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 Friday, April 26, 2002, at 1:05 p.m. in the Carolina Plaza Board Room.
The following members were present: Mr. Mack I. Whittle, Jr., Chairman; Mr. Herbert C. Adams; Mr. James Bradley; Mr. William C. Hubbard; and Mr. Michael J. Mungo. Dr. C. Edward Floyd was absent. Other Trustees present were: Mr. Arthur S. Bahnmuller; Mr. Alexander English (via telephone); Mr. A.C. Fennell, III; Mr. Samuel R. Foster, II; Mrs. Helen C. Harvey; Mr. Toney J. Lister; Mr. Miles Loadholt; Mr. Robert N. McLellan; Ms. Darla D. Moore; Mr. M. Wayne Staton; 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 Operating Officer J. Lyles Glenn; Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Richard W. Kelly; 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; Chancellor of USC Aiken Thomas B. Hallman; Chancellor of USC Spartanburg John C. Stockwell; Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs, USC Spartanburg, Robert Connelly; Vice Chancellor for Student and Diversity Affairs, USC Spartanburg, Leon E. Wiles; Vice Chancellor for University Advancement, USC Spartanburg, John Perry; Interim Dean of USC Lancaster John Catalano; Dean of USC Salkehatchie Ann Carmichael; Dean of USC Sumter C. Leslie Carpenter; Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs, USC Union, Anita K. Bowles; Dean of the South Carolina Honors College Peter C. Sederberg; Dean of the College of Engineering and Information Technology Ralph E. White; Interim Dean of the College of Journalism and Mass Communications Henry T. Price; General Counsel Walter (Terry) H. Parham; Director of Athletics Michael B. McGee; Director of the 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 Treasurer Susan D. Hanna; Director of the Department of Internal Audit Alton McCoy; Director of Student Development and University Housing, Division of Student and Alumni Services, Gene Luna; Assistant to the Vice President, Office of Business and Finance, Ken Corbett; Acting Associate Dean of College of Hospitality, Retail, and Sport Management Donald E. Stowe; University Legislative Liaison John D. Gregory; President of the Student Government Association Ankit Patel; Chairman of the Lancaster County Commission for Higher Education W.L. McDow; Distinguished Professor Emeritus, College of Criminal Justice, Ellis C. MacDougall; Lutheran Campus Minister, The Reverend Martin P. Jessiman; Bond Counsel: Dianne McNabb of A.G. Edwards and Sons, Inc., and Ray Jones of Parker Poe Adams and Bernstein LLP; 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 welcomed members of the Fiscal Policy Committee and its Chairman, Wayne Staton.
There were personnel matters and a contractual matter which were appropriate for discussion in Executive Session. Chairman Whittle called for a motion to enter Executive Session. Mr. Bradley so moved, and Mr. Mungo seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
The following persons were invited to remain: Dr. Palms, Mr. Stepp, Dr. Odom, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Kelly, Dr. Hogue, Dr. Pruitt, Ms. Jameson, Mr. Parham, Dr. Plyler, Ms. Hanna, Dr. McGee, Mr. McCoy, Mr. McKinney, Mr. Gregory, Ms. Warren, and Ms. Tweedy.
Return to Open Session
This resolution also included a provision for Bond Anticipation Notes. The University was proposing the use of one-year Bond Anticipation Notes to lower the cost of interest and avoid arbitrage payments to the IRS. Immediately issued would be BANS in the amount of $13.8 million to begin the initial phase of the construction. An evaluation of the use of BANS, or long-term financing, would be conducted in 2003 when the $13,800,000 BAN matured.
Mr. Bradley moved approval of the Housing Bond Resolution as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Mr. Mungo seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity. I know that we have spent considerable time on this document. I want to thank you for all of the efforts in considering the draft that came to us and your input into that draft.
I have a few words I want to say before I get to the actual recommendations. Some of these are obvious to you because you have been kept informed about the progress that we have made over the last eleven years.
There is a lot in this SDI Report that does not address major aspects of the University because they don't need to be addressed specifically. They are measures of factors on their way to continuing improvement. They principally have to do with the essence of what a university really is -- the essence of what education really is. It is a continuing challenge to us to try to understand what an educated person really is as we move in a time of rapid technological changes, where the technological changes and technological knowledge affect the economy, probably more so than ever.
At the same time, some of the greatest problems in our society are coming from the fact that people who have control over the technologies and over highly-skilled individuals are perhaps too narrowly educated to understand the real issues that are facing our society. So, it remains a challenge to the faculties of universities and colleges to try to interpret what education should consist of and what skills of thinking and innovation and creativity and human sensitivities can be combined with the highly-skilled educational processes which may seem more pragmatic. I am proud that we have addressed those consistently through the history of this university and that we have such strength in some of these classical departments and those strengths must be maintained and further enhanced.
There are a number of things that the SDI Report has recommended that are already taking place. I want to go through some of these with you. I will not comment on all of the recommendations. I know I am going to be saying some of this again to the total Board, but this is the committee that accepts these recommendations and passes them on.
We are concerned about the way that universities are funded. We have struggled for many, many years in South Carolina about adequately funding institutions.
I think this Value-Centered Management approach is a new set of skills that will be very beneficial to the University and I recommend that to you. It will help us achieve a better understanding of how our resources are producing quality and the quantity of what we are trying to produce. This is going to take a tremendous effort on the part of the University. We have to run this system parallel to our old system at first, but I think that would be very beneficial.
Another recommendation is to create a College of Health Sciences. One reason our budgets in the state are being challenged is because of the unfunded Medicaid needs that we have. We have tremendous medical problems in South Carolina. I am for the creation of a Division of Health Sciences which incorporates these colleges that have been mentioned, but I do not want it in any way to distract from the major purpose for which we created a medical school at the University and that is primary care -- providing physicians for the rural needs of South Carolina. The argument is made that this new college would provide new research opportunities. I believe that those research opportunities are necessary, but they are not just related to the basic biomedical sciences. They are related to primary care issues and they are related to public health care issues. So, if the result of this combination would be to enhance a better understanding of preventive care and primary care, and therefore reduce the needs for specialized practitioners, I certainly want to support that. I do believe that the three basic science departments of the medical school will be combined into two departments which would enhance basic research of the fundamental medical sciences. The relationships with MUSC is critical in this and I don't think we have nearly enough taken advantage of the relationships of these two medical schools in promoting research. If you put both our faculties together, we would not have as many faculty as most medical schools today. Combined with the technology of our Engineering School and the technology of Clemson, we can make major advances in modern medicine and medical technologies. So, I strongly support that.
Another major issue that all of us have been discussing is enrollment management and enhanced scholarship. I am very proud of the improvement in SAT scores and the quality of our student body. We have had 175 students garner almost $4 million worth of scholarships and awards in the last 6 years. Our SAT average is going up. The McNair Scholars and the Carolina Scholars and the Palmetto Scholars and the Life Scholars have all attracted students here who ordinarily would not have come and that is the reason we have achieved so well. I don't think we have any choice but to continue to enhance the quality of the student body. One of the reasons I think it is important to provide the housing on the other two campuses is to give students an alternative if they cannnot get in the University of South Carolina Columbia because of our raised standards. I strongly support that.
I do believe, though, in this time of critical budget pressures enrollment must remain strong in order to have the resources to maintain the faculty and the infrastructure that this university requires. I believe that the current applicant pool, which is outstanding, can be further enhanced so that, with that enrollment that you have approved, we can continue to raise that SAT score. And the quicker we get to those magic numbers of 1175 or 1200, I think, the better it is going to be for the state. It will require some additional students coming from out of state. It will require some additional resources. I support adding 25 students to the Honors College, but I think we need to take stock around January of next year to see whether we have the resources to facilitate those extra 25 students because it will take additional faculty being made available from the various departments. I think that is a strong suggestion and I support it.
I don't believe that we can forget, though, how significant the diversity enrollment is in this university and what it means for this state in the future. Every year when we are shaking those hands at graduations and you see the number of minority and black students graduating from here and those who stay in this state, you know that the solutions of the problems facing this state are going to be solved by that kind of a diversity of enrollment at this institution. But, I do believe that we could tolerate an additional percentage of students coming from out of state.
We are going to eliminate the transitional year program. It just takes two years to do that. By the end of the next academic year, that will be eliminated and I think the size of the applicant pool will more than justify that. It was a program that well served this state during its time, but I don't believe that program is needed now. I think there are other opportunities for those students to start somewhere else -- opportunities for them to transfer in to this institution if they prove themselves capable.
Scholarly Activities/Research -- You have heard this over and over again. The reputation of an institution is really solely determined by the scholarship produced by its faculty. And, that's just not funded research, it is scholarship as well. When we hear research, we so frequently think of only funded research. We should have definite measurement goals to enhance that scholarship. We must find the facilities and other resources to accommodate that. But we cannot, in my opinion, improve the quantity of research without increasing the size of the faculty. That applies primarily in engineering, which would require more students in engineering as well.
The humanities faculty have been concerned that the word research only means funded research. You and I know that many of our society's problems are dependent upon research findings that take place in the humanities. Our academic reputation also depends very strongly on the production of research in those areas.
We need to enhance our research in the major colleges -- in engineering, science and math, and particularly in business. We need to enhance the scholarly productivity of our business faculty. The rankings are something that we enjoy, we brag about. But until I have 3, 4, or 5 challenges that someone is trying to hire away our faculty from our business school, I am not going to be convinced that we are producing the scholars and the practitioners that you can really say determines the reputation of that school. The dossiers that Jerry Odom and I have received in the last three years of the younger faculty coming in are truly outstanding. We have increased the SATs in the business school. I don't think we should change the enrollment of that school. I think we should continue to work on the quality and keep the enrollment about the same. Interest in business careers varies and I think the best schools in the country have enrollment that is much more manageable than USC's.
I am not going to address graduate enrollment specifically. Allocations of indirect costs, I have talked to you about. We must use those to enhance research and perhaps build a research building with those funds.
I fully support the movement of Criminal Justice into the College of Liberal Arts. I think the complexity of what Criminal Justice is dealing with, the other humanities subjects, the social sciences, psychology, and relationships among them, is going to do nothing but enhance the quality of those graduates. I believe that we can have a separate department of criminology and criminal justice and we will try to enhance the interaction of those departments in doing research.
In the area of Information Technology, I don't have to tell you how important it was to add one additional major administrator. I think in the 11 years I have been here, this is the only addition I have made to the vice presidential staff -- the Vice President for Information Technology. I think many of you talked to me about this over the years. We have an outstanding individual who understands this business, is in touch with the best people in the country, and we have to continue to use the resource. We are spending $45 million in this university on information technology. We have got to come together and use that money wisely because it is the future of knowledge. As we talk about a knowledge-based economy, let me tell you that the governor this year is the chairman of the Southern Regional Education Board. They have a document that quotes Tom Wolfe who said something like ‘the knowledge economy: no knowledge, no knowledge economy.' You got to have that knowledge. Information technology can certainly enhance that.
Creation of a College of Fine and Performing Arts is a subject that we have talked about and assessed. I am not prepared to combine departments to create that particular college at this time.
Streamlining of administrative and business processes goes without saying, but we have had little support from the Commission on Higher Education to do that principally because the committee working on that consisted of two-year colleges, four-year colleges, and the research universities. We need to have the research universities make recommendations which could improve regulatory relief on that, and I strongly support that.
The combination of the School of Library Science and Mass Communication is done. We are very close to getting a dean. It is very important to get those two colleges together. They have tremendous opportunities.
I support the recommendation for the McKissick Museum, but I don't believe that the Visitor's Center should be moved there. I think that would be inappropriate. I think we should continue to look at how best we could use the MicKissick Museum -- how we can tie it more into academic programs.
About the Human Resources Alternative Work Plan, we have given that a tremendous amount of thought. The University has taken the lead among the state's higher education community and other state agencies in developing and adopting measures intended to encourage early retirement. Further, we are currently considering recommending a plan beneficial to the employee and the University that would enable appropriate voluntary separation. I do not believe we ought to adopt the 40-hour work week at this time. We are already asking our workers to do very much with inadequate pay. This would not, I think, be well received by our employees nor would it benefit our productivity. During the past several years, the University has experienced a combination of circumstances associated with inadequate state funding. We have had hiring freezes, mid-year and year-end budget cuts, reductions in force, and they have effectively reduced the pool of personnel necessary to operate a flagship institution of Carolina's size and its caliber.
These circumstances have resulted in placing additional responsibilities upon our existing employees.
I think those are the primary recommendations that are in this document. There are others that you have read, obviously, and would like to perhaps comment on. I would be glad to answer any questions and Dr. Odom is here to do that as well.
Mr. Chairman, I recommend this to you for adoption and I will be glad to answer any questions or have further discussion if you would like. I know the hour is late and we need to get on with this meeting.
Ms. Moore requested further information regarding the music and performing arts recommendation. Provost Odom explained that the SDI Committee had recommended the formation of a new College of Performing and Fine Arts; however, the faculties of the School of Music, Department of Art, and the Department of Theater and Speech had not embraced this proposal and did not believe that this merger would result in a stronger unit.
Mr. Mungo asked that the Executive Committee delay any formal action regarding this document until the new incoming president had reviewed these recommendations. Ms. Moore disagreed with this suggestion noting that the faculty, administration, and Board of Trustees supported these recommendations. Mr. Hubbard also explained that, as part of the presidential recruitment process, the SDI Report had been shared with all of the candidates who had enthusiastically embraced this document. He was confident that all of the finalists would support Dr. Palms' recommendations.
Mr. McLellan expressed concern about the costs associated with various changes. Those recommendations that the Academic Affairs and Faculty Liaison Committee had reviewed would require additional funding. He questioned whether the resources would be available in view of the uncertain legislative budgetary support projected for the upcoming fiscal year.
Chairman Whittle responded that this process was ongoing and dynamic. As each component moved forward, numerous financial effects would require consideration in the future. In addition, President Palms explained that this document would be utilized immediately to prepare the upcoming budget; hopefully, the Board of Trustees will have approved a president-elect who would be briefed about the projected University budget and could make changes. He stressed the fact that this plan had been reviewed by many groups and had gathered extensive momentum.
Mr. Mungo moved approval of the Presidential Recommendations Regarding the SDI Report as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Mr. Bradley seconded the motion.
Chairman Whittle asked that the new president be given the opportunity to suggest changes to the Board of Trustees. As this process moved forward, the Executive Committee would review the financial impact of the various changes.
Mr. Adams requested that, as a part of this report, the Faculty Senate provide an update of the elimination of duplicate courses.
Mr. Hubbard noted that no specific quantitative enrollment goal had been established in the SDI report; rather, a quality component had been designated which President Palms had referenced in his recommendations while linking these objectives with the adopted goals of the Board of Trustees. For the record, Mr. Hubbard wanted to ensure the inclusion of that linkage. President Palms projected that these goals would be quickly surpassed based upon the outstanding quality of the current freshman applicant pool.
Professor Wilcox, Chairman of the Faculty Senate, asked whether the new Vice President of the Health Sciences Division would report to the President or to the Provost. President Palms explained that currently the dean of the Medical School reported to him regarding medical issues and Provost Odom handled the academic matters; the new president would ultimately determine the exact nature of the reporting line.
Before the final vote was taken, Chairman Whittle reiterated the fact that this process was dynamic. "This is not going to be the end of this Board's seeing this report and the progress of this report. I think it is the intent that the progress that we make get measured every year and that we look at where we are toward the goals the Board has set."
The vote was taken, and the motion carried. This report would be presented for approval to the full Board.
The first amendment would restore the term of Coach Tanner's contract to 5 years. The second amendment would increase his base salary from $96,900 to $125,000. The third amendment would include in the contract a number of performance-based supplemental compensation opportunities for Coach Tanner. The final amendment would modify the termination provision so that if Coach Tanner terminated the agreement and accepted another coaching position at the collegiate level, he would be obligated to pay liquidated damages equaling 50 percent of his base salary for the remaining term of the contract, not to exceed $100,000.
Mr. Bradley moved approval of the amendments to Head Baseball Coach Ray Tanner's employment contract as described in the materials distributed for this meeting. Mr. Hubbard seconded the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion carried.
Since there were no other matters to come before the Committee, Chairman Whittle declared the meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas L. Stepp
Secretary