More On Clemson’s Bureaucratic Boondoggling
Clemson University President James Barker may have thought he was “putting out a fire” earlier this week, but his response to a recent report showing massive bureaucratic growth in the school’s top administrative offices has only fanned the flames of discontent in Tigertown, S.C.
First published on FITS three days ago, this explosive report shows that Clemson’s top three administrative offices have increased their personnel budgets by a combined 77% over the past three years, with the President’s office doubling its staff over that time period.
You can read our exclusive coverage of the report by clicking here (and the report itself is available here).
Hours after our story was first published, President Barker responded with an e-mail blast to state lawmakers and the entire Clemson campus in which he referred to the report “incomplete and misleading” but did not refute any of the data it presented.
Barker’s e-mail attributed the growth in his office staff to “reorganization,” but did not specifically explain similar growth figures in the Office of the Provost and Office of University Advancement.
Barker’s e-mail also failed to address how the daughter of the University’s second highest-ranking board member received back-to-back, double-digit salary increases in 2007 and 2008.
Needless to say, Barker’s explanations failed to mollify numerous faculty members and lower-level employees who have not benefited from the same salary inflation, to say nothing of Clemson parents who have been forced to pay tuition rates that are more than twice 2001 levels.
In fact, it appears Barker’s attempt at damage control has spawned more criticism – and another, more detailed report.
Just this afternoon, an e-mail including this new report was provided to FITS and several other South Carolina news outlets.
In it, many of the individual salary increases and personnel decisions that have helped feed the massive growth in upper management at Clemson are meticulously documented.
Entitled “Is Clemson the Enron of Higher Education?,” the report is addressed to the Clemson Board of Trustees and showcases how nearly a dozen of Clemson’s top executives (and their assistants) have received huge individual salary increases over the past five years.
Here are just a few of the individual salary increases over that time period (all figures are 2004-08 comparisons) …
Lobbyist Angie Liedinger: 80% salary increase ($101,200 to $181,800.00)
Provost Doris Helms: 61% salary increase ($168,000 to $270,389.00)
Communications VP Cathy Sams: 57% salary increase ($100,049 to $156,806)
Research & Economic Development VP Chris Przirembel: 49% salary increase ($163,648 to $243,828)
Public Service Activities VP John Kelly: 49% salary increase ($162,680 to $242,732)
Other executives and their assistants received similarly outlandish salary increases, which the new report documents in detail along with several other questionable personnel decisions made by Clemson’s top brass.
For example, the new dean of Clemson’s business school – hired in 2007 – is payed $358,550 a year according to the report, which is 58% higher than the salary he received at UNC-Charlotte.
Also, the report claims that Clemson’s new Chief Financial Officer was promoted to his position and given a 56% pay raise over the past two years despite the fact he is allegedly not a CPA and has no prior experience as a Chief Financial Officer.
Unlike the initial administrative salary review, this latest report is anonymous – although FITSÂ has discovered that its numbers correspond with the latest figures available on a public state salary database.
One source familiar with its findings says it was authored by a current Clemson faculty member.
Scrutiny of Clemson’s financial management came to a head last Spring when it was alleged that the school had been keeping an undisclosed $140 million slush fund hidden from state lawmakers.
President Barker has also been accused of misrepresenting Clemson’s budget, specifically claiming that the school is operating “at 1995 levels” when it comes to state appropriations.
That may be accurate, but it ignores the fact that Clemson’s total budget has increased from $346 million to $621 million over the past 13 years – including the current year’s $38 million reduction in state funds.
WEB EXTRA:
Comments
By Todd on February 21st, 2009 at 5:54 pm
The Tigers still beat the Gamecocks in football and basketball so far this year.
By Old Bike Dude on February 21st, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Quit wasting your time sic, the parents of Tigger students don’t do no readin’.
By Jackson on February 21st, 2009 at 7:21 pm
What you fail to mention is the background information behind the salary increases. For example, you fail to mention that Angie Liedinger took on an additional MAJOR job of Secretary to the BOT after Troutman was fired. Oops.
“Sic Willie” was probably too busy beating his girlfriend to include information like that…
By StupidShouldHurtMore (SSHM) on February 21st, 2009 at 8:33 pm
@Jackson,
I’m sorry to say, but I’ve got to agree with Will, FITSNews, et al on this one. Out here in the private sector, my job duties have doubled with no pay increase (frozen salary because of economic conditions – novel idea, right?). I’m grateful to have a job at this point. I would strongly suggest that Clemson University kindly pull a “Siegfried and Roy” and remove their head from the Tiger’s mouth and look around for the moment.
There is NO EFFIN WAY you can justify those increases in this market, PERIOD.
… and I thought Clemson was stupid for firing WINNING COACHES.
- SSHM
By Are You EFFING Serious? on February 21st, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Jackson..come one now. Let’s all be adults here. Liedinger takes on a “MAJOR new job of Secretary to the Board of Trustees”? Let’s put aside the likley fact that “ecretary to the BOT” is probably 10 horus a week, max, and lets give her (and you) the benefit of the doubt: assume it is a 40-60 hour per week “MAJOR” job.
So, OK. That leads to the obvious follow-up: WHAT THE HELL WAS SHE DOING BEFORE? Is she really workign 80-120 hours a week?
Face it. These folks all got caught. And to the credit of the faculty and other administration, the transgressors got caught by their own. Now it only remains to see if the Legislature has the stones to do anythign about it.
Nice misdirection on the girl-beating thing, too. THat always works here.
By Clemson is Enron on February 21st, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Why does our state government give our hard earned money to these colleges??
A subsidized college education is not a birth right- hell we can’t afford to educate our kids in elementary school.
If our state is serious about fiscal restraint during these dire economic times , you would fire this president and clean house in Clemson.
They are spending money like drunken sailors and it’s OUR money.
They have a CFO with no accounting experience – not a CPA?
Well of course they do, he doesn’t have to worry about running out of money. He has tapped into our state legislature with an in house lobbyist paid for by US.
By James the Foot Soldier on February 21st, 2009 at 9:45 pm
So Angie taking the minutes at the monthly BOT meetings qualifies as a “MAJOR” job?????
Let’s see….make sure pitchers of water stay filled….pad of paper….#2 pencil (the BOT hasn’t figured out how to use those pen thingies)….extra box of Depends in the bathrooms….
By franksboy on February 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 am
Hey Jackson – if Angie had time for an additional MAJOR job – the first MAJOR job can’t be too MAJOR – use your head man – this ain’t a pretty picture – there are no reasons except crossing a warm palm with silver – AND – Dori Helms is a TERI retiree!!! ????? to boot! Should not be on the campus at all -
and, just how many days will the regular folks have to sacrifice to pay for that $270,000 bonus to a retread.Just a few months ago, J. Kelly was arrested,charged with DUI while driving a University owned auto at 3AM in the morning (on the way back from a “Clemson paid for business trip/meeting) – think one of the “regular” employees would even be around – much less receive a 49% increase in Salary!!! Check his direct – first lieutenant “” – kinda shady background there and about the same increase in salary – just before the “ol’ we all gotta suffer message from the President”. Should bring a lot of tears in the eyes of Clemson folks – a really good steam, flushing is in order.
By flipnut on February 22nd, 2009 at 2:09 am
So what percentage of Clemson’s and USC’ budgets comes from the state and feds anyway ?
By A(nother) Citizen on February 22nd, 2009 at 9:30 am
To answer “flipnut,” less than 25% of Clemson and USC’s total budgets come from the state. For Clemson, most of their operating funds come from tuition and fees. And even then, mostly from undergraduates. Research money, while it does provide some support, almost all of it goes to support the research itself.
As for how much of all this is true, well, Sic’s right on the money (no pun intended). For more fun reading, you can check out the lawsuits piling up against Clemson — they’re pretty much all true as well. You can search the histories of expenditures on the web site and notice that there are several new budget areas, where once they were part of another center. The IT head makes more than $350,000 — and most of his staff makes more than $250,000. And, for example, the lobbyists aren’t considered part of the President’s budget — those staff have been conveniently placed into another area so the President’s budget doesn’t look as large as it is.
Smoke and mirrors, baby. Smoke and mirrors.
By John on February 22nd, 2009 at 10:27 am
Clemson, like most corrupt institutions that have brought this country down, is full of greedy bastards who really don’t give a damn about anyone else. Of course, if you want to disgrace your life by teaching a class in milking cows 101, I’d want as much pity money as I could get.
By Don't forget.. on February 22nd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
@ Citizen:
When you say that less than 25% of the funds come from the state…then follow up by saying most of the operating funds come from undergrad tuition, don’t forget about the obscene amount of lottery money tied up in that tuition.
Lottery $$ = “state” $$. The legislature could yank it tomorrow.
By flipnut on February 22nd, 2009 at 5:21 pm
The new salary’s at Clemson seem to be in line with other colleges in the state like USC.
Is USC Provost Mark Decker over paid at $266K per year?
Or INTERM Communications VP Michelle Dodenhoff at $166K
OR John Parks @ $192K.
How about Rick Kelly @ $250K, it’s $100K less than Clemson’s IT head, but then again he’s not running an IT network set up to handle an Engineering school (remember Clemson has an engineering class or two between cow milking classes)
There is not really a big difference there unless you consider how far apart the institutions are ranked and the direction of those scores over the last 10 years. Clemson is now #22 vs. USC @#51 amongst public universities in USNews. By that measure I’d say USC is the one wasting money, unless of course you think throwing more money at USC will help fix things and get them into the top 40, and that’s not even accounting for the pitiful return on investment USC is getting on athletics spending.
By Joe on February 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
“If we can bring more consistent branding to our communications projects, we can do a better job of marketing Clemson without spending more money,†said Chief Public Affairs Officer Cathy Sams. “When resources are scarce, an integrated approach to marketing and communications is essential.â€
I like how Ms. Cathy Sams, whose salary jumped 57%, explains that the University decided to redesign a new academic logo in-house to save money because “resources are scarce”. They are scarce because the funds are in your bank account!
By Bob on February 22nd, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Regarding the comparison of salaries to other institutions, it is important to be aware of a few things:
1) A Job position, such as the IT head, is essentially a different job for every university, everyone has their own operating environment requiring different levels of effort and different specific job responsibilities and university requirements. (You can’t choose this salary based on other university salaries).
2) Different universities have different budget constraints. Clemson’s budget is tight, but makes salary justifications by comparing to the cash rich.
It would be dumb to choose what Clemson pays its employees based on what Universities with multibillion dollar endowments pay their employees, yet we do it all the time. A smart university will strive to get bang for its buck, and think independently from other universities.
Also, it doesn’t take a financial genius to figure out the gross level of inside administration back patting. An inbred CFO with zero accounting/finance experience?? They could at least try to use some level of discretion.
By CUAlum85 on February 23rd, 2009 at 9:05 am
While Willie may be a Tiger hater FITS is right on this series. Why some Clemson folks equate allegiance to the University with allegiance to Barker and his Politburo, I don’t understand. Friday I sat for three hours with two CU prof’s who question why they have received 1% pay increases of the past three years while the educrats in Sikes are making the big bucks. Fair question is Why do the folks that teach and train future taxpayers (even though 35% 2ill likely return to their native states NOT SC) aren’t being recognized while the talking heads such as Dori Helms rake it in?
Barker’s own legacy building exercise of a “top 20 college” is the smoke and mirrors we should be worried about!!
By CL on February 23rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
flipnut,
There is another huge difference between USC and CU that you fail to account for – USC is the flagship university and has a much broader mission. USC, which has nearly 10,000 more students than CU, has to serve the needs of South Carolina residents, who, as Willie likes to point out, are products of the worst public education systems in the country. If USC could lop off its 10,000 worst students, import better students from out of state and keep minority enrollment to less than 10% (in other words – try to be more like CU), then I am sure USC’s numbers would improve.
By the way, were you being facetious or do you really not know that USC has an engineering school?
By franksboy on February 23rd, 2009 at 10:01 am
I’ll be a Clemson Tiger until I leave this ol’ world but, I hope I don’t leave it with Clemson in the state she’s in right now. The financial boondogling, favoritism to the back(end?) slappers and the very obvious “say anything ’cause those common folks out there don’t know any better” attitude is well documented. The suits against Clemson if they can withstand the pressure of onslaught from the political machine, maybe, will bring that out very clearly to the public. I’m saddened and embarrased by this – BUT – what is even a bigger travesty is the tremendously hostile, putrid work environment that has been created by parts of the Administration and then ignored and, as such, condoned by the President. Blatant, disgraceful sexual harassment, pleas for help ignored, compaintants sent from office to office with no actions taken, meetings held with Dept. Heads (PhD’s) which turn out to be battering, bullying and threat filled sessions leaving the victims in tears and broken emotionally – follwed by retalliation in the worst form. The President’s Staff is no exception, the reigning PSA Officials are neck deep in it – folks have to recognize this – demand a cleansing and bring Clemson back to the fine, istitution that she has been and deserves to be again. Just say “we won’t stand for it”!! And, help those who are dedicated to the University, had a dream of a meaningful career with the University and are being virtually tortured into giving that up through no wrong doing of their own – Simply saying no to a Department Head, a drunken associate – asking for help and, as a result, being dragged thru mud, suffering endless insults, being consistently emotionally raped and repeatedly told that the only solution is to leave their job at Clemson.
By Sounds Familiar on February 23rd, 2009 at 11:49 am
franksboy,
Thanks for the compassionate insights into what some of us can’t even begin to describe regarding a hostile work environment.
If you aren’t already a lawyer — you have missed your calling, dude.
By Sounds Familiar on February 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 am
And Sic Willie, keep givin’ ‘em hell around here!!! How would we ever know ANYTHING if not for FITS?
By CLEMSON>USC on February 23rd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Yeahhh SIC WILLIE! GIVE EM HELL! Negative Clemson “reporting” by USC alumni! Whooo
By Palmetto_Native on February 23rd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
We all know that its hyperbole to say that South Carolina parents are anguished over this because of the massive tuition increases…
There cant be but a handful of SC students left that even go to Clemson any more.
Its easy to be a top 20 school when you stop recruiting students that come from the state you are supposed to serve…
THATS why USC is “only” 51st…because they still attempt to provide a quality education…FOR SOUTH CAROLINIANS…………
also..the reason why you are getting anonymous inside information, is because the professors that are doing all the public complaining also happen to be making high salaries…many of them also in the 6 figures. Guess those pigs are afraid that in their zeal to have a pig pickin they may find themselves the main course.
By 'Nite Nurse on February 23rd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
The only F I ever made in my LIFE is housed in those bad old computers at USC — just because I didn’t drop the course in time. It worked out fine in the end, because some people aren’t cut out to be nurses, anyway.
I will lift the Chicken curse when they lift the F.
Like it never even happened.
By Cow College Alum 85 on February 23rd, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Well Palmetto Native sorry to say that USC’s out of state enrollment is up there with Clemson’s as well – closer to 30% I think last check showed so you can’t crow about that. Both schools should be required to revisit their enrollment policies to really benefit the people of South Carolina.
Clemson Alum but USC Parent!!
By Red Bank Bar on February 23rd, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Flipper boy is so cute. His life revolves around “ratings” figures from a rightwing magazine. Only Clempson thinks it matters. That’s fine, as long as they won’t bother the rest of us with their whacked out Christian nutcase econ professors.
By Peterbog on February 25th, 2009 at 9:41 am
1. Typically salaries in public higher education correlate to the size of the institution. Ie. How much enrollment and how much research! Clemson is either the smallest or next to smallest State Land Grant College in the US. Institutions such as Clemson typically are administrative stepping stones to similar positions at larger more complex Universities. To have salaries at 104% of peer salaries is ridiculous.
2. Since Barker came into his position virtually every top level administrative position has been internally filled by a Clemson person with no adminstrative experiece at any other major research institutions.
3. The only innovative thing Clemson has done since Barker came in is to develop a “Spin” group known as Institutional Advancement to spin a Top 20 story, obfuscate the fact to the public and trustees, and spin the justification for huge tuition increases.
4. Historically Institutional Advancement was primarily responsible for generating funds for the Foundation. Oh… Why are these individuals that generate funds for an independent Foundation STATE EMPLOYEES?
5. It is a fact the undergraduate student tuition and fees are supporting Research, Public Service Activities, and off-campus developments such as ICAR and the Restoration Institute.
6. Per the Commission on Higher Educations study of location of employment of students graduating from South Carolina Institutions, nearly 50% of the Clemson graduates work out of this state. (Seems state funding should be indexed to in-state employment of graduates….as well state scholarhsip dollars should be repaid if the graduate leaves the state.)
7. The issue is even worse for graduate students, where a huge percentage of graduate students at Clemson receive a special tuition rate and then very few are able or willing to find employment in SC. (It would be an interesting study to analyze where the Engineering PhD recipients from Clemson are finding employment. The PhD programs are high cost, and it appears most of these students are foreign and return to their countries to compete with the US….yet Clemson facilitates and encourages the subsidization of this education!
Strayed a bit…. but there are many things that should be independently examined at this State Supported Institution!
By It Never Changes on February 25th, 2009 at 11:12 am
They did it because they could. Has anyone tried to stop them? Does anyone care? I worked there for two years before leaving the state, and the corruption and unfair treatment was just as rampant then as it is now, yet no one seemed to know what to do. And no one wanted to complain, because the the next step would have been the unemployment line. How many times have Clemson staffers heard the line, “Just be glad you have a job.” Like in politics, it’s the name game. Get in with the “right” group and your way has been paved, but if you count on hard work and honesty to get you ahead, you’re better off staying at home. And no, Clemson isn’t the only institution with this problem – at my current institution we recently found out that there will be no raises for staff in FY10, yet they’re still hiring new people with outrageous salaries. And no one is saying a word.
By PLZRU4REAL on February 25th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
While we’re looking at Administrative salaries, let’s not forget each college has a business office who might have had their hands in the pot as well. Can we get their salary increases between 2004 & 2008?
By Leon the Peon on February 25th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
As long as students keep driving BMW’s and high end SUV’s and living in these million dollar condo’s with their own private shuttle buses, I don’t see how anybody can complain about tuition going up. If they can afford to send their kids to school and live the life of Riley while there, they can afford tuition. You realize that if they stay off campus in a condo or apartment with a mailing address that they are considered in-state then. So then they get a break on tuition.
By CUALUM01 on February 25th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Along with the millions of dollars wasted on administrators salaries, Clemson has wasted millions on gaming its US NEWS ranking. What’s sad is few care about this ranking any more. The participation rate of presidents and provosts has dropped below 50%. So why does Clemson continue to waste millions of dollars on a ranking with no reliability and little validity? Becuase President Barker made it a goal and he will not use any other bench mark but US NEWS (the only academic ranking where they score well). So millions is spent marketing the school, and admitting students (many from out-of-state) with high SAT scores (counts in US News rank) and in the top 10% (counts in US News rank) of their class are awareded scholarships, have tuition waived and get free study abroad trips if they enroll. With these students enrolled it is no surprise that graduation rates improve (counts in US News rank). Since US News does not verify any of the data submitted it is easy to fudge (and Clemson does) on the number of classes with fewer than 20 students (counts in rankings), classes with more than 50 students (counts in ranking) and faculty salaries (counts in ranking). One would think US News would do some investigating when a university jumps more than one spot in two consective years. But when this publication makes so much money you would not want the public to consider that some universities just might cheat. What’s sad is there are a lot of SC citizens, students and faculty who care about what is happening at this University, but no one in authority–the Governor, Legislature or Board of Trustees is stepping up to do something about the mess at Clemson University. A few brave souls speak out. If they work at Clemson they take a huge risk in doing so. I admire them.
By cutygrs on February 26th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
The high salaries being paid to CU administrators are necessary because those sums are needed to keep that “administrative talent” at Clemson. I’m sure the provost and others cited in this story page through multiple job offers every day, right? CU must keep pace in terms of administrative salaries with numerous other competitors who would snatch away those individuals in a heartbeat, right?
Isn’t this the same lame argument we’ve heard with respect to why it’s necessary to pay CEOs of failed banks huge bonuses, i.e., if they weren’t paid, they would go elsewhere, right?
To quote from Animal Farm, “All the animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.”
If you haven’t read this book, you should.