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 Executive Committee of the University of South Carolina Board of Trustees met Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at 1:05 p.m. in the Carolina Plaza Board Room.
Members present were: Mr. Mack I. Whittle, Jr., Chairman; Mr. Herbert C. Adams, Vice Chairman; Mr. James Bradley; Dr. C. Edward Floyd; and Mr. Michael J. Mungo. Mr. William C. Hubbard was absent. Other Trustees present were: Mr. Samuel R. Foster, II; Mrs. Helen C. Harvey; Mr. Robert N. McLellan; Ms. Darla D. Moore; Mr. John C. von Lehe, Jr.; and Mr. Othniel H. Wienges, Jr.
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 Financial Officer Richard W. Kelly; Vice President and Chief Operating Officer J. Lyles Glenn; Vice President for Information Technology and Chief Information Officer William F. Hogue; Vice President for Student and Alumni Services Dennis A. Pruitt; Vice President for Human Resources Jane M. Jameson; Vice Provost and Executive Dean for Regional Campuses and Continuing Education Chris P. Plyler; General Counsel Walter (Terry) H. Parham; Budget Director, Budget Office, William P. Bragdon; Professor, School of Law, and Chair of the Faculty Senate Robert M. Wilcox; Director for Human Resources Programs and Services, Division of Human Resources, Jeffery G. Cargile; Director of Salary Administration and Human Resources Systems, Division of Human Resources, Judith Owens; Assistant to the Vice President, Office of Information Technology, Troy A. Travis; Professor, Moore School of Business, Caroline D. Strobel; Professor, Moore School of Business, Daniel C. Feldman; Director of Computer Services Lorie Edwards; Director of the Office of Public Affairs Russell McKinney; and members of the media.
Chairman Whittle called the meeting to order and invited Board members to introduce themselves. Mr. McKinney introduced members of the media who were in attendance. Chairman Whittle stated that notice of the meeting had been posted and the press notified as required by the Freedom of Information Act; the agenda and supporting materials had been circulated to members of the Committee; and a quorum was present to conduct business.
Chairman Whittle called on Provost Odom who briefly summarized the various components of this recommendation to the Committee. He believed that the Value-Centered Management Recommendation was key to a number of other recommendations which the Strategic Directions and Initiatives Committee had presented for consideration in a report to President Palms. Incorporating this philosophy into the University system would be challenging and would require, at the very minimum, an extensive amount of attention to detail. Provost Odom indicated that several large public and private research-oriented institutions had successfully adopted this budgeting tool.
In essence, the value-centered management philosophy was based on a system in which student tuition and fees would be funneled directly to the particular college which generated this money, rather than to a general fund for future appropriation. Inherent within this system was the importance of the quality of the individual deans and the concomitant increased accountability responsibility.
Provost Odom cautioned that a value-centered management system could lessen interaction between colleges and increase vertical collegiality; the central administration would need to provide incentives to ensure the continuation of inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary programs which effectively crossed college boundaries. In addition, a major consideration would involve determining whether to base this system on credit hours taken versus majors offered in the various colleges since all undergraduate students were required to take prescribed general education courses from the College of Science and Mathematics and the College of Liberal Arts.
On behalf of the faculty, Mr. Wilcox stated that his colleagues basically supported the concept of value-centered management; concern had been raised regarding the uncertainty of the details. Mr. Wilcox further indicated that the faculty had not been able to develop a sense of the overall strategic plan. Previous discussions had primarily focused on those values which they believed should be protected. As a result, faculty members were experiencing unnecessary morale problems stemming from a fear of elimination. He believed that ultimately a modified value-centered management system with special rules which protected various concerns would be implemented.
In summary, Secretary Stepp stated that the Committee enthusiastically supported the concept of value-centered management as a progressive tool for moving the University forward; its implementation would require an extensive amount of attention to detail. Operating this system in parallel with the current budgetary process for an initial 12-18 months would provide an appropriate safeguard.
Chairman Whittle recognized Dr. Hogue who described the Information Technology (IT) environment at the University of South Carolina as an incredibly complex web of interwoven relationships, services, and innovative activities. He believed that the campus information technology culture was a reflection of the University; the IT environment must evolve in concert with the broader evolution of the University of South Carolina; this institution was in the communications business; and, increasingly, IT was becoming the communication vehicle of choice.
Dr. Hogue commented that a University information technology strategic plan had been developed based on the instructional, research, and community service priorities of the University. He noted that on a relatively small budget, the University operated one of the most complex, far-reaching, network-based IT systems in the state of South Carolina. This network, which required constant care, extended to the seven regional institutions within the USC System and several other specialized facilities associated with the University.
Dr. Hogue explained that the University had available many well-equipped computer laboratories for the students; however, he was concerned about the technical/wiring configurations which supported these facilities beneath the ground or behind the walls. In addition, challenging the IT operation was the often inadequate sharing of facilities with other units; a redirection of funding would be necessary to address these deficiencies. The future course and success of IT at the University would be contingent upon an overall attitude of shared responsibility.
Dr. Hogue briefly addressed security, the most complex and fundamental IT principle which must be absolutely followed in a professional IT environment. He stressed the importance of the University maintaining a strategic IT system as future opportunities were considered. Dr. Hogue also believed that the University should capitalize on the fact that in the Internet age, this institution was by far the most significant content engine in the state of South Carolina.
IT priorities proposed for the University included an adequate networking capability which was ubiquitous, secure, available, and of sufficient capacity to respond to rapidly growing customer demands; a variety of tools to efficiently and effectively use the network; and, an ongoing pursuit of reallocation opportunities to better serve established University priorities.
Mr. Bradley asked if Dr. Hogue could deliver this presentation to the general assembly leadership to facilitate their understanding of the total breadth of information technology which, he believed, could possibly generate additional state financial support. Dr. Hogue indicated that he was beginning an aggressive external campaign; during his first year at the University, his focus had been directed inward.
Within the near future, Dr. Hogue was scheduled to meet with colleagues from other state institutions to develop a plan which would hopefully garner the support of state legislators and influential constituencies for significant state investment in networking. Ultimately, Dr. Hogue believed that the underlying costs of a University IT structure should be the responsibility of a larger entity which would provide this service as a utility.
Secretary Stepp indicated that the Committee fully endorsed the IT recommendation as presented to President Palms in the SDI Report. It was hoped that the state legislature would consider vigorous methods of support.
Since there were no other matters to come before the Committee, Chairman Whittle declared the meeting adjourned at 2:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas L. Stepp
Secretary