Burnt Orange
ALLEGATIONS OF FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT ROCK CLEMSON UNIVERSITY
FITSNews – March 16, 2008 – Officials at Clemson University hid nearly $140 million from state lawmakers at the same time they were begging the state for more money and nearly tripling tuition costs for parents, a lawsuit filed against the school alleges. Additionally, Clemson more than doubled the salary of its top lobbyist from $80,000 to $180,000 a year (among other massive pay raises) at the same time it was allegedly hiding information from its board members and forcing out at least two employees who tried to correct the fiscal abuses.
The explosive lawsuit, filed in federal court by former Clemson official Gene Troutman, has been dismissed by the University, which denied any wrongdoing and predictably labeled Troutman as a “disgruntled former employee.” From Spartanburg Herald-Journal reporter Bob Dalton’s brilliant investigative report:
Chalmers Eugene “Gene” Troutman III of Greenville, who served as executive secretary to the board of trustees for more than two years, says in the suit that between 2000 and 2007 the university increased in-state tuition from $3,590 to $9,900 while amassing $137 million in unrestricted cash. Troutman also claims university officials intentionally kept the state Legislature from learning about the fund’s growth for fear the lawmakers would reduce the school’s budget appropriation.
Unbelievably, House Speaker Bobby Harrell rushed to defend Clemson’s questionable spending practices, telling the Herald-Journal that “this is a fired employee who is saying these things because he’s angry about losing his job. Under these kinds of circumstances, I don’t put much credence into something like this.”
Of course not, Mr. Speaker. Although have fun explaining your position to the thousands of parents forced to pay Clemson’s exorbitant tuition increases. We’re not sure who advised Harrell – a rumored 2010 gubernatorial candidate – to suck up to Clemson so gratuitously, but his reaction to this breaking scandal could very well be the first major political miscalculation of his career. Well, aside from the orgy of new spending he’s inflicted on South Carolina taxpayers over the past three years.
IRONIC UPDATE – Get this … according to the Anderson Independent-Mail, Clemson is hosting a symposium later this month on white collar crime. Should be one informative session, people!
Comments
By Believe It Not (a.k.a. Sic Willie's Stalker) on March 16th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Allegations of ethical and financial mismanagement would “rock” fits news if sic(k) willie had any ethics or any financial management skills.
The low humming buzz you hear from fits news is nothing but a swarm of flies – which also swarm around manure piles.
By Wilton on March 16th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Clemson is only doing what USC, Health and Human Services, Commerce Department and others do…and that is get as much as they can, as often as they can.
The oversight from the state, from either the legislative or executive branch is a joke. Neither really cares, they only posture. None of them actually is interested in spending other that what it can do for them…measured in votes or cash or favors.
The “lobbyist” salary did not double…that person is now responsible for not only government relations but is secretary to the board…so it is a substantially different (and larger) job. There was an increase and deservedly so…but nowhere near what you reported.
The old secretary to the board is a loose cannon. I suspect some of what he says is true…but much of it is hyperbole.
By Ingrid Hammerstein on March 16th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
This claim is without merit. 50 bucks says it won’t survive summary judgment.
By Hmmm... on March 16th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I’m inclined to agree, Ingrid. You have a right to free speech, not a right to be employed by Clemson or any other organization or business. That said, the claims in the lawsuit deserve further examination. Clemson has acknowledged having this money. And the three lawmakers quoted seemed to have no clue that the university had that much money laying around. The lawsuit might not fly, but I don’t think that will be the end of the story.
By Go, Tigers! on March 16th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Hmmm…:
Clemson does not have that much money “laying” (nice grammar) around. Those funds are probably obligated throughout the university, but either that is the total or it appears to be a large pot because they keep it all in one administrative account. The fact is, it would be irresponsible for a university (or any agency or business) to operate without reserves.
By old bike dude on March 16th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
When asked about the wherabouts of the $140 million, Clemson officials replied, “Done smoked it”.
Anybody got any Ho-Ho’s.
By Hmmm... on March 16th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Go, Tigers! (a.ka. President Barker),
Clemson does have that much money lying around. Or else their spokeswoman is a liar. It would indeed be irresponsible to operate without reserves. Just like it’s irresponsible to stockpile $80 million, hike tuition and beg the legislature for more.
And the next time you want to question someone’s grammar, make sure you don’t follow it up with stupid shit like “but either that is the total or it appears to be a large pot because they keep it all in one administrative account.”
What else ya got?
By darkknight on March 18th, 2008 at 9:20 am
“The “lobbyist†salary did not double…that person is now responsible for not only government relations but is secretary to the board…so it is a substantially different (and larger) job. There was an increase and deservedly so…but nowhere near what you reported.”
Do ALL board member make 100k+?? I dont think so. That “person” has done nothing “extraordinary” to deserve a 100k increase. And the SC math I studied worked 80k+80k=160k and this “wonderful super person” got 180k – hmm that is MORE than double his/her/fillintheblank’s salary.
When state employees get less than a 2% increase each year – if lucky – how on earth is that ONE person justified and more than doubling their salary??? Why not give them the same as everyone else – 1 or 2% increase??? Dept Heads/managers/etc. should get LESS than their employees – that is good leadership.
Its not just Clemson that does this – its that Clemson got caught.
By CL on March 18th, 2008 at 11:58 am
#8,
The prior poster is saying that the person is now filling 2 jobs – lobbyist and secretary. This would explain the big jump, since she is now getting salary for both positions. This was not a “raise.” The salary for the jobs remained the same.
As for your math, it shows you graduated SC schools. First, you assume that the salary for both jobs she is doing are the same. Unless you know the exact amounts for each position, your math is worthless. Second, even if the salaries are the same, the 80k salary was from 2002. If a $10,000 raise over 6 years seems odd to you then let me know what you do for a living so I know never to go into that line of work.
By Danny Furd on March 18th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
What’s going to be fun to watch is this become a class-action suit as thousands of parents and students paying the exhorbitant tuition demand a refund.
By Court watcher on March 19th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
All motions raised by Clemson denied from the bench at today’s hearing. The case moves forward.
By aspecialtiger on March 19th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I am a proud graduate of Clemson A&M College – a long time supporter of the School and the Athletic Programs – but, a very disppointed and frustrated Alumni of the “modern day Clemson University”. Strictly on the Lobbyist salary – I find it hard to reconcile two $80,000 jobs being turned into one and successfully handled by one person. And, then adding another $20K to that. And, on the subject of $10,000 raise over 6 years being odd. Well Sport, work at Clemson in jobs that do not report directly to Barker or one that happens to be in the favor of he or his cronies and you’ll see clearly that $10,000 over 6 years is very, very, very odd. I was happy to see that a power play to dismiss the suit was not successful and will be very interested in seeing Mr. Troutman have his day in Court. Maybe some of the other inequities that are rampant in the hallowed halls will be revealed and dealt with. The “Good ol’ Boys Club” of Clemson has inbred and circled their wagons so tightly that cries for help cannot be made and, if made, cannot be heard. I would only hope that some day a real investigative reporter can infiltrate that closed society and see the real discrimination, harassment, retalliation, bullying and labor violations that continue to run without any regard to the hard working and dedicated workforce within the University while the chose few enjoy the fruits of their “positions”. The people charged with the fair and equal treatment of all people within the University are, unfortunately, in the “Club” or simply too scared to voice any differing thoughts or opinions.
By marion on March 19th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
what is the latest – dismissed, moved to upstate?
By aspecialtiger on March 19th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
And, for all of the young but totally naive U of So Carolina folks who only live for anything, just anything that they can find some solace in when accepting the lowly state their University has sunken to in many ways – particularly sports of any description (except Equestrian, of course) – don’t spout off before you seriously look at the Black Side of the Gamecock Belly. And, certainly, don’t stupid enough to try to connect anything in Mr. Troutman’s case or my opinion to the fine, lupright, honest and fast climbing Clemson Athletic Program. Clemson has hired for character and has done a magnificent job. Clemson has recruited for character and hs done a magnificent job. Clemson has recruited for strength, speed, athleticism and dedication and has done a magnificent job. Stay with the facts of the suit, stay with the fact that there are many things that I am not proud of being done and protected at Clemson but, in no way have the ignorance to try to connect with any part of one the finest Athletic Progams and Administration in the USA.
By anotsoproudgamecock on March 19th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
You are absolutely correct. I applaud your thoughts and your position.
By aspecialtiger on March 19th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Do not show total stupidity and try to connect any actions being addressed by this suit in any way to the fine, upstanding, honest people that are coaching and manageing the Clemson Athletic Program. This appears to be the way the young folks from the U of South Carolina try to spin everything. THAT IS WRONG!!
By marion on March 19th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Now that makes sense!! And, typical~
By somethingrottenintatertown on March 20th, 2008 at 12:28 am
aspecialtiger,
Are you proud of the football players who flunked out of school last year and had to be declared academically ineligible for your bowl game? Are you proud that the Rev. Tammy Bowdown basically has done nothing to punish a player who was arrested for DUI (a more serious offense than any alleged to have been committed by USC players in the time since)? Are you proud that female athletes at Clemson who got pregnant while on athletic scholarship were pressured by coaches to have abortions or face the possible loss of their scholarships? Finally, are you proud of that tainted National Championship in football that Clemson bought and paid for in 1981? Yeah, real fine athletic program y’all are running up there.
By CL on March 20th, 2008 at 6:03 am
#13
$10k over 6 years is just a little over 2% a year for 6 years. I know many governmental employees are eligble for up to a 2.5% raise based upon performance per year plus any COL adjustments. Again, if this seems odd to you, maybe you should evaluate your job and your performance.
By aspecialtiger on March 20th, 2008 at 9:27 am
#19 – C’mon – talk about something that you have facts to back up your very garnet tainted opinion. Players have the same academic problems as regular students – except held to higher standards – those that were deserving were declared ineligible were done so with a fair and even hand. You know absolutely nothing of the punishment that will be dealt if the LB is convicted. But, you can rest assured that it will be fair and equal not based on his skill level on the football field as has maneuvered the scales of justice at the U of South Carolina. And, who is to say that being accused of DUI is more serious than being found drunk, fighting, trying to evade Police, possession of drugs – each has the potential of being disastrous but, the facts of each occurance will ultimately say if it is more serious than any other – The National Championship was won on the Football field – allegations of misdeeds were dealt with and probation was served – even then, you know the NCAA were searching for a poster child to quell the cheating going on throughout the world of College Athletics. U of So Car Basketball coach when asked “how do you know when a Program is cheating?” answered “when you see them winning” – Yes, I wish it had never happened – I do know that, in those days, to compete, you had to play the same game as everyone else. – Now, the female athlete that was pregnant and had an abortion – if it was coerced or even suggested by a Coach, is a heart wrenching story – on the other hand, scholoarships are not given over the total years in school – the coaches did not assist in “getting pregnant” – pregnancy makes competing in the athletic event “not advisable” – We really have to do a lot of mind reading and guessing to say what the real story was – Right now, proper action has been taken – Yes, I am proud of the environment in Clemson Athletics, the discipline enforced by the management of the program, the humanity shown in their actions and the overall success – Under the guidance of Coach Tommy Bowden, Clemson has done things in the right way, with the right people, taken the right actions and has never had an issue to be ashamed of – especially if that is as compared to other Universities. NOW #13 CL – How do you calculate what is 2% – 3% – 1% – of something that you do not even know the base that you are working with? I was not speaking of Professors, VP, Asso VP, Directors – I am speaking of the people in jobs that do not carry the fancy title, working hard and productively during their full 8+ hours, dedicated, protecting their insurance – now, get back to something that you know – start at a base of $35K – $36K per year – and, NO, that is not an unusual salary for postions in the University System (at least at Clemson) – work your math – $10K increases are not there through the SC Performance and COL – or, at least those that have not had the privilege of special consideration by the President, his Direct Reports and their special group of “friends”evaluating the job(s) – they are normal, in the system jobs that have been in place for – in some cases – many years – the incumbents – in most cases – are extremely competent, hard working, dedicated people – with performance both shown as very good and rated at “S” Substantially excedes expectations – which is the highest performance rating in the State System -
By marion on March 20th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Just catching up with this conversation this morning, some of you guys from Clemson and So Carolina seem to be naive to the inner workings at your respective schools. Things are not a beautiful shade of garnet or orange – there are some ugly stains – some will be exposed, some will stay hidden but, at least this will cause discussions and those that are interested may make the effort to really see the truth.
By CL on March 20th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
#21
I do know the base. It is $80,000. How do I know that? It was in the article. What we don’t know for sure is the current salary just for her lobbying position. As I noted earlier, it was poster #8 that assumed that the current salary for the lobbyist position is $90,000 (one half $180,000), and I pointed out the flaw in his assumption. If you have a problem with his math, take it up with the source.
You are moving the goal posts by trying to back the salary down to $35,000 to justify your silly statements about the increase. From her original salary of $80,000 to $90,000, it averages out to less than 2.5 % per year, which is not unusual. Whether you think lobbyists should be making $80,000 is irrelevant to whether the pay increase she received over 6 years was “odd.”
By aspecialtiger on March 20th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
#21 CL – Sport, don’t get completely out of reason in your thinking – first, the Lady makes $180K a year – not $80K – the next is if you want to believe that the way you operate in a Business when you decide to combine two jobs is to simply add the salaries and give them both -it’s ludicrous – if the jobs were real, that is not a possible mixture – now, if you say, well we set a 2 jobs that should take 1/2 person – but, we’ll pay a full salary for each – hey, one is causing trouble – wants to complain – we’ll just run off – give all of his duties to a person who is already a “fully employed” individual – and then, to make it right, we’ll just add the two salaries together and try to make everybody believe that this is some kinda normal way of doing business – Next, I qualified my statement on the $10K increase by saying that it is a very, very unusual amount for the folks – not reporting directly to Barker or one of the special circle.
I honestly don’t know what a Lobbyist should be paid to work for Clemson University – $80K $90K may be a very good salary – just don’t tell me we just added another full time job to her duties, double her salary and expect everyone to think this is just normal actions – that’ unbelievable – increase of $10K over 6 years on a legitimate $80K – Ok about the State average – $ 180K from $80K under the story of adding a “complete” additional job to her duties – well, my questions remain – but, I will also stand by my statement that $10K increase in salary over the past 6 years – is extremely unusual at Clemson – again, unless you report to Barker or you are a see nothing, say nothing, hear nothing – accepted to follow with no questions part of the “club” -
By ricebird on March 20th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Let’s just hope it gets to trial, a complete investigation is done and Clemson is held accountable -
By CL on March 20th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
#24,
You keep erecting straw men in this exchange. I have not argued that it was the right decision to give her 100% of both salaries. I tend to agree there should be some savings there from combining the two. I have pointed out that she received a significant promotion that led to the higher salary, making it dishonest to suggest that she received a $100,000 “raise.”
And for your information, the lobbyist does report directly to President Barker.
By old bike dude on March 20th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
This top lobbyist you speak of, her name wasn’t Kristen was it. Cause..you know..if it was …it would mean a pay cut for essentially doing the same thing she was doing for Spitzer, just that she would now be doing it to every parent of every student at dear old Clemson. jus sayin’
Trackbacks