resurface the lot, and landscape. In addition, the adjacent parking lot and Grayling Drive would be improved.
On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Buyck moved approval of the USC Spartanburg Performing Arts Center Parking Lot project as presented with a total budget of $345,000 to be funded with $149,000 in Institutional Capital Project Funds and $196,000 in Parking Revenue. Mr. Listed seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
8. USC Aiken, Ruth Patrick Science Education Center Expansion: This project was approved by the Board with a budget of $4.4 million to be funded, in part, with $500,000 from private sources. The approval had been contingent upon receipt of the private funds. The private funds did not materialize, and USC Aiken requested approval to proceed with the project and reduce its budget by $500,000 and its scope by 1) not furnishing the television studio, and 2) not completing the observatory at this time.
On behalf of the Buildings and Grounds Committee, Mr. Buyck moved approval of the requested project reduction to a total budget of $3.9 million to be funded with $2.5 million from Capital Improvement Bonds and $1.4 million from a U.S. Department of Energy Grant. Mr. Loadholt seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
9. Naming of Space: At the June 24, 1997, meeting of the Board, approval was given to lay on the table the naming of an auditorium for Professor Joseph W. Bouknight, who was a valued faculty member in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry for many years.
Mr. Buyck moved to remove this item from the table and name the auditorium formerly known as PSC 210, the "Joseph W. Bouknight Auditorium." Mrs. Harvey seconded the second. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
D. Academic Affairs and Faculty Liaison Committee
(The Honorable Helen C. Harvey, reporting)
1. Appointments with Tenure: The following appointments with tenure had received all academic and administrative approvals and had been presented to the Academic Affairs and Faculty Liaison Committee and to this Board in Executive Session without objection:
a) Dr. John Fuh-sheng Hsieh would be awarded tenure with his appointment as Associate Professor in the Department of Government and International Studies, College of Liberal Arts.
On behalf of the Committee, Mrs. Harvey moved approval of Dr. Hsieh's appointment with tenure, as presented. Mr. Bradley seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
b) Dr. Patrick J. Maney would be awarded tenure with his appointment as Professor in the Department of History, College of Liberal Arts.
On behalf of the Committee, Mrs. Harvey moved approval of Dr. Maney's appointment with tenure, as presented. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
2. Honorary Faculty Titles: The requests for honorary faculty titles had received all appropriate approvals and were presented to the Committee and to this Board in Executive Session without objection. The following persons would receive the title Distinguished Professor during their final year of service. Upon retirement, that title would change to Distinguished Professor Emeritus:
a) Gordon R. Goodwin, School of Music, retiring July 1, 1999;
b) James N. Hardin, Jr., Department of Germanic, Slavic, and Oriental Languages and Literatures, College of Liberal Arts, retiring June 30, 1999;
c) Trevor Howard-Hill, Department of English, College of Liberal Arts, retiring June 30, 1999; and
d) Donald Weatherbee, Department of Government and International Studies, College of Liberal Arts, retiring May 15, 1999.
The following persons would receive the title Emeritus Professor upon their retirement:
a) Eugene Crediford, Department of Art, College of Liberal Arts, retiring June 30, 1999;
b) Bert Dillon, Department of English, College of Liberal Arts, retiring June 30, 1999;
c) Ernest McCutcheon, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, retired June 30, 1998;
d) William Salisbury, Department of Government and International Studies, College of Liberal Arts, retiring June 30, 1999; and
e) Charles W. Tucker, Jr. Department of Sociology, College of Liberal Arts, retiring June 30, 1999.
On behalf of the Committee, Mrs. Harvey moved approval of the honorary faculty titles; Mr. Bradley seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
Mr. Hubbard announced that those who had been awarded honorary faculty titles would be invited to the next Board meeting for appropriate recognition.
3. Tenure and Promotion: The following requests for tenure and/or promotion had received all appropriate approvals and had been presented to the Committee and to this Board in Executive Session without objection:
a) Kakarla V. Chalam, Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, would be promoted to Associate Professor.
b) Tan Ye, Department of Germanic, Slavic, and Oriental Languages and Literatures, College of Liberal Arts, would be promoted to Associate Professor and awarded tenure.
c) Kim Creek would have his tenure transferred from the College of Science and Mathematics to the School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics. His promotion to Professor, approved by the Board on June 23, 1998, would be changed from the Department of Pathology to the Department of Pediatrics.
On behalf of the Committee, Mrs. Harvey moved approval of the requested promotion and/or tenure, and Mr. Miller seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
Mr. Buyck asked that the President inform the Academic Affairs Committee, on an annual basis, of the number of requests for tenure and promotion and the number that were rejected. Dr. Palms said a report was made every year to the faculty, and he would send a copy of that report to the Committee.
4. Modifications to USC Aiken Faculty Manual
a) Change in Purpose of Faculty Welfare Committee: The following statement would be added to the description of the Faculty Welfare Committee:
The Committee shall preview the administration's plan concerning the method by which raises are to be determined. This consultation shall occur prior to the final salary decisions. On behalf of the Committee, Mrs. Harvey moved approval of the above change in purpose of the Faculty Welfare Committee in the USC Aiken Faculty Manual. Mr. Loadholt seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
b) Change in Composition of the Committee on Scholastic Standings and Petitions: Composition of the Committee would be changed to read:
Membership shall include seven (7) faculty: one from each school and at least one from each college;
On behalf of the Committee, Mrs. Harvey moved approval of the above change in composition of the Committee on Scholastic Standings and Petitions in the USC Aiken Faculty Manual, as presented. Mr. Bradley seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
c) Post Tenure Review: The Post Tenure Review section would be added to the USC Aiken Faculty Manual. The text of this new section was mailed with the materials for the meeting.
On behalf of the Committee, Mrs. Harvey moved approval of the addition of the Post Tenure Review section, as distributed, to the USC Aiken Faculty Manual. Mr. Buyck seconded the motion. Mr. Mungo asked if this was to bring the University into compliance with new state law, and Dr. Odom responded that it was. The vote was taken, and the motion carried. (See Exhibit A.)
Mrs. Harvey referred the Board members to the minutes of the September 10, 1998, meeting of the Committee for a synopsis of a report on enrollment for all of the University's campuses.
E. Student-Trustee Liaison Committee
(The Honorable Miles Loadholt, reporting)
The Student-Trustee Liaison Committee met on September 10, 1998, with student representatives from the University's campuses in attendance.
The student government president from USC Beaufort spoke of the excitement on campus for the $13.5 million facility that would be the first building on the New River campus for which 80 acres of land had been donated by Union Camp Corporation.
The student government representatives from USC Columbia reviewed activities under way for the academic year. A program had been successfully implemented to donate excess food from some of the campus kitchens to the Oliver Gospel Mission homeless shelter.
The student government at USC Lancaster had been successful in establishing a common hour from 12:00 noon to 1:15 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays as a time set aside for student activities -- a time when no classes would be held. The student government was continuing its efforts to bring food service to the campus.
USC Sumter student said that there had been difficulty in sustaining interest in student government. No elections were held in the spring of 1998, so an internal student government committee of five students was formed to work on restructuring. The student from the Sumter campus solicited ways to create an effective student government structure from the student government officers of the other campuses.
An extensive report was presented by two students from the Union campus. The student body was eagerly anticipating the planned renovation of the 30 year old Truluck Activity Center. Students had been very active in recruitment activities at local high schools.
Dr. Luna, Director of Housing, gave a report on the change in focus of responsibilities of residence hall staff. They had been relieved of some administrative duties, allowing them to spend more time with each student.
Dr. Pruitt provided information for students to take to their respective campuses. This included the reminder that students who received Life Scholarships must pass 30 hours each year with a B average in order to retain the scholarship.
The Division of Computer Services has created a "Cyberspace Civility" policy; no student could be allowed to disrupt or interrupt the operations of the University through violations of the computer system.
Some institutions were asking students to waive the right to privacy so that their parents could be informed of certain situations involving the students.
Dr. Pruitt informed the Committee of the opening of the BellSouth - USC Business Center at the Columbia airport. The Center has a conference room and facilities for interviews.
Mr. Loadholt announced that the Annual Student-Trustee Reception would be held on Thursday, November 12, from 4:30 to 5:30 on the Osborne Patio, with McKissick Museum as the rain location. Over 100 students would be invited to this event, and he said it was important for Board members to attend.
III. Report of the President
Dr. Palms summarized the actions taken since his report in March 1989 regarding the Graduate Regional Studies (GRS) situation at USC Lancaster. He said that the University had come far in understanding and changing for the better the GRS program in Early Childhood Education and the GRS program overall.
A year ago the University obtained troubling information, and it was shared with the Board of Trustees immediately. The information was extremely disturbing because the University's operation is built principally on trust. Dr. Palms said it was impossible to put in place extensive checks and balances in the operation of the University if people could not be depended upon to operate with trust. The information received a year ago seemed to indicate that that trust was violated. The University acted immediately, aggressively, and forthrightly; it was important to ensure academic integrity; answers were pursued with seriousness and urgency.
Dr. Palms referred to information distributed at today's meeting, including his detailed letter, a copy of the GRS Policies Manual, and a copy of a Memorandum from Dean Welsh. Dr. Palms said he would focus his remarks on three major areas: 1) the financial operations; 2) the academic operations; and 3) ensuring the integrity of GRS courses.
Financial Operations: The USC Law Enforcement investigation turned up no information suggesting that funds were misappropriated. In one school district there were no records of payment from several students, and they have been rebilled. Discrepancies occurred between the number of students who received grades and the number of students for which school districts were billed. This occurred because instructors sometimes added students to the course rolls after enrollment deadlines, and the GRS office did not audit the final rolls.
Measures had been implemented to ensure GRS properly bills for tuition and follows valid accounting procedures. The University wanted to speak with the GRS Director; however, the solicitor was advised that the University was not prepared to support Dr. Wade's admission into pre-trial intervention without assurance of his full and credible information. The investigation had to be completed without access to Dr. Wade. Should he decide to discuss matters with the University, under appropriate conditions, the University would be pleased to have that opportunity.
Numerous Freedom of Information Act requests were received from Senator Ryberg. The University tried to respond fully and believed it had done so.
Academic Operations: The University sent a letter to each of the 2,500 students enrolled in this GRS program and to superintendents and presidents of the technical colleges. The University wanted to dispel any doubt about its intention to deliver quality courses. Thirteen of the students called or wrote the University to comment on the program. Their comments affirmed what had been learned in the telephone interviews noted in the March report. No evidence suggested students received a grade without doing work assigned by the instructor.
Prior to March, the University changed the academic operation so that the Graduate School decided which GRS courses were taught; required grades to be submitted according to University procedures; approved all adjunct faculty; and required all students interested in pursuing a graduate degree to receive admission into the Graduate School. Nothing new was learned about the academic part of the program, and there was nothing new to contradict the actions taken by the University as described in the March report.
The Dean of the Graduate School was authorized to determine if further disciplinary actions against personnel were warranted other than those the University had already taken as specified in the March report. The Dean of the Graduate School was asked to complete the additional changes as specified in the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Graduate Regional Studies and to complete additional changes specified in the Graduate Dean's own February letter. Dr. Palms said he and Provost Odom were satisfied with Dean Welsh's leadership and the disciplinary action she had taken with certain personnel.
Dean Welsh's memorandum of September 30 noted that all recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee and the Graduate Dean had been fully implemented. These included the Dean of the Graduate School having responsibility for GRS. The purpose of GRS was clearly stated to provide a clear distinction between professional development courses which teachers were required to take to remain certified and courses toward a graduate degree. For graduate degree credit, students must enroll through the Graduate School. The GRS office would verify that students had completed evaluations of their instructors. Thorough financial accounting procedures for contract courses were implemeted. The procedures prevent anyone other than the appropriate person from discharging authority over GRS. A comprehensive manual specified GRS guidelines and teaching responsibilities.
The Dean of the Graduate School evaluated the program as it now operates and has concluded that the operations of GRS were now sound. Dr. Palms said he and the Provost concur with that evaluation. The Dean would assign a staff member to ensure that GRS programs on all campuses follow University policies. This individual would play an important role as GRS reestablished its credibility. Dr. Palms commended Dean Welsh for taking that action.
The Dean of the Graduate School also made the following recommendations, which Dr. Palms and the Provost have asked to be implemented. Because the Columbia campus already provides every service provided by the metro/GRS operation, the University will eliminate that program some time before the end of the academic year. Professional development courses would continue to be provided in areas outside USC campuses as school districts need them. All graduate students within 30 miles of a USC campus would attend courses for their graduate degree on that campus. An exception would be made to provide GRS programs in counties where a broad need for them exceeded the capacity of the nearest USC campus, notably in Georgetown, Horry, Marlboro, and Williamsburg Counties. The University would avoid offering graduate courses at less than full tuition, except for special topic areas and courses designed to meet a specific community need. In such cases, fees charged would cover at least the University's related costs.
GRS now operates soundly and according to an extensive series of procedures that ensure its integrity. The program began years ago to serve the state's non-traditional students, and especially its teachers. The investigation of the past year, the actions taken, the shift in administrative oversight, and the guideines now in place provide to the community a GRS program that Dr. Palms said he believed was of high quality and offered accessible advanced educational opportunities.
Dr. Palms thanked the members of the Legal Office, the Finance Office, the Auditor's Office, the Graduate School, the members of the Board who followed this investigation intently - particularly the Chairman and Vice Chairman, and the faculty of the College of Education for their cooperation. Unless new information becomes available, this would close the University's review of the incident.
In other University business, Dr. Palms spoke of the successful Homecoming Weekend activities, including the 50th anniversary of the class of 1948.
Dr. Palms reported that he and the Provost had met with all of the deans to review their accomplishments from the past year and their goals and intentions for the coming year. Similar meetings would also be scheduled with the two chancellors. This was an important part of the strategic planning process, which would be encompassed in a report at the February Boards Retreat. A book containing the reports of the colleges would be available in the Secretary's office for those who wished to review it. Dr. Palms thanked the deans, as well as department chairs, for the work they do. He said they were certainly in agreement with the vision of the institution and were involved in changing the culture to meet ambitious objectives.
Dr. Palms said the two new deans - at the College of Science and Mathematics and the School of Public Health - were outstanding individuals and were fitting in very rapidly.
In focusing on the area of academic achievement, Dr. Palms pointed out that Business Week announced that the Darla Moore School of Business was ranked in the top 50. Since only the top 25 institutions were listed, Dr. Palms said he would claim that USC was number 26. The business school was listed as one of the top three in which an investment in education pays off most rapidly.
University presses were the subject of a recent article in the New York Times Book Review, and a book published by the USC's University Press, Addie, was reviewed. Walter Edgar's book South Carolina: A History had already sold out its first printing and had generated interest around the country.
The search for a dean of the business school began this past week. A "head hunter" firm was hired for the search, and the Business-Partnership Foundation Board guaranteed to underwrite the cost for the firm. Dr. Palms solicited suggestions for nominations for candidates from both the academic and the business communities.
In highlighting activities around the state, Dr. Palms mentioned several initiatives. USC Beaufort was developing plans for its New River campus. USC and Springs Memorial Hospital had created the USC Kershaw Primary Care educational project. This was the second such clinic; there was also one in Winnsboro.
The planning for the University's Bicentennial would officially begin on November 11. Mr. Wienges would chair the Bicentennial Commission, and Professor Thorne Compton would chair the Bicentennial Executive Committee. Mrs. Harvey and Mr. Buyck would also serve on the Bicentennial Commission.
Kary Mullis, a graduate of Dreher High School and a Nobel Laureate, would be at USC the following week for a speaking engagement; John Updike would speak at the Law School Auditorium on November 13; and Civil War historian Shelby Foote had spoken at the Koger Center the previous evening.
The research of three faculty members would go into space with John Glenn. The project would help determine if science could artifically create heart tissue. Professor Emeritus of Physics Charles Poole was named one of only fifteen Fellows in the world to the International Electron Particle Resonance/Electron Spin Resonance (EPS/ESR) Society, which is dedicated to spin resonance studies. Professor Richard Adams of Chemistry was named the 1999 winner of the American Chemical Society Award for Inorganic Chemistry.
Dr. Palms commended Dr. McGee for choosing to remain committed to Carolina after receiving a strong expression of interest for a professional opportunity.
Dr. Palms thanked the Board for the actions taken at this meeting. He said Committee Chairmen conduct their work responsibly, and the work of the Committees was deeply appreciated. The cooperative spirit among the Board of Trustees, the faculty, and the administration was also deeply appreciated. Dr. Palms thanked Chairman Hubbard for his work during the past few years, and he thanked Mrs. Hubbard for her time and support of the University.
Mr. Mungo said the Board should express its appreciation to the President and the administration for the thorough manner in which they handled the GRS situation and for the safeguards they had put into place. Mr. Mungo said it was remarkable that the University employed 5,500 people, and very few of those people bring difficulty or dishonor to the University.
IV. Election of Chairman: Mr. Hubbard called for nominations for Chairman. Mr. Bradley nominated Mr. Hubbard; Mr. Bahnmuller seconded the nomination. Mr. Mungo moved that the nominations be closed and that Mr. Hubbard be reelected by acclam-ation; Mr. Adams seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
V. Remarks by the Chairman: Mr. Hubbard made the following comments: I appreciate all of you indulging me for the last two years. I know sometimes the effort to get things done quickly and move forward is not always easy, but you are all a terrific group of people to work with and I am deeply honored to be the person that you have chosen to hold this position in trust for you, for this University as well.
I also appreciate the President's kind comments. Working with him, and moving this University in the direction that he has so clearly articulated, is a very rewarding experience. I have a few comments I would like to add about the progress that we are making and the direction perhaps we should take.
These names and descriptions mark this enterprise we call Carolina with a duty and responsibility to be the leader of the State of South Carolina - and not just the leader among colleges and universities - I mean the leader of the state.
This University must set the standard of excellence in education, health, business, law, the arts, information technology, engineering, science, and service. The minds assembled here cannot delay. We must seize each day to be a catalyst for the advancement of knowledge, and thus civilization - first in this state - but also beyond. And we must seek new resources to advance our case.
Yet we cannot afford to utter the excuses for inaction. The worn out alibis of "It's a poor state," "We don't get enough support," or "Morale is low," only serve to exacerbate any challenges that we do face. What we must do instead is grasp what we do have:
We must grasp these strengths, marshal the energy they create, and lead - lead. And we must accelerate our progress. We live in a time of relative prosperity, and we live in a time when information of unprecedented scope is available to any citizen with access to a computer and the Internet.
There is an explosion of knowledge. You have heard me use these facts before:
This explosion of information and new knowledge demands leadership from institutions that not only can create new knowledge, but can synthesize this knowledge and put it in context. In other words, make it useful and improve the quality of our lives. This merger of the knowledge explosion, and its access through computers, will change the world as significantly as the printing press.
This University must fulfill its duty to the citizens of South Carolina, and indeed to the country, by finding new ways to promote the advancement of the arts, the sciences, medicine, law, and business. We must discover, articulate, and create new ways to combat poverty, illness, and ignorance. Indeed, it is our duty as the flagship University, the institution at the pinnacle of the state's education structure, to formulate ways to improve the quality of education for all South Carolinians including grades K through 12. We must be the leader in that.
The professors and students here must roll up their sleeves and lead this state to a new appreciation of the importance of learning. And we must provide the means to translate that new appreciation into tangible, measurable growth in academic achievement at all levels and in all parts of South Carolina.
Those forces that cling to the security of mediocrity and the comfort mediocrity provides must not be allowed to slow us down. In the words of Jefferson, we must not confuse egalitarianism with mediocrity. The two are not synonymous. If we can raise our standard in everything that we do at Carolina, we can fulfill our duty to the citizens of this state. If we pause for the naysayers and delay for the vested interests who embrace mediocrity and shun personal accountability, we will fail in our duty. But we will not fail. We will succeed. We will succeed because there is a new spirit at Carolina - a spirit that says I can, and I will. It is up to each of us to not ever end a day without being able to say that I made a difference today.
That is our mission. That is our duty. And now is the time. Let us fulfill our duty with a sense of urgency. Let us move with determin-ation. Let us move with dispatch, or to use Dr. Palms' word - alacrity. Let us move with vigor, and let us not squander a single opportunity to seek excellence.
Let all of us - the President, professors, students, and Trustees - do what we must do today and every day. Let us lead. Let us, individually and collectively, take this University, and thereby the people of South Carolina, to a new day filled with pride and progress.
I am grateful for your renewed confidence in me, and I pledge to you to endeavor to always do my best. Thank you very much for your support.
VI. Election of Vice Chairman: Mr. Hubbard called for nominations for Vice Chairman. Mr. Adams nominated Mr. Whittle. Mr. Mungo moved that the nominations be closed and that Mr. Whittle be elected by acclamation. Mr. Bahnmuller seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and Mr. Whittle was elected Vice Chairman. Mr. Hubbard congratulated Mr. Whittle. Mr. Whittle thanked everyone and said he was honored and flattered to be reelected.
V. Election of Members of the Executive Committee: Mr. Adams nominated Mr. Bradley to the Executive Committee, and Mr. Miller seconded the nomination. Mr. Bradley nominated Mr. Mungo, and Mr. Staton seconded the nomination. Mr. Mungo nominated Mr. Foster, and Mr. Bahnmuller seconded the nomination. Mr. Bahnmuller nominated Mr. Adams; Mr. Adams declined the nomination. Dr. Floyd moved that the nominations be closed, and Mr. Adams seconded the motion. Mr. Bahnmuller moved that the nominees be elected by acclamation, and Mr. Staton seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion to elect carried with Mr. Bradley, Mr. Mungo, and Mr. Foster being elected to the Executive Committee.
VIII. Other Matters
A. Change in Source of Funding for the Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center: Mr. Finan reported that previously the Board had approved a $38.6 million project for the Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center. Of that, $32.1 million was approved for Institutional Bonds. A problem had developed with the Joint Bond Review Committee on the Institutional Bond funding of that project. There was a statewide limitation, or bond cap, on the amount of Institutional Bonds that all higher education institutions within the state could issue. The cap had previously been at $90 million. During the last legislative session, the cap was raised to $120 million. Projects were then considered against that cap. When USC submitted its project for $32.1 million, there was not enough ceiling remaining.
The State Treasurer stated in writing to the Joint Bond Review Committee that the cap was redundant, since institutions were controlled on what they could issue by the amount of revenue available. An effort would be made by the University to have the cap removed during the next legislative session. Until that time, it was necessary to use an alternate source of funds.
Mr. Finan proposed substituting Revenue Bonds in place of Institutional Bonds as a temporary source of funds. Once the bond cap was lifted on the Institutional Bonds, the funding would revert to that source. Mr. Mungo moved to change the funding source for $32.1 million for the Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center from Institutional Bonds to Revenue Bonds until the bond cap was lifted. Mr. Staton seconded the motion. Mr. Mungo asked if the $4.4 million in private funds was in hand. Mr. Finan responded that most of that was Bell Camp money and was in hand. Mr. McLellan asked if there was some assurance that the legislature would remove the cap. Mr. Finan said it was the opinion of the Joint Bond Review Committee and the Budget and Control Board that the General Assembly should revisit the issue. It was anticipated that the cap would be raised or eliminated. This initiative was supported by the other higher education institutions in the state.
The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
B. Institutional Bonds/Institutional Capital Project Funds: Mr. Finan stated that there were several other projects which had Institutional Bonds as their source of funding. Since it was not known when the bond cap would be lifted, it was necessary to substitute the revenue source of Institutional Capital Project Funds. The funds were available, and the projects were all for small dollar amounts and included McMaster Renovation/New Construction, Library Remote Storage Facility, Wellness/Fitness Center, South Campus East Quadrangle, Library Quadrangle Development, and Sumter Street Mall Development. When the bond cap was lifted, the funding would revert to Institutional Bonds.
Mr. Mungo moved approval of the requested temporary substitution of Institutional Capital Project Funds for Institutional Bonds, and Mr. Adams seconded the motion. Mr. Mungo asked what would happen if the General Assembly did not raise or remove the bond cap. Mr. Finan said the Institutional Capital Project Funds were available and would be used.
The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
C. Resolution: The Secretary read the following Resolution for the Board's consideration.
WHEREAS, Mr. Dennis served the Board in many capacities including election four times as Chairman, as the first Chairman Emeritus in the history of the Board, and on numerous committees including the Executive Committee, the Athletic Committee, the Buildings and Grounds Committee, the Student-Trustee Liaison Committee, and the Medical Affairs Committee; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Dennis gave freely and generously of his time and expertise to encourage actions and decisions which actively promoted the University and aided in its advancement; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Dennis led a life dedicated to his God and his family and unfailingly lived the life of a southern, Christian gentleman with whom all members of this Board were proud to associate;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina extends it deepest condolences to the family of R. Markley Dennis, Sr., in this time following his death on September 10, 1998, in the hope that his family understands the deep degree to which the Board shares the immeasurable loss of our distinguished Chairman, courageous counselor, and abiding advocate.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to the family of R. Markley Dennis, Sr., as an expression of appreciation for and celebration of the vital life he shared with his beloved family and cherished University.
Mr. Mungo moved adoption of the Resolution, and Mr. Adams seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
D. Other Matters
Mr. Mungo commended to the Board a line on page 72 of the American Benefactor which read, "One conclusion is overwhelming: trustees must remain trustees and not succumb to the temptation to become chief executives."
Mr. Loadholt thanked Mr. Adams for providing the apples at everyone's place at this meeting.
Dr. Floyd congratulated Mr. Buyck on his reappointment to the Board of Trustees by the Governor for another four years.
There being no further matters of business to come before the Board, Chairman Hubbard declared the meeting adjourned at 12:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas L. Stepp
Secretary
The following Post Tenure Review Policy, to be inserted in the Faculty Manual under section 5.7 Faculty Evaluation, was approved by USCA Faculty Assembly on April 22, 1998.
I. Policy Statement
A. Tenure
Tenure is awarded to a faculty member who has demonstrated over time and to the satisfaction of peers and administrators, a sufficiently high level of performance in teaching, scholarship, and service to warrant a permanent position on a university faculty. Tenure protects academic freedom, the right of faculty to pursue original research or study ideas that are new, unpopular or misunderstood. Such freedom of thought is of inestimable benefit to society. The awarding of tenure has been a practice integral to the proper functioning of the university. It has provided an essential safeguard for society by ensuring that a faculty member's primary loyalty can be to the discovery, advancement, and dissemination of knowledge, and not to ideological or social agendas or commercial enterprises.
The typical path to tenure begins with a lengthy, demanding, and expensive educa-tion with no guarantee of employment at the end. The typical recipient of a doctoral degree, which is required by universities for most teaching positions, has spent between nine and twelve years in university study. Many have spent additional years working in their chosen fields or in post doctoral study, so the typical new hire is often well beyond the entry age of those in other professions. A six year probationary period follows before tenure is awarded.
Compared to other professions, academic careers involve considerable financial and personal sacrifice. Most academics receive a salary for only nine months of the year, and it is much lower than they would receive in the marketplace for their level of education and ability. Faculty accept lower salaries for the "life of the mind," academic freedom, and the security of tenure. Society has traditionally encouraged that trade-off and has received great economic benefit from it. Any significant erosion in the institution of tenure will cause long-term deterioration of the profes-sorate and ultimately the university. Worthy faculty may be forced out and many bright young people will be discouraged from entering the academic world.
B. Post-Tenure Review
In its commitment to maintaining faculty excellence, USCA has developed a Post Tenure Policy which recognizes and rewards faculty for achievements in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service commensurate with the standards of the rank earned. USCA is committed to the tenure of its faculty and views post tenure review as a means of supporting the professional development of the faculty.
Post tenure review is a periodic review of tenured faculty. It provides feedback on the faculty member's continuing commitment to the University as demonstrated by the kinds of productive activities specific to each faculty member's discipline. It is through this productivity that the excellence of USCA is affirmed and sustained. Through this process faculty should receive a greater measure of the reward they deserve.
The overall goal of the post tenure review process is to conserve and enhance one of USCA's greatest strengths, its dedicated and talented faculty. In every stage of the review, the principles of academic freedom and due process will be protected. This includes the freedom to pursue self-directed lines of inquiry, including those that may be novel, unpopular, unfashionable, or of extended duration.
II. Benefits
A periodic review of tenured faculty offers three major benefits. First, it provides the opportunity to reward faculty for the sustained professional performance typical of tenured professors. Second, it provides a periodic occasion to examine broader patterns of career development than those visible in the annual report and to assess directions for the future. Finally, the process also provides an opportunity for those few faculty whose contributions have fallen below acceptable levels to find ways to re-engage their interests, talents, and energies.
III. Relation to Annual Evaluations
Faculty at the University of South Carolina Aiken undergo a regular and systematic annual evaluation in order to assure that faculty are prepared to remain highly productive for the balance of their careers. Because the annual review is an administrative review, the process provides feedback only from that perspective. The post tenure review process strengthens faculty assessment by providing the opportunity for peer feedback on faculty performance at regular six-year intervals. The post tenure review, like the annual review and the promotion and tenure review, covers the three traditional areas of faculty responsibility: teaching, scholarship, and service. The review will be sufficiently flexible to accommodate faculty with differing disciplines, responsibilities, professional interests, and career profiles. The review will acknowledge that faculty members may contribute to the institution's mission in different ways at different points in their careers.
IV. Post Tenure Review Files
The post tenure review process should be rigorous and thorough, but it must not be allowed to inadvertently undermine faculty productivity by its demands. To that end the process will build upon the annual reports that faculty prepare for submission to their unit heads. After being notified that they are scheduled for post tenure review by the Vice Chancellor's office, faculty members will prepare a folder that includes only the following items: 1) annual activity reports for the previous six years or since their last career evaluation (without supporting documentation and without the annual supervisory evaluation); 2) a current vita, not to exceed ten pages (twelve point font, one inch margins); and 3) a summary statement of no more than two pages (also twelve point font, one inch margins) that highlights major accomplishments and helps the committee establish a clear and coherent six-year career profile. This document should also project future activities and career directions.
V. Eligible Faculty
All full time teaching faculty, non-full time administrative faculty and librarians will be subject to the post tenure review process. (See Section 5.6-14 of the Faculty Manual for the definition of full time administrators.) Those faculty who move into full time administrative positions will not be subject to the post tenure review process until they move back into a teaching or less than full time administrative position and have accumulated a total of six years of service since their last positive promotion or tenure review by the USCA Promotion and Tenure Committee, or since their last post tenure review. These may be nonconsecutive years.
VI. Definitions or Standards
A. Maintaining Professional Performance at Rank.
During the post tenure review period, the faculty member has continued at the level of performance outlined by the criteria used for his/her promotion to his/her present rank. It should be noted that, as stated in the USCA Faculty Manual, 5.6-9, IV 4, "Criteria must allow for individual uniqueness and creativity in performance and to value differences within and between disciplines. Faculty members should not be expected to perform alike or to be equally strong in all three areas." (See section 5.6 Promotion and Tenure Policy in the Faculty Manual, specifically sections III-V.)
B. Not Maintaining Professional Performance at Rank.
During the post tenure review period, the faculty member has substantial and chronic deficiencies in maintaining the level of performance outlined by the criteria used for their promotion to their present rank.
VII. Application Process
1. In May of the academic year before a candidate will undergo the process, the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs will notify all faculty who are to be candidates for post tenure review during the following academic year. Candidates will include all tenured teaching and tenured non-full time administrative faculty who have completed six years since either a tenure, promotion or previous post tenure review. Should the pool be larger then twenty candidates, candidates with the longest time since their last review will become candidates that year. Others will be postponed until the following year for consideration.
2. In September of each academic year, the Post Tenure Review Committee prepares and distributes to all faculty the post tenure review calendar, including the deadlines for each step, and makes forms available as needed.
3. The candidate for post tenure review completes the required post tenure review forms and prepares a supporting file.
4. The file will be limited to all annual activity reports since the last evaluation (without supporting documentation and without the annual supervisory evaluation), a current vita, not to exceed ten pages (twelve point font, one inch margins), a summary statement of no more than a two pages (also twelve point font, one inch margins) that highlights major accomplishments and helps the committee establish a clear and coherent profile of the candidate's career since the last evaluation, and which projects future activities and career directions.
5. The candidate submits his/her file to the Post Tenure Review Committee by the published deadline. No file will be accepted after the deadline.
6. The Post Tenure Review Committee members review and discuss each file. Each committee member then marks a confidential ballot indicating whether or not he/she believes the faculty member has maintained professional performance at that rank. Votes are taken in the presence of the committee and two members shall count the votes.
7. The Post Tenure Review Committee forwards its findings with written rationale and the files to the Vice Chancellor.
8. The Post Tenure Review Committee communicates its findings and the written rationale to each candidate, but not the numerical vote which shall be treated as confidential.
9. The Post Tenure Review Committee then announces its positive findings to the faculty.
10. In the event of a finding that a candidate needs to re-engage his/her energies to regain the level of professional performance expected at that rank, the candidate may forward in writing to the Vice Chancellor the reason(s) why he/she believes the Post Tenure Review Committee's finding should not be supported.
11. The Vice Chancellor reviews each file and adds a written recommendation that includes administrative perspectives, including the perspectives from annual administrative reviews of performance. All files are then sent to the Chancellor for action within thirty calendar days.
12. The Chancellor makes a decision and notifies the candidate in writing within fifteen calendar days.
13. In the event the Chancellor decides that the faculty member has not maintained professional performance at rank, the candidate may appeal the decision to the USCA Grievance Committee. Such appeals shall follow the published grievance procedures. (See section 5.9.) In the event the USCA Grievance Committee supports the candidate's case, the file is forwarded to the Chancellor for a second review. The Chancellor notifies the candidate of the final decision. In the event that the Chancellor decides that a faculty member has not maintained professional performance at rank, the faculty member will be required to carry out a professional development plan.
14. The ultimate decisions regarding post tenure review are made by the Chancellor of USCA.
Note: Documentation may be requested from the candidate at any time during this procedure for further clarification.
VIII. Reward for Maintaining Professional Performance at Rank
When the candidate receives a positive decision from the Chancellor, the faculty member should be eligible to receive an increase in base salary equal to two-thirds of the amount that would currently be awarded for promotion to their present rank. In the case of tenured assistant professors, the reward should be equal to half the current value of promotion to associate professor.
IX. Improvement Opportunities
A. The Professional Development Plan
A faculty member whose Post Tenure Review reveals that he/she has not maintained professional performance at rank by having substantial and chronic deficiencies will participate in a Professional Development Plan designed to fit the individual's circumstances. The Professional Development Plan describes how specific deficiencies in a faculty member's performance will be remedied. The plan is collaboratively developed by the faculty member, the faculty member's supervisor, and a tenured colleague of the faculty member's choice, and is approved by the PTR committee. The plan should reflect the aspirations of the faculty member, the department, and the University. All faculty and administrators involved in the plan must be committed to its successful completion and must provide reasonable support. The re-engagement of faculty interests and energies provides a positive outcome for the entire University community. The Faculty Development Plan will: 1) define specific goals and outcomes; 2) outline activities to achieve the goals and outcomes; 3) provide a schedule for accomplishing the activities, including intermediate as well as final outcome assessment; 4) define the criteria by which the progress will be measured. The plan must be completed in no more than three years.
B. The Process
When the faculty member is notified that development is required and any appeal process is exhausted, the faculty member will have thirty calendar days to develop, with his/her supervisor and another tenured faculty member, the Faculty Development Plan. The supervisor will send the Development Plan to the PTR committee for its approval. In the event that the faculty member and the supervisor (with the help of the tenured faculty member) cannot agree on a development plan, the faculty member may send a separate development plan to the Committee. Within thirty calendar days exclud-ing summer months) the committee must approve a plan. In the event that two plans are submitted, the committee may choose between them, or it may devise a third plan from the other two as a compromise.
During the development period, the faculty member and the supervisor will meet periodically to review progress toward the goals stated in the development plan. When the faculty member and the supervisor agree that the goals have been met, or at the end of the three year period, the supervisor will send a report to the PTR committee. This report will include sufficient information regarding the faculty members activities and accomplishments for the PTR Committee to determine whether or not the goals of the Plan have been met. This report must be signed by both the faculty member and the supervisor, and it may include a statement from the faculty member providing additional information or perspectives. The Committee will communicate its decision to the faculty member, the supervisor, the Vice Chancellor, and the Chancellor within thirty calendar days. A faculty member who has gone through the PTR development process will be eligible for the PTR process six years after their last review.
To be added to Section 5. as paragraph 4 of the Faculty Manual.
4. Post Tenure Review Committee -- To represent the faculty in the evaluation of ten-ured teaching faculty in the Post Tenure Review Process. The Committee will formulate the schedule and internal procedures for the gathering, safekeeping, and evaluation of relevant information, and will recommend policies to the Assembly for approval and report its findings to the faculty and administration.
Membership shall include seven (7) tenured faculty who are not full time administra-tors. Membership shall be one (1) member from each of the professional schools (presently the School of Business Administration, the School of Education, and the School of Nursing), and two (2) members from each of the two colleges (presently the College of Humanities and Social Sciences and the College of Sciences and with librarians counting as members of the College of Sciences for the purpose of this election). Only faculty who are not required to perform annual administrative reviews shall serve on the committee. Members will serve four-year staggered terms. (The committee first elected will draw straws so that the initial terms are the following: two terms of four years, two of three years, two of two years, and one term of one year. Thereafter, all terms will consist of four years except for replacement terms.)
[Note of explanation: four year terms are specified so that any faculty member under-going the development process, which can take up to three years, will have some members on the committee after the process is over who were on it when the development plan was put into place. Librarians were added to the seats reserved for the College of Sciences to lend balance to the size of the representational units.]
Chancellor
Vice Chancellor