FACULTY SENATE MEETING
November 5, 1997


I. Call to Order.

CHAIRMAN ELDON WEDLOCK - The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. The broadcasting was a big success. Everybody out in the regional campses thought it worked very well except for the fact people weren't using the microphone properly and they couldn't hear. So this time we are going to try use shotgun mikes and maybe that will work a little better. The obvious drawback is that when you speak from the floor you're going to have to speak fairly loud, not usually a problem with this group, in order to make yourself heard because your speeches and other disquisitions will not be coming over the PA system. But Professor Patterson assures me that he does not need a microphone.

II. Correction and Approval of Minutes.

CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - With no further ado then I'll call for the correction of the minutes.

PROFESSOR FRED MYHER - PHYSICS - I thought Provost Jerry Odom mentioned something specific as to some questions or comments about infrastructure and resources pertaining to AAU institutions and I don't find his statement in the minutes of the last meeting where he basically said "Yes, the resources will be available." If I remember correctly.

PROVOST ODOM - I better speak to that. I don't remember saying "yes". I do remember us talking about that Fred, but my comments are transcribed and I get them to correct them. I assure you I do not delete anything. I do try to correct them.

CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - Does any one else recall a firm commitment from the Provost? Any other suggestions for correction to the minutes? Hearing none I call for a motion that the minutes be approved. Seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed - no. The minutes are approved.

III. Reports of Officers.

PROVOST ODOM - President Palms is not able to be with us today. He is working very

hard on the Capital Campaign. President Palms has one of the most ambitious schedules I have seen in a long time in terms of visiting various people who are very important (potential large donors) to the University.

I spent some time last night as well as two hours today meeting with the Educational Foundation Executive Committee. Basically, that is a facet of the University, I think, that we as faculty members don't think very much about. We know there is an Educational Foundation and there is a Development Foundation. The Educational Foundation in particular finances much of the educational activities with extra funds. We have the distinguished chairs funded from money that they have received from investments.

I thought I would just tell you, very briefly, that we have a professional investing company called INVESCO that handles our funds and they have various goals that we have requested them to set. We also have an advisory team from another company that tries to keep up with what is happening. In fact they do an excellent job of watching what is happening. This executive committee is made up of people who have a very deep feeling for the University. They are well-known people in the state. In fact there is one on this particular committee from Dallas, Texas, James P. Barrow, who heads his own investment firm and does a great job. He flies his own jet in order to attend the meetings. He spends time looking at what we are trying to do. These people do a great service to the University with no reimbursement whatsoever except to know that the University is moving forward at a fairly rapid pace. John Ducane of Ducane Grills is chair of the executive committee. Barbara Racks and a number of bankers from the area are also on that committee.

Today we got a report and our investments are doing very, very well as say most people who are in the stockmarket right now. One of the things we look at in terms of return, is that for chairs, for example, we have to have income. We have to be able to pay this stipend to these people every single year. So the mix of stocks and bonds is a little bit heavy towards bonds because the income is needed. But even so this year our Chairs' Fund, which is one of the funds of the Foundation returned about, 18-1/2%. It was a very good year. It has been a very good year for us through September 30th. Now of course, we saw a dip recently but we all have seen this incredible bounce back. I just wanted you to know that there are people who are serving the University in a very, very special way that simply care for the University. They are not asking for anything. They are more than happy to try to provide their expertise for the faculty primarily the Chairs' Fund which is one of the most important parts of the Educational Foundation. So I wanted to let you know that and at the same time just to tell you that the President is sorry that he cannot be here but he is working very hard on his Capital Campaign.

One of the things that happened recently is that he was asked by WIS if he would discuss our Capital Campaign, his goal and his vision and so forth on a special half-hour program "News Watch". He agreed to do that and what I would like to do today is just to ask you to look at a portion of that. It is about ten or twelve minutes so it is not going to take too long but instead of the President's report if you don't mind we would like very much for you to hear what he said on WIS.

NEWS WATCH:

DAVID STANTON - The University of South Carolina's President, Dr. John Palms names five prominent businessmen to lead the school's Bicentennial Campaign. The business leaders are all graduates of the University and their goal is to increase the endowment to at least $200 million. The University hopes that this will be the largest private fundraising campaign in the state's history, and that is one that we will be talking about today with our guest, Dr. John Palms, the President of the University. Dr. Palms, we are delighted to have you with us.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Thank you, David.

STANTON - Why did you embark on this big campaign?

PRESIDENT PALMS - We are trying to be a University in a league of academic institutions that we think the University belongs in. You need endowments to support that kind of an institution. They support scholarships for outstanding students. You have to attract outstanding students to have that kind of an institution. The endowment supports professors. We are trying to keep the best professors we can. We are in competition with other institutions. We want to have a great library. We have a library that is ranked 54th in the country out of 3,000 libraries. We want to maintain that. You have to have endowments for books, special collections. So it is just a good indicator that your alumni and people of importance know what it takes to support a great university. We are a little bit behind in building our endowment.

DAVID STANTON - The endowment is used to supplement funds that you get from tuition, from the state legislature and from other sources?

PRESIDENT PALMS - Absolutely. You are absolutely right. The endowment does do that. It takes money that makes you a pretty good institution and makes it a really great institution.

STANTON - When you are behind like we are here in South Carolina as you say, is one of your goals to start getting the graduates of the University thinking in terms of giving to the school?

PRESIDENT PALMS - There is no question about that. Alumni giving is very, very important also. We have been very aggressive the last several years to have alumni contribute; not simply more alumni but also bigger gifts from the alumni.

STANTON - Part of that, of course, goes with having alumni who graduate and do well in different fields of endeavor and certainly the University has lots of that.

PRESIDENT PALMS - We have 180,000 alumni now; about 80,000 live out of state. But during this campaign, in the research we have done, we have uncovered over a thousand CEO's that are good Gamecocks. Many of those have never been approached. Never been contacted. They don't know much about the modern university so it is a good time for education as well. And when they hear about the vision of the institution to belong to the AAU, the Association of American Universities -- those are the 60 best American universities -- there are two in Canada -- really 62 -- they are very competitive these Gamecocks. They want to belong. We don't have a member institution in South Carolina. We are the only institution that is capable of belonging to that really very good league of institutions because we have the breadth of offerings and we have the number of degrees that you have to produce every year. We are making way with the endowment and research, etc., so this is ambitious for us but I think we can achieve that.

STANTON - Okay, we want to talk a little bit more about how the University compares in certain areas like the AAU, as you mentioned, with the other universities in the southeast in just a second, and we have a graph that we can show to explain that. South Carolina is the only state in the southeast not to be a member of either the AAU or .....

PRESIDENT PALMS - Or Carnegie I Research University.

STANTON - Which is what?

PRESIDENT PALMS - That means you have a certain amount of federal support for competitive research. It is around $40 million this year and we are getting close to that. But the state does not have a Research I. North Carolina has three -- Chapel Hill, NC State and Duke. You know Georgia has three -- Emory, Georgia Tech, and the University of Georgia. Tennessee has the University of Tennessee. University of Florida, Florida State, University of Miami. There is no such institution in the State of South Carolina, so that is our ambition.

STANTON - Most of those that you just ticked off are publicly supported?

PRESIDENT PALMS - Yes, they are publicly supported institutions.

STANTON - As the University of South Carolina is?

PRESIDENT PALMS - Absolutely.

STANTON - When you mentioned the research grants, is that something that you get by having a high-caliber faculty and faculty members that get the grants and bring the money in?

PRESIDENT PALMS - The faculty of really great universities teach and do research and they are at the cutting edge of their disciplines. We are trying to teach people to think differently. We do that through research -- creative minds. This research cannot be supported by taxpayer's money frequently. Research that is important to the business world, it is important to the humanities, it is important to economic development. Our faculty last year wrote almost 1,500 proposals for research grants. They came from $40 million a year for research from all sources four years ago to about $80 million so they are doing their share as well. It involves students. We would like to have our undergraduates participate in research as early as possible. It supports graduate students during the summer time. It gives summer support for faculty. It is a real indicator about the quality of your university.

STANTON - We typically think of research grants as coming from the government, whether it is the federal or state government, but quite often you will get a research grant from a private corporation, will you not?

PRESIDENT PALMS - Increasingly corporations used to have major research parts of their corporations. Now they are looking to the university to help them in partnership. They have problems that we can address, whether it is in marketing or whether it is in technology. So you are going to see increased partnerships within industry as time goes on.

STANTON - And speaking of industry, the five people that we saw in the video a few minutes ago that you have named to help head this push to raise money for the University is sort of a who's who of corporate leaders up and down the east coast of South Carolina. How important is that to get people like that involved in your drive?

PRESIDENT PALMS - I can't tell you how delighted we are that these extraordinary Carolinians, great citizens who have always worked hard to make this a better state regardless of what political persuasion they have, have joined in and made this commitment. We had one of the most wonderful meetings last Friday when we gathered together -- all these people here at one time. And then for them to set this goal -- we were hoping about $200 million and they are saying perhaps $300 million is possible. They are working me as you can imagine and we are working them, but they are sold on this vision. They have waited awhile to see whether it was realistic. You know, they just don't jump in with an idea. They want to see evidence that this can be achievable. We have shown that in the last several years. The quality of undergraduate student body has increased. We have raised our admission standards three times in the last four years. The average SAT of the baccalaureate entering freshmen was over 1100. That's great for a state like South Carolina. We have these Palmetto Fellows. Wonderful. We have more than any other institution in the state. So the student body is getting better. The faculty is getting better because we have now adopted the standards and criteria of these AAU institutions that evaluate our faculty in teaching and research. The library I already mentioned. This research money -- the faculty is doing their share. Now private support. We would love to have more state support as well and again as with out partnership with the state, with the private sector it will happen. These leaders will be very, very strong indicators to those who want to give that this is serious and it is achievable and the right people are involved.

STANTON - We will talk more about your efforts to get state support and also talk about the AAU when we come back. So stay tuned to NEWS WATCH.

[Pause]

STANTON - Welcome back to NEWS WATCH and we are talking with Dr. John Palms about the University and its fundraising drive to raise its endowment to over the $200 million mark by the year 2001, which is the bicentennial for the University. It's been around a long time.

PRESIDENT PALMS - 200 years.

STANTON - Let me ask you about this Association of American Universities. Why is it

important for the University of South Carolina to be a member of that and what does the school have to do to become one?

PRESIDENT PALMS - This is the most elite league of academic institutions in the country. They group together. Their deans meet together. Their presidents meet together. They do most of the research for the federal government, from the National Institutes of Health, from the EPA, from the Department of Energy, Department of Defense. They produce the future faculty for colleges and universities in the country which is very, very important. And they are most directly linked to economic development throughout the country. Where you have an AAU institution, you have economic vitality, you have job creation. You take a school like Stanford -- you know about the Hewlett Packards who graduated from there and you know about Silicon Valley. Same thing about Harvard, and the impact in Cambridge. You know about Chapel Hill and NC State and so we should aspire to have the same kind of institution in the State of South Carolina. Very, very important to belong to that. There should be one such institution in the state.

STANTON - So when you are a member of that, it is much easier as when you as the president of the university are trying to recruit faculty or when students graduate from here and go out to get a job and the employer sees that they come from an AAU unversitiy.

PRESIDENT PALMS - No question about it. And there are no criteria written down. David, you will be asked to join once you have arrived. There are things that make that happen. Your library. The quality of the student body as I already mentioned. The fact that you have a Master of International Business Studies Program that U.S. News and World Report has ranked number 1 for a number of years and now the undergraduate program. We have these cathedrals of excellence we are trying to promote. Marine Science being ranked high. We have always had good English and History Departments at this institution. By the way, in the antebellum period we were one of the finest institutions, and as a matter of fact we were approached earlier in this century to become a member of AAU. We didn't think we were ready. I'm looking at the history of that. But it is really something worthwhile to try to achieve. It puts everybody in a good spirit. This is something that is worthy of our efforts and their extraordinary efforts in order to get there.

STANTON - You put out a little book: To Be a Great University, the University of South Carolina, to sort of back the efforts to raise the money for the endowment. On page 17, you say "We must end the era in which our state appropriations lag far behind those of our peers in neighboring states." What you are saying is that you need to be getting more money from the state legislature?

PRESIDENT PALMS - Well it has been a real challenge for the State of South Carolina. This state has made economic progress, but it has a long way to go. The capital income is a little bit lower than our adjacent states. We are making progress there. But in order to be AAU you know you have to spend a certain amount of money per student and we are behind a little bit -- about $1500 per student behind as far as comparing with our adjacent states. So we have made up for that with a higher tuition and that is a burden on the citizens of South Carolina. We don't want that to be a burden. We don't want you to accumulate debt upon graduation. You have enough challenges to set up households and create a livable situation for yourself and for your family. So we have been working with the state because we had the Hugo situation, we had the down turn in the economics five or so years ago. We are coming back and they are becoming more generous. We are just trying to make the case, and we have got the business community on our side, and we are looking for leadership in the legislature and the Governor's Office to understand that the ambitions of this state are tied directly to higher education and particularly the University of South Carolina's progress towards excellence.

STANTON - That is how you make the case? The graduates that you turn out will be the future leaders of the State of South Carolina?

PRESIDENT PALMS - That is how you make the case. When we created this institution in 1801, it was to educate as many citizens as possible, to create harmony in the state, but also to create leadership, with people who would dedicated to ennobling lives and help obviously with the quality of life but also economic development. Nothing has really changed, it is the same thing today. We have recaptured it and stated it clearly in modern terms. We are still dedicated to education of the mind but also education of the heart to go with that, to create leadership for this state so we can have our worthy position in the United States and worldwide.

PROVOST ODOM - I did want to report on one other thing. I wanted to thank the Senate for their comments last time, infrastructure included Fred, having to do with our tenure and promotion regulations. After the Faculty Senate meeting, the President, Don Greiner, and myself met and went through your comments trying to see how that might come into the recommenda-tions by the Blue Ribbon Committee. After we made some changes, not too many, we sent those to Don Wedlock. It is my understanding that those are now in the hands of the Faculty Advisory Committee and they are looking at those recommendations. I did want to thank you for comments, suggestions, and conversation last time about tenure and promotion. I would be happy to answer any questions.

PROFESSOR CAROLINE EASTMAN - CSCI - Could you comment upon the process and schedule by which the administration intends to address the issues associated with the various curricula in computing at this University. These include, but are not limited to:

--articulating the distinctions among the roles and missions of different undergraduate and graduate degree programs.

--addressing the need for a general education requirement in computing to meet the requirements of both CHE and SACS.

--providing for service courses in computing at various levels.

Although we are working with faculty in other units to address many of these issues, we are finding it difficult to do this successfully with the current level of administrative concern.

PROVOST ODOM - Thank you. Caroline, there are lots of things behind your question. I understand that. Let me just make a comment. One of the things that I have done as Provost very early on is to try to examine areas in the University where I think there is a lot of duplication. An area that I was familiar with, because I was a dean, had to do with Computer Science and Computer Engineering. I think if you look at course descriptions in those two areas you will find that indeed there seems to be a lot of duplication. One of the things that I did was to meet with the Dean of Engineering and the Dean of the College of Science and Mathematics and talked to them about the idea of what if we had one department of Computer Science or Computer Engineering to try to avoid some duplication. Why do we have two people teaching the same thing in two different areas. I guess I have learned a lesson. That even though I get together with two deans and say this is just a brainstorming session -- nothing more -- nothing less -- I just want to look at the advantages and disadvantages of combining departments. That that has been blown into a full scale I will call it, a rumor. Because I think it is a rumor, that I am going to combine those two departments and it's a done deal. Nothing could be further from the truth. I thought about it and am still thinking about it. I'm not going to say that I am not, simply because I am looking for places where we might be more efficient. At the same time, I am not going to do anything like that without faculty participation, and faculty discussion and involvement. So that is one of the questions I'm sure that may be behind what you asked. I would just like to set the record straight. This is a none issue, Caroline. There is nothing being done and nothing will be done without full discussion by the faculty in both departments.

There is another issue here that you are asking about. Perhaps it has to do with computer literacy of our students and, if everyone, here remembers when we had our last SAC's review they made recommendations in computer literacy, oral communication, and written communication. You are probably also aware that we have an Assessment Committee that is chaired by Don Stowe in the College of Applied Professional Sciences. Don and his committee have done a great job in terms of assessment. My understanding from Don is that computer literacy has been a ball I guess that has been tossed back and forth among a number of groups without coming to rest somewhere and I am going to talk to Don. I know Don has talked to John Winberry and I would be more than happy for them to say anything they would like to about this but I plan to take that ball. Don is writing me a memo. Apparently I will take the ball and put it in somebody's court and so we will deal with that issue. Don, do you have anything you'd like to add to that?

PROFESSOR DON STOWE - I agree with you. We had a meeting Monday where John brought his concern to our committee. So we had a good chance to open up some dialogue and we are going to say Mr. Provost that this is an issue that is upcoming with the SAC's accreditation report who would you like to consider the issue. We will accept your assignment if you give it to us.

PROVOST ODOM - Let me say, Caroline, that I am glad that you raised the issue because there are things like that that are out there that I am not really that aware of. So when somebody is aware of them, if you will bring them to my attention we certainly will deal with those. It is certainly something that is very important that we need to deal with. Have I basically answered what you wanted to know?

PROFESSOR CAROLINE EASTMAN - CSCI - I would say that have you basically addressed these questions. I think there is obviously a need for continuing dialogue. My department sees that there is at least room for a perception of duplication and we need to work with other units and have closer coordination with them. We are planning meetings with many of these units in the near future.

PROVOST ODOM - Good. I appreciate that. Thank you.

PROFESSOR CAROLINE EASTMAN - CSCI - And I might add that I ran this question by as many of them as I could contact before this meeting.

PROVOST ODOM - That question has been asked me in private in many times as well. Any other questions?

CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - Thank you Jerry. At least we didn't have to see the Pulliam Ford ad in the middle [of President Palms' interview] The cut that out. You know as President Palms was talking about, and David Stanton asked him about, the level of support in the state Legislature. We do trail in that regard. Apropos to that we have invited Johnny Gregory, our lobbyist at the state house, to come up and tell us what the legislative agenda for the University is going to be this year and how we might help.

JOHNNY GREGORY - USC Lobbyist - Shirley Mills and Sally Young, two partners of mine, have some stuff to hand out to you. I had Professor Wedlock as a law school professor 26 years ago. Folks like him and Professor McAninch and Professor Felix scared the heck out of me, and nothing has changed 26 years later. I passed by Coleman Karesh Law Library. I was fortunate to have Coleman Karesh for a contracts professor. A great man and a great wit. I was always too scared to laugh at his jokes. I remember he cited a case my freshman year of Law School, the 1720 case Smith v. Jones. Then he said a more recent case in 1735, at which point everybody laughed, but I was too scared myself.

Last year we were able to obtain $31 million of bond revenue for the USC campuses that included an additional $5 million for the new science building. It was a good year as far as special projects for USC campuses. Still, the level of funding for the formula remains modest. They did add $15 million to the formula last year, but, as pointed out by Dr. Palms and Professor Wedlock, we are lagging behind on that.

There are five items I want to talk to you about today that are on our agenda:

  1. Certainly, adequate formula funding is high on the list. A conflict is developing with some of the schools on whether funding should be performance-based or parity-based. Hopefully, this discussion will be settled by January because the General Assembly normally does not like to get involved in disputes like that. Carolina and Clemson favor the performance side of things, and, quite frankly, USC Columbia will reap greater benefit.

  2. High on the list will be faculty and staff pay increases. The last two or three years we have been able to get a pay increase from the General Assembly. Unfortunately, the colleges in the state normally receive about 75% of the money to cover these raises; most state offices get the entire money. Some 20 years ago, the legislature was trying to find a way to balance the budget, and somebody came up with the bright idea that since colleges and universities were funded also by tuition they ought not to get all of the pay raise money. So, that has been a problem for this University and for all the higher education institutions because it usually runs about an additional million dollars for a 2-3% pay raise for faculty and staff.

  3. There are three items on the agenda. Specific items for the Columbia campus are being handed out.

    A.We are seeking $3.5 million from the General Assembly next year to add a 50,000 square-foot extension to Public Health. Right now, 14 buildings spread across the Columbia campus house the School of Public Health. We are asking the General Assembly to provide $3.5 million, with an additional $6.5 million being raised from federal or private gifts.

    B.A major campus initiative involves some folks in the insurance industry and the computer industry to develop a course of study that produces a graduate who has business and computer skills. There is a great need out there, and some companies have told us that they are prepared to hire 300 folks annually to deal with this need. We are asking the General Assembly to provide $2.5 million annually towards this program.

    C.We have been able to get $800,000 in the last three years towards the Law Library. The Law Library continues to be deficient and is ranked 148 out of 180 law schools, behind Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina. We are going to ask for some additional funds this year to try and get the law library where it belongs.

  4. This year will be my 16th year representing the University's eight campuses. Each year, we face several bills that are punitive or negative in nature, bills that intrude on faculty prerogatives and trustee prerogatives and aim at such things as faculty workload and tenure. About two years ago, this negativity was really hot and heavy; it was a national trend. A lot of legislation was introduced that targeted the faculty and state. Fortunately, we have been able to beat those things back, and, hopefully, we will have another successful year.

  5. The last issue I want to talk about is critical and involves scholarships. To give you a little brief background: For years, South Carolina has provided scholarships for its young people to attend private colleges in this state. It is called the Tuition Grants Program.

Two or three years ago, for better or for worse, an agreement was made to keep Barnwell Nuclear Low Waste Facility open and, from it, fund a scholarship program for youngsters to attend public colleges in this state. We became the fiftieth state in the Union to have a scholarship program for young people to attend public college.

Approximately $20 million from this money is set aside for tuition grants for the youngsters to go to private colleges. In the last two years, an additional $20 million has developed for folks to participate in the public college system. In an effort to be fair (or more than fair I should say), the General Assembly maintained the $20 million from the tuition grants program AND provided a percentage of the $20 million allotted for the scholarship program to young people who attend the state's private colleges. This percentage is based upon the number of students who attend private colleges from the total college population in South Carolina. Generally, this figure generally runs about 18%. So, you have $20 million set aside for private college tuition grants, and, from an additional $20 million, private college students are eligible for 18 percent. Fifty-one percent of the total $40 million now goes to 18% of the students in the state, to the private college students.

Now, Furman and another school or so are leading an effort to remove the provision (a sentence) which limits private college students to their percentage of the student population in the state. We obviously very much oppose removing this provision. We believe that 51% of the scholarship money going to the private school students is enough.

This provision involves the Palmetto Fellows Scholarship program. This past year USC enrolled 179 Palmetto fellows, Clemson 150, The College of Charleston 65-70, and Furman 90 or so. Their argument is that the money should follow the student. We would agree with that if the money was following the student with the original $20 million dollars allocated for private schools. The money can't follow the student half the time. The money needs to follow the student all the time. That is what we would believe to be a fair approach.

Three times last year, attempts were made to take out that sentence, and we beat it back. These private colleges are going to come back strong in January, and,quite frankly, this University is going to need your help to help persuade the members of the General Assembly that removing the percentage provision is a bad idea. If anybody has any questions, I would certainly be happy to address them.

PROFESSOR GLENN HARRISON - ECON- I didn't understand what you just said. It seems obvious to me that the best thing for the student citizens of South Carolina is that they have freedom of choice to be able to go to which ever university suits them.

GREGORY - I will agree with that if the entire $40 million is made available to every student.

PROFESSOR HARRISON - Why should it be a function of the entire $40 million?

GREGORY - Why would you want to limit half the money?

PROFESSOR HARRISON -I don't want to limit anything but I didn't understand.

GREGORY - There is $20 million there that is limited to only private school students, and there is an additional $20 million of which the private school student gets 18 percent. The public students don't have any part of the original $20 million. If your point is the entire $40 million should be available to wherever anybody wants to go, then I think that is probably a good idea.

PROFESSOR HARRISON - My point is simpler than that if I understand. If a dollar is allocated to a student that student should be allowed to go wherever they want. I don't care whether it is $20 millon. It should be as much as possible. So my point is very simple we should be lobbying for freedom of choice for South Carolina students.

GREGORY - For the entire $40 million or for the $20 million?

PROFESSOR HARRISON - For any dollar that is available to them.

GREGORY - As I understand your position, that is fine. If you are talking about the whole $40 million.

PROFESSOR HARRISON - But now I am confused.

CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - There is $20 million dollars set aside simply for private school applicants -- that is $20 million. Then there is another $20 million that 18% of is available for the private school population. So 18% of that is available for private schools. So private schools have access to my calculations would be $23.6 million where as public school students would only have access to $16.4 million.

PROFESSOR HARRISON - What I object to is the idea of categorizing the students as private school or public school students. What I am suggesting is that we should lobby for the money to go to students who then decides which university they want to go to.

GREGORY - We agree with regard to the entire $40 million. That is our position.

CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - But I think it had better be understood that that is a more difficult argument when you are under attack by the private schools to try to open up the 18% to any amount. They want to keep their $20 million plus open up the other $20 million.

PROFESSOR HARRISON - So what is the correct thing to do?

CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - No. You don't understand. There is $20 million is a lot of money that just goes to Furman and Wofford and places like that. Public school students just cannot have access.

PROVOST ODOM - That is what I was going to say. $20 million dollars, Glenn, that doesn't follow the student at all unless the student goes to a private school in the state. That is a tuition grant program. So that $20 million is set aside only for private school students, it doesn't follow the student at all. Now the 18% is almost $4 million so it is almost $24 million dollars out of $40 million that follows the student only if the student goes to a private school. What we are saying is there should be $40 million. All of that money should follow the student wherever the student chooses which I think is what you are trying to say. But the $20 million right now is totally restricted. Plus another $3.6 million is restricted. We don't feel that should be the case and based on what you said I think you wouldn't feel that should be the case. All of the money should go wherever the student wants to go agreed.

GREGORY - I am sorry I didn't explain it to you.

BRUCE MEGLINO (BADM) - Does the University in its lobbying efforts have any position on the State Lottery?

GREGORY - No.

MEGLINO - Why not?

PROVOST ODOM - I don't think it is worth the University's political capital to take a position on that. David Stanton tried on at least two occasions to get the President to come out and say he was in favor of the lottery. It is just not going to work for us to take a position on that. There is too much that we can lose or gain. I think it is best if we say that we think there need to be merit based scholarships in the state and the money needs to come from somewhere. Wherever it comes from is really the problem for the state.

? - A member of my department asked me to ask, and now seems an appropriate time, if the state is dealing now with Chem Systems over some nuclear landfill at Barnwell. Is our University associated in anyway with that?

GREGORY - Only to the extent that the Barnwell nuclear waste dump is generating the $20 million the last two or three years for the scholarship program.

? - So it would be unwise for any body to complain against that association.

GREGORY - Well, this is a University, and there is freedom of speech. I would not want to criticize anyone for his or her position. Let me just close by saying the University of South Carolina does well when it comes to specific items. Where we have historically had a problem is overall nuts and bolts funding for the colleges in the state. We need your help and that needs to improve. Thanks a bunch. Shirley has a list (which has been distributed) of legislators in the Midlands. There are 3 items: the Public Health Initiative, the Law School Initiative, and the course of study involving computers and basic business principles. So you will have some idea of what is on our agenda right now. It is November, and the General Assembly comes back in January, so things could change.

? - The most important is that $2 million staying with the public school which we might only get a portion of that's when we need to call the big boys.

GREGORY - The bottom line is that we ought to get at least the $20 million for the scholarships program reserved for all the public schools in the state. If the General Assembly wants to let the privates have any or all of that $20 million, then they ought to open the whole $40 million and let the money follow the student for the entire $40 million.

One of Gregory's assistants - Just to clarify: we have given you a list of all members of the Ways and Means Committee on both the Senate and House side, as well as a list of legislators from Lexington, Richland and Fairfield counties. So if you know these folks and can contact them that will be appreciated.

CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - You can also look up the legislative page on the state web and you can find a lot of these legislators have e-mail accounts.

BRUCE MEGLINO - I wonder if you might comment about the use of e mail to contact the legislators given the most recent of problems with e mail. I saw something printed in the paper related to the use of electronic mail.

CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - I don't think it would be necessarily be wise to do it from USC, but a lot of you may have e-mail acccounts at home which you could use. I know I do. So it might be a convenient way to contact them but not necessarily from sc.edu. I think what Mr. Gregory was that there is a (side one of tape finished) the offensive position that I think we all agree with. At the Steering Committee meeting Henry Price handed out a little piece of paper that he pulled off the Web I was wondering, Henry, if you want to share some of that with us especially about the stuff about tenure.

PROFESSOR HENRY PRICE - JOUR - It was a piece from "The Chronicle of Higher Education." It was suggested for any university in the state of Massachusetts to really be good they are going to have to do away with tenure, change faculty loads--research people will do research and teachers teach. There were two other items.

CHIARMAN WEDLOCK - So you would have two separate tracks. Well, there was one in there about presidential search committees.

PROFESSOR PRICE - Oh yes, presidential search committees no longer be used because faculty cannot be depended upon to do a good job of that.

CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - I think good candidates was the phrase used there.

PROFESSOR PRICE - JOUR - They would be turned over to outside agencies to do presidential searches and those kinds of things.

CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - And those are the kinds of things that Johnny was talking about in terms of the negative bills that you have to fight off and I think a lot of this is a lot of misunderstanding. I read a lot that tenure is just lifelong employment and how it leads to unproductivity. I was also reading a little piece the other day that said nobody knows what productivity is on a faculty. Most legislators think it is teaching whereas most university administrators think of it in terms of research. So the point is there is a lot of misunderstanding out there and the more we can get across as to what exactly it is that we do and how we do it and why we do it and how it inures to the benefit of the students in the state I think we may have some success in getting more broader based issues resolved to our satisfaction.

III. Reports of Committees.

A. Faculty Senate Steering Committee, Professor Sarah Wise:

No report.

B. Grade Change Committee, Professor Richard Clodfelter, Chair:

PROFESSOR RICHARD CLODFELTER - I move the approval of the grade changes on pages 25 and 26.

CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - You have heard the recommendation. The committee motion does not need a second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we are ready for the vote. All in favor of the committee's report signify by saying aye. Opposed. The ayes have it.

C. Curricula and Courses Committee, Professor John Winberry, Chair:

PROFESSOR WINBERRY - The report of the committee on Curricula and Courses is found on page 28 through 32 and I would like to move acceptance of that report. I would like to do it in two parts. The first dealing with pages 28 through 30. One change, and that is on page 28 under EDEX 686 Introduction to Deafness, the preposition "of" should be substituted for "for'. So it should read "Educational implication of philosophy , theory, and research about deafness."

CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - You heard the recommendation of the committee and it doesn't need a second. Any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed. Ayes have it.

PROFESSOR WINBERRY - The second part is on pages 31 through 32 dealing with May Session as well as experimental courses. Again there is one change to relate and that is on page 31, Under VII. Course Offerings for May Session, under Department of Anthropology, ANTH 306M, it should be 4 hours credit rather than 6. 4 hours sort of maintains the tradition of the May Session which is restricted to 3 hours but we also realize that the program that Karl Heider has put together is a very intense program for 4 hours credit.

CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - You have heard the recommendation. Any comments? Coming from a committee it doesn't need a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. Ayes have it.

PROFESSOR WINBERRY - Thank you.

D. The overburdened Faculty Advisory Committee, Professor Caroline Strobel,Chair:

No report.

CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - They've got so much to do that they can't get a report out.

E. Faculty Welfare Committee, Professor Robert Wilcox, Chair:

PROFESSOR WILCOX - No report other than we are working on a number of things. Just to let you know the computing issue that we have talked about several times we are still waiting to hear from the University Computing Committee, we will report back to you with our final recommendations. I think we have done our work but we are waiting to be sure. We have coordinated with them as well as we can be. We are beginning this week our work on the salary compression issue. The first issue we are going try to tackle is the concept of defining salary compression. That is not a small task but it is a small part of the problem. We also have been engaged in some conversations ranging from flu shots to parking. we are doing all that but there is nothing that can be sent on at this point.

F. Committee on Admissions, Professor Jim Burns, Chair:

No report.

G. Committee on Scholastic Standards and Petitions, Professor John Lopiccolo, Chair:

LOPICCOLO - For your information the annual report from last year is printed in the agenda on pages 37 through 40. We have three items that we will be discussing this month. One is residency requirements relative to transfer students and the minimum number of hours in their major. Also we will be discussing a couple of proposals on academic forgiveness and a system-wide change adding the use of minus grades in our grading system. So if you have any ideas about any of those topics feel free to contact me at the Faculty Senate Office or the College of Journalism.

H. Committee on Academic Responsibility, Professor Kenneth Gaines, Chair:

PROFESSOR KENNETH GAINES - LAW - First the Committee on Academic Responsibility met on the 27th of May to consider some proposed changes to the Academic Responsibility rules as they apply to the Law School. These proposed changes would apply just to the Law School. They are found on pages 33 through 36 of the agenda.. Page 36 are the minutes of the May 27th meeting where we met and approved these changes for the Law School. At that meeting , well pages 33 through 35 are the proposed changes themselves. At the meeting that we had on the 27th Professor Rob Wilcox from the Law School came and gave us a full explanation as to the reasons for the policies behind these changes. We felt the policy reasons given for these changes were sound. He is here today and will give a brief explanation of the reasoning behind these proposed changes and to also answer any questions that any member of the Faculty Senate might have.

PROFESSOR ROB WILCOX - The Law School comes to the committee with these changes based on our experience in applying the rules that were adopted 4 or 5 years ago with the intent of trying to model the rules more closely to the ethical duties that lawyers have to live by when they get out of school and to perform an educational function as well. The major focus of these changes would be to require the reporting of dishonest conduct which the University's rules currently do not require and also to require cooperation with the investigation and prosecution of these cases. There are also a number of procedural changes that are involved in the guilty plea process based on some experiences we've had. When these rules were passed by the University a few years ago we felt that there would be a need to come back and perhaps look at some modifications.Aan informal recommendation that I made to the committee when we met last spring was that they may want to look at some changes for the whole University. It is easy to do it for the Law School separately because essentially we are an isolated group of law students. It would be very hard to have separate rules for the College of Science and Mathematics where you have students from all over but we are an isolated group. We can act as a result somewhat like a crucible of these things to see how they play out. We asked the committee to go ahead and approve these changes for the Law School recognizing that it might not be a bad idea at some point to consider similar changes for the university as a whole. I will be happy to answer any questions that the body has.

CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - A committee recommendation does not require a second. Any discussion? Hearing none I am call for the vote. All in favor say aye. Opposed. Ayes have it.

V. Report of the Secretary.

No report.

VI. Unfinished Business.

None.

VII. New Business.

PROFESSOR ROBERT PATTERSON - HISTORY - Mr. Chairman, even though I don't need a microphone may I have the chair's permission to come forward.

CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - You certainly may.

PROFESSOR PATTERSON - Mr. Chairman and colleagues, it is my sad duty to report the death of our colleague, George Rogers, Jr. on October 7, 1997. [See attached eulogy.]

PROFESSOR PATTERSON - Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of the Senate but I would ask this statement to be accepted by the Senate within its official record and for a copy of these remarks to be sent to his family.

PROFESSOR SARAH WISE - I move the approval of the eulogy.

CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - Is there a second? Seconded. You have heard the motion. Any discussion? Hearing none I will call for a vote. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. Done by acclamation.

CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - Any further business?

VIII. Good of the Order.

PROFESSOR CHARLES MACK - ART - I request that one of the tv cameras pan on the chair against the wall over there so that our colleagues on the other campuses may know that we do not live in the lap of luxury.

CHAIR WEDLOCK - Could you pan on the chair?

PROFESSOR MACK - On the bottom.

CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - The bottom - can you pick that up. He is talking about the tatters on the chairs. Any other remarks for the good of the order? I would just like to make one. There is just so much money that the General Assembly has to give away, and there are a lot of people out there scrapping for it and it usually goes to the people who scrap the hardest. I would just urge - I know it might be a little distasteful, kind of icky to get down their and ask for money when you think it ought to just come to you because you deserve it. But understand you are not asking directly for youselves you are doing it for the University and for the students of the University. So I would really urge you to pick up the phone, send a fax (but not from here) and make your views known because the legislators do listen to voters. They don't necessarily listen to academics but if you impress on them that you are a voter as well and that you do care, they can respond.

IX. Announcements.

None.

Meeting adjourned at 4:25.


This page updated 25 November 1997 by the Office of the Faculty Senate,
and copyright 1997, The Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina.
URL http://www.sc.edu/faculty/senate/97/minutes/1105.html