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 Academic Affairs and Faculty Liaison Committee of the University of South Carolina Board of Trustees met Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at 11:10 a.m. in the Carolina Plaza Board Room.
Members present were: Mr. Robert N. McLellan, Chairman; Mr. James Bradley; Mr. Samuel R. Foster, II; Mrs. Helen C. Harvey; Mr. John C. von Lehe, Jr. (via telephone); Mr. Othniel H. Wienges, Jr.; Mr. Mack I. Whittle, Jr., Board Chairman; and Mr. Herbert C. Adams, Board Vice Chairman. Members absent were Mr. William C. Hubbard and Ms. Darla D. Moore. Other Trustees present were Mr. Miles Loadholt and Mr. M. Wayne Staton.
Faculty Liaison Committee members present were: Professor Robert M. Wilcox, Chair of the Faculty Senate and Dr. Daniel C. Feldman, Chair of the Faculty Advisory Committee. Members absent were: Dr. Dan Sabia, Chair of the Faculty Welfare Committee; Dr. Charmaine Wilson, representative for the Senior Campuses; and Ms. Ellen Chamberlain, representative for the Regional Campuses.
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; General Counsel Walter (Terry) H. Parham; Dean of the College of Liberal Arts Joan Hinde Stewart; Dean of the College of Library and Information Science Fred W. Roper; Dean of the South Carolina Honors College Peter C. Sederberg; Dean of the College of Education Les Sternberg; Interim Dean of the College of Journalism and Mass Communications Henry T. Price; Associate Dean of the College of Liberal Arts Gordon C. Baylis; Associate Dean for Research, School of Public Health, Russell R. Pate; Associate Dean of the School of Music, Andrew D. Gowan; Professor in the Department of Sociology, College of Liberal Arts, John V. Skvoretz; Professor in the College of Social Work Leon Ginsberg; Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering and Information Technology, E. Michael Sutton; Director of the Budget Office, Office of Business and Finance, William P. Bragdon; Chair of the Department of Theatre, Speech, and Dance, College of Liberal Arts, Jim O'Connor; Professor in the Department of Sociology and African American Studies Program, College of Liberal Arts, Andrew Billingsley; Professor in the School of Law Martin C. McWilliams, Jr.; Professor in the Department of Art, College of Liberal Arts, Philip C. Dunn; Professor in the College of Criminal Justice Geoffrey P. Alpert; Associate Professor in the Department of Theatre, Speech, and Dance, College of Liberal Arts, H. Thorne Compton; Coordinator of the Moscow Police Command College, College of Criminal Justice, Rob Rinker; Distinguished Professor Emeritus, College of Criminal Justice, Ellis C. MacDougall; alumnus of the College of Criminal Justice H. Parker Evatt; Director of the Office of Public Affairs Russell McKinney; and members of the media.
Chairman McLellan called the meeting to order and invited those present to introduce themselves. Mr. McKinney introduced members of the media who were in attendance. Chairman McLellan 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 Committee; and a quorum was present to conduct business.
Chairman McLellan recognized Provost Odom who stated that President Palms was attending a press conference to announce that Eastman Chemical Company and a subsidiary, Meridian Chemical, had presented to the University a gift of approximately $20 million to be used for the development of the nano technology research program. This news was greeted with a congratulatory round of applause from Board members.
Chairman McLellan called on Dean Stewart who explained that the SDI recommendation regarding Criminal Justice had been based upon the Committee's collective belief that the program would benefit from a move into the College of Liberal Arts. As a separate academic unit in the college, the criminal justice program would not only maintain its own unique identity, but would also be in a position to form closer ties with related programs. Dean Stewart noted that the original proposal had recommended a merger with the Department of Sociology.
Various considerations supporting this recommendation included the fact that the College of Criminal Justice was relatively equal in size to three closely-related academic units in the College of Liberal Arts: Psychology, Sociology, and Government and International Studies; faculty expertise and curriculum content also linked closely with these three programs; nationally, a separate college paradigm was contrary to recent trends. In the past thirty years, law enforcement, criminology, and criminal justice programs had evolved from professional schools into independent, interdisciplinary programs typically housed in liberal arts, arts and sciences, or social sciences colleges. The three most outstanding programs, which were located at the University of Maryland, the University of Cincinnati, and Temple University, functioned as departments within larger units.
Finally, the field of criminal justice had become more research-oriented, concentrating on the evaluation of systems with a concomitant lessening of focus on the application to individuals. Using various social science approaches, this discipline described, analyzed, and predicted behavior.
Dean Stewart further noted that the primary purpose of the current criminal justice program at the University of South Carolina had involved the development of a base of disciplinary knowledge which could be applied both theoretically and practically across the entire system. Accentuating the research environment through a closer affiliation with other faculty members in related academic units would facilitate this purpose.
Current criminal justice degree requirements overlapped similar requirements in the College of Liberal Arts. The undergraduate curriculum included 24 hours of required liberal arts courses and another 18 hours of selected courses in liberal arts. Essential additional requirements would involve a further course in the history of diverse populations and the achievement of basic proficiency in a foreign language, a skill which would enhance the marketability of graduating students. Other considerations, such as additional costs, increased academic advising activities, and tenure and promotion standards of the criminal justice faculty, had been reviewed and tentatively addressed in a satisfactory manner.
Ellis MacDougall, who had been instrumental in forming the College of Criminal Justice at the University, voiced his concerns regarding this recommendation. He believed that incorporating the criminal justice program into the College of Liberal Arts would seriously hinder its future growth potential. He viewed this suggested consolidation from a college to a department as a demotion. Mr. MacDougall envisioned the continuation of a college which was supported by the administration, under the direction of a dean whose background was in the area of criminology, and which promoted linkages with other colleges across the campus. The College of Criminal Justice was not a training school, he emphasized, but rather a college which educated individuals to better serve their communities.
Dean Stewart stated that she also shared this vision from the perspective of an academic department. She believed that the College of Liberal Arts, as a large and diverse school, offered a congenial atmosphere which would sustain the criminal justice program.
Committee members discussed the foreign language requirement, the cost savings of collapsing this program into the College of Liberal Arts, and curriculum concerns for those students currently enrolled. Mr. Whittle commented that he had not encountered any evidence which supported the belief that a higher quality student graduated from a stand alone criminal justice college.
Chairman McLellan stated that he had perceived it was the consensus of the Committee to forward the SDI recommendation as presented to President Palms.
Chairman McLellan stated that the topic for discussion during this SDI Review Session was the recommendation to combine the College of Journalism and Mass Communication with the College of Library and Information Science.
Chairman McLellan recognized Dr. Leon Ginsberg who initially commented that the SDI Committee had unanimously approved the merger of the two colleges which were relatively small and shared similar academic missions. He explained that the rationale was based on two factors: (1) to reduce administrative costs; and, (2) to provide the synergy anticipated from the collaboration between these two programs. Dr. Ginsberg noted that the administration of both colleges had agreed that this merger was acceptable. In addition, the University was searching for a dean who would serve a merged school since both of the permanent positions were currently vacant.
Dr. Odom commented that the two colleges had responded very positively. Joint meetings had been held; teams of faculty members had visited other campuses where these mergers had occurred. He anticipated the creation of an undergraduate major in the area of "informatics" or information science as a result of this merger; both colleges would be in a position to contribute to the success of such an academic program.
Mr. Wilcox asked if this merger had been envisioned as two programs which would overlap or would they remain as two very separate departments under one college. Dr. Ginsberg responded that both areas would probably share common academic curricula while maintaining very distinct professional programs; these details had yet to be determined.
Chairman McLellan expressed his belief that it was the consensus of the Committee to forward this recommendation as presented to President Palms.
Chairman McLellan called on Dr. Michael Sutton who stated that under the direction of Dean Sternberg, the College of Education had moved forward in a very positive manner. The school was moving in a direction which was consistent with the SDI Committee's long-term goal of strengthening the University in the areas of teaching, research, and service.
The SDI Committee had recommended that the College of Education, through the assistance of appropriate external consultants, develop a plan to move the school toward state and regional leadership. Areas of concentration should include early childhood and elementary education and discipline-focused secondary education teacher preparation. It had been determined that secondary education teacher preparation programs impacted the ability of this state to develop the foundation for a knowledge-based economy.
Dr. Sutton noted that educational issues in the state had been continually discussed at the very highest levels of state government; in fact, Governor Hodges was emphasizing this area during his tenure in office. The entire Southeastern region of the United States had experienced difficulty raising the educational standard to the national level.
Dean Sternberg explained that the College of Education was in the process of re-conceptualizing the teacher education program to increase the number of students; currently, thirty teacher education programs were available in the state. He hoped to develop a program at the University which others would view as the model to emulate.
Dean Sternberg further commented that the process of formulating a strategic plan for the College of Education had started immediately following his arrival on campus; six strategic initiatives with an accompanying list of specific activities, responsible individuals, and time frames had been established. A review of these initiatives to determine the amount of progress would be conducted annually. Dean Sternberg stressed the fact that those strategic initiatives were fully aligned with the vision and mission of the University.
Chairman McLellan stated that he believed it was the consensus of the Committee to forward this recommendation as presented to President Palms.
At this time, Chairman McLellan indicated that the Committee would change the order of the agenda to review the final recommendation since the review schedule to this point had proceeded more rapidly than originally anticipated and the next presenter in order had not arrived.
Chairman McLellan recognized Dr. Andrew Billingsley who observed that the University had achieved a high degree of diversity, both race and ethnic diversity and gender diversity, in the area of undergraduate students from admissions through graduation rates.
Consistent with this undergraduate representation, the SDI Committee had recommended that the University reconsider the institutional leadership structure which did not reflect a desirable level of diversity; identify scholarship and research related to African American Studies and Women's Studies because these areas offered enormous potential for the University to develop national leadership; emphasize research activities in these areas; and establish endowed chairs in these areas.
Mrs. Harvey commented that the diversity at this institution was one of the cornerstones which, she believed, reflected the diversity of this state. She applauded those individuals who had made it possible for the University to be a leader in this area. Mr. Foster also echoed Mrs. Harvey's sentiments explaining that there had been a rich population of African American students when he had graduated from this institution several years ago; the trend had continued under the leadership of Dr. Palms. He hoped that diversity as a focus would continue as the University sought to enhance its academic standing.
Chairman McLellan stated that he believed it was the consensus of the Committee to forward this recommendation as presented to President Palms.
Chairman McLellan recognized Professor McWilliams who explained that the Honors College was considered the University's primary source of movement toward every goal espoused by the Board of Trustees, the SDI Committee, and external consultants. He also noted that this particular SDI Recommendation had included very specific information to facilitate future benchmarking activities.
Two primary issues which impacted the future development of the Honors College were: (1) local resources in terms of administrative capacity, space, and, particularly, access to small-sectioned classes in the other schools and, (2) scholarship money. Professor McWilliams noted that economic incentives should be provided to those colleges teaching Honors classes; at present, Dean Sederberg's persuasiveness was largely the incentive. In addition, the ability to offer scholarship money to students enrolled in this college must continue; seeking the funding to substantially increase the scholarship offering to remain competitive was essential. Finally, the ongoing process of pursuing and encouraging the best representatives of a diverse culture to attend was critical to the future success of the Honors College.
Dean Sederberg further explained that the SDI Report had recommended substantially increasing the size of the Honors College. He was concerned that a rapid expansion of the college would negatively impact the ability of this institution to sufficiently provide the added instructional and space resources.
Dean Sederberg hoped that a gradual student increase would be implemented to more efficiently absorb added demands and associated costs. These expenses included an increase of available scholarship money, number of additional Honors classes required while maintaining the integrity of the College's academic programs, number of research mentors, expansion of Honors College staff, additional administrative and classroom space, and housing. The success of the Honors College expansion would depend upon the dedication of additional instructional, research, and space resources to this vision as opposed to other valued and valid competing missions.
Provost Odom remarked that the Honors College was clearly a "crown jewel" of this University; the administration would never risk lessening the strength of this program. Responding to Mrs. Harvey's question regarding funding resources, Provost Odom indicated that reallocations within the University would, of necessity, occur. He was primarily concerned about the availability of scholarship money which was a problem throughout the University.
Further discussions ensued regarding the most viable percentage of freshmen Honors College students needed to effectively achieve the University's goals.
Chairman McLellan stated that he believed it was the consensus of the Committee to adopt the concept of this SDI Recommendation and to call to President Palms' attention the method of expansion which Dean Sederberg had discussed.
Chairman McLellan again called on Professor McWilliams who initially commented that the SDI Committee had focused on identifying movement toward goals throughout the overall process. For this particular recommendation, the Committee had proposed the relocation of the departments of art, dance, theater and speech from the College of Liberal Arts into a college with the School of Music.
Two goals had been of primary consideration: (1) consolidation and, (2) faculty productivity enhancement through the combining of synergies. Professor McWilliams noted that the main obstacles had been money, the actual physical proximity to encourage these synergies, and physical space; all of these programs required extensive physical space. In addition, because the nationally-recognized School of Music was considered very strong, it had been questioned whether this combination would augment the school or jeopardize its strength.
The SDI Committee had supported the belief that synergies would occur which would enhance not only the School of Music, but also the other departments. The outcome of this reconfiguration, however, would require several years to determine the degree of its effectiveness.
Drs. Jim O'Connor, Chair of the Department of Theatre, Speech, and Dance and Thorne Compton, a professor in the department, expressed some concern about the proposal. They were concerned about the possible financial impact of physically separating the arts programs. In addition, removing these programs from the College of Liberal Arts would effectively remove the "arts" from the College of Liberal Arts; historically, the University had been dedicated to the teaching of liberal arts so that students would have the opportunity to actively engage in the arts and theatre.
Dr. O'Connor presented several factors in which he believed the creation of a college of visual and performing arts would be detrimental including cost-saving benefits; pursuing grant money; pursuing endowment support in the private sector; and further separating the activities of creative endeavor from that of research.
Brief comments from other members of the University arts community were also heard. Associate Dean Gowan of the School of Music asked Committee members to consider the crucial question of whether this action would help or hinder any of the art units in achieving their full potential.
Professor Wilcox commented that this recommendation was one of the more controversial among the faculty. Many had questioned whether this administrative structural change would improve the academic quality of the institution. In addition, with the underlying sense of a limited budget, there was the fear that a college would be created with more competition than cooperation. Professor Wilcox suggested that further research was needed at this time before pursuing this recommendation.
Chairman McLellan suggested that the recommendation be forwarded to President Palms with the notation that considerable divisiveness seemed to exist regarding this recommendation and perhaps the timing of such an action was not critical. President Palms commented that he was fully aware of the ambiguous nature of the situation.
Chairman McLellan called on Dr. Russell Pate who commented that the University leadership had called for the enhancement of scholarship and research activities including President Palms who had expressed the desirability of the institution's attaining AAU status; the Board of Trustees Goals for 2005; the Faculty Objectives for 2005; the Washington Advisory Group Report; and the SDI Report.
Specifically, the SDI Report had recommended various steps that the University should undertake in order to enhance scholarly activities and funded research. These measures included aggressively recruiting national Academy members and faculty with the potential for such prestigious national honors; providing the University's current top scholars and researchers with the resources needed to expand their research programs; and providing funds to support the formation of nationally competitive collaborative research teams from USC, MUSC, and Clemson or beyond. To support these activities, the SDI Report had recommended various methods for the reallocation of resources within colleges and schools.
It was hoped that enhancement of the University's scholarly productivity and funded research activities would attract outstanding students; promote the state's economic development; enhance the quality of life in the broadest sense; generate increased indirect cost recovery money; and provide the platform for greater success in private contributions and development efforts than previously experienced.
Provost Odom indicated that he had asked each dean to develop a proposal which addressed the reallocation of resources, and particularly consolidation of the organizational structure wherever possible, within that particular college or school.
Chairman McLellan stated that he believed it was the consensus of the Committee to forward this recommendation as presented tthe meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas L. Stepp
Secretary