Clemson’s Bureaucratic Explosion

It’s no secret that the leadership of Clemson University likes to hoard taxpayer cash in secret slush funds while jacking tuition rates on parents across the state.

That was the big scandal last year – the discovery of an undisclosed $140 million slush fund amassed by President James Barker and the University’s Board of Trustees while they were busy doubling in-state tuition costs (click here for more on that).

This year’s scandal?

It’s more of the same hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty – which has become standard operating procedure from a President and Board of Trustees who continue to act like they’re above the taxpayers of this state.

On the one hand, Barker complains to a sympathetic mainstream media that his school’s funding is being slashed – despite the fact that Clemson’s budget has grown by more than $100 million over the past five years.

“Our current appropriation for education is about what it was in 1995,” Barker told the school’s trustees just last week, which certainly sounds awful.

Of course what Barker doesn’t tell you is that the University’s total budget (including public service activities) has jumped from $346 million to $621 million over the past 13 years – including the current year’s $38 million reduction in state funds.

You can read more about the truth behind the higher ed budget scam by clicking here, but the bottom line is that Barker is blatantly misleading the public about Clemson’s true financial health.

Why would he do that? We may have found at least one compelling reason.

According to a report on Clemson’s administrative costs prepared by Clemson professor John D. Bednar and distributed to lawmakers this week, President Barker has doubled both his executive staff and his office budget over the last three years.

In 2006, Barker’s office employed 14 people at a total personnel cost of $1,081,356, excluding fringe benefits. Last year, it employed 27 people at a total personnel cost of $2,182,114 excluding those same benefits.

That’s a 100% increase, people.

And let’s not forget the 21.5% raise Barker had approved for himself in 2006.

Also, within Barker’s office, one attorney in particular has been awarded double-digit pay raises in each of the past two years – including a 24.2% pay raise last year.

Her name? Erin Swann, daughter of Board of Trustees Vice-President Joseph D. Swann.

Clemson’s Office of the Provost and Office of University Advancement have seen similar increases in personnel and payroll costs over the last three years.

Personnel costs in the Office of the Provost have increased by more than 30% – from $6,208,154 in 2006 to $8,901,044 last year. The number of employees has also increased over that time period, from 104 to 147.

Personnel costs in the Office of University Advancement have more than doubled – from $4,199,554 in 2006 to $9,363,184 last year. The number of employees also jumped from 85 to 119 over that time period.

“Over the past three years, while the Clemson University Family in general has experienced painful budget cuts, close to or below-cost-of-living pay increases, stringent reductions in programs and personnel, freezes in filling or outright elimination of vital positions in many departments, reductions in academically related travel, and many other reminders of the economic crisis gripping not only our community but the country as a whole … the President’s office, the Provost’s office and the Office of University Advancement clearly have not,” the report concludes.

And yet this massive new bureaucracy – which recently commissioned 11 separate task forces to report on cost-saving ideas – is targeting everybody but themselves.

Just last week, University Provost Doris Helms had this to say to the Anderson Independent-Mail about Clemson’s budget situation:

“What we are trying to do as a university is make the major cuts sort of be things that have the least affect on faculty and students,” Helms said Monday night. “It’s about protecting the core of what we do and the quality of the educational experience.”

Specifically, Helms said the school is contemplating “significant administrative cuts in salary, personnel and programs in academic affairs,” which is the division of the University that handles student registration, financial aid, graduate and undergraduate studies, the University’s international office, its office of teaching effectiveness and innovation, and other responsibilities.

Oh, the University’s Board of Trustees also approved a 5.5% tuition hike last summer.

Since 2001, annual in-state tuition at Clemson has more than doubled – from $5,090 to $10,378.

Not surprisingly, Clemson refuses to agree to a tuition cap proposed by Gov. Mark Sanford. The school has also arrogantly insisted that its charter precludes it from participating in a Board of Regents system that would create a true governing body for higher education with the authority to set tuition, fees and enrollment levels at all state-supported colleges and universities, as well as do away with unnecessary programs and (ideally) entire campuses.

Currently, South Carolina spends approximately 17% of its general fund revenues on higher ed, compared to the national average of 10% – due to the fact that taxpayers support 33 institutions and 80 campus locations for a population of only 4 million people.

WEB EXTRA:

Report on Clemson’s Administrative Costs

Comments