TTO Exclusive: Clemson Obstruction, Legal Fees Mount
Editor’s Note: The following article is reprinted with permission from the latest edition of the Tiger Town Observer. We encourage all news outlets across South Carolina to submit articles they wish to be considered for publication here on FITS.
In the Troutman v. Clemson University lawsuit currently pending in Federal Court, Clemson and its counsel continue to delay by arguing legal technicalities and procedural minutia at every opportunity to avoid open discovery and public disclosure of the facts. In response to a FOIA request by Ned Sloan, Chairman and founder of the South Carolina Public Interest Foundation, a Greenville based, nationally recognized watchdog organization dedicated to exposing the abuse of taxpayer dollars, it has been revealed that the Clemson Administration has paid the Ogletree law firm $624,277.65 for their defense against the Troutman suit to date.
Sloan’s FOIA request, however, only inquired about the “legal costs incurred by Clemson University and the Clemson University Board of Trustees…for their legal defense against suit by Chalmers Eugene Troutman III.” Neither the FOIA request nor Clemson’s response addresses whether others, such as the Clemson Foundation or the South Carolina Insurance Reserve Fund, have paid legal costs on behalf of the University and the Trustees.
A hearing that was scheduled for February 26, 2009 is now scheduled to be heard on April 28th, 2009; on April 28 the court will hear Clemson’s motion for a partial lifting of the stay which they originally requested and were granted on November 6, 2008. That stay put all proceedings in Judge Perry’s courtroom on hold as Clemson went straight to the U. S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond Virginia to request that they overturn Perry’s earlier decision on September 16, 2008, to not dismiss Troutman’s complaint.
On December 15, 2008 Clemson filed a motion to partially lift the stay to hear two other Clemson motions. One of the motions Clemson seeks is to claim that all of Troutman’s personal files from his employment at Clemson should be regarded as Clemson property and therefore be surrendered to Clemson. Troutman has offered to provide copies of his files, but Clemson insists that he not retain either his files or copies of his files.
Secondly, Clemson requests that the stay be lifted in order to hear a motion to sanction Troutman’s lawyers and remove them from the case for viewing two memorandums Troutman provided to them that were marked by Clemson General Counsel Clay Steadman as Attorney-Client Privilege. In response to this motion, Troutman’s counsel contends that the facts surrounding the documents do not support the legal standard for invoking the protections of the privilege.
Troutman’s counsel notes in correspondence to the court that Steadman marked as privileged an email that addressed a public relations matter not a legal matter, and also a report that addressed no specific legal matter but rather a business matter involving the University’s legal autonomy as provided by the Will of Thomas Green Clemson, and authorized by legislation via the General Assembly’s Act of Acceptance.
Moreover, they say Troutman contends that the recipients of the documents distributed them to others not named as privileged and no measures were taken to subsequently ensure privilege. Given these circumstances, Troutman shared copies of the two documents with his counsel. Nevertheless, Clemson persists in their argument that Troutman’s counsel be disqualified.
On February 12th, 2009, as the scheduled hearing for the partial lifting approached, the 4th Circuit issued its order on Clemson’s appeal; it was denied. The Greenville News issued two reports on the 4th Circuit’s ruling. One was published in a “Greenville Online” report and stated that Clemson had lost. The other report was printed in their paper edition. In the paper edition, Clemson’s press release reflected on the ruling.
Clemson’s press release declared the ruling a victory for Clemson. Despite what Clemson declared as victory in the public view, however, they then sought to “appeal the appeal.”
On February 26, 2009, Clemson “appealed the appeal.” They again filed in the 4th Circuit to ask the Court to reconsider. This followed the cancellation of the earlier scheduled February 26th hearing, which was delayed due to the judge falling ill. The hearing was rescheduled for March 26, 2009, but this date too was subsequently cancelled.
On March 16, 2009, the 4th Circuit ruled on Clemson’s second appeal. Clemson was again denied and instructed by the Court to follow their original order. On March 18, 2009, in light of the 4th Circuit’s ruling, Troutman’s counsel submitted a request to Judge Perry asking that his hearing scheduled for March 26th be expanded to include another motion by Clemson involving their claims to sovereign immunity.
This motion by Clemson seeks to establish that Clemson is an “arm of the state.” Troutman’s counsel has pointed out that this argument contradicts and violates the Will of Thomas Green Clemson which establishes that Clemson is an autonomous political subdivision governed by the Board of Trustees. Clemson’s “arm of the state” defense, however, is essential to their effort to claim the state’s protection of sovereign immunity. This motion was originally scheduled to be heard in July of 2008.
On Monday, March 23, 2009, Judge Perry held a conference call with the Clemson and Troutman counsel to discuss adding this motion to the March 26th hearing. Clemson, however, requested more time. As a result, the hearing expected on March 26th is now scheduled to be heard on April 28, 2009.
Clemson is apparently taking every measure it can to keep this case out of the courtroom where the facts of Mr. Troutman’s complaint can be heard and argued publically. Ironically, while the “arm of the state “defense Clemson is mounting could assist them in the current legal battle, it could also serve to totally undermine Clemson and the Board of Trustees’ in the much greater and much more significant contest that involves the Governor and other reformers ‘ desire to challenge and supplant the Clemson Board’s authority and, especially, their autonomy.
WEB EXTRA
Comments
By franksboy on April 9th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Maybe the good people of South Carolina, Alumni and friends will support the University and stand firmly behind Mr. Troutman and his attorneys.
It is obvious that Clemson is grasping at every straw, looking under every rock and, likely, greasing whatever palms are there to try to keep this case out of court and their selfish and underhanded dealings out of the public eye.
We can all be sure that Mr. Barker’s Staff will have new scheme’s underway to attempt to distort facts, conjure up fantasy support from the employees by lining up pro Admin witnesses – all, testifying as to what a fine group of reputable people make up this Staff – how, they would rather work at Clemson than any place in the world – and, then, BANG – we’ll discover a few more people who have gotten unusual pay raises at odd times – and, it will be described by Clemson PR as just normal rewards for over and beyone performance – and, when you get down to the bottom of it, the list will include the Staff’s Secretaries, their Secretaries, their Graduate Assistants, Staff Asso VPs, maybe an Adminsitrator or BOT Daughter, Son, Brother or so —- but, it will be presented with absolute assurance that the simpletons that read will absolutely believe it – and, if there is ever any doubt, it will be declared that it was run by Clay Steadman and the BOT and it is OK -
Please, support these efforts to expose this Administration, their antics and their discriminitory practices for what they really are.
By hurtalumni on April 9th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Franksboy, you’re absolutely right. The administration are pros at hiding and deceiving, and stalling this suit with trivial, “find whatever they can find” to delay the trial is an excellent example. The public cannot see the underhandedness going on because Barker is such a PR man. But that’s all he is. He loves getting the attention about being “top twenty”, but what the public doesn’t know is that the US New report is a farce and not worth the paper it’s printed on. Before Barker came, Clemson was rated 39 without the top twenty fiasco. So now, Clemson is 22. What the public doesn’t realize is that during the years Barker has been President, Clemson may have rated higher, but was tied with 4 other universities for that rating. So if Clemson is rated whatever, and other universities are rated the same, the rating is meaningless. Someone needs to dig out how the report information is accumulated and what does the rating really mean? This is just one example of how Barker skews information to make himself look good. Look into this and you will see what I mean. I hope Mr. Troutman stays strong and continues the fight. If he can withstand the pressure for the suit to be stalled, he’ll be able to bring out all the “misleading” information that the Barker boys have been touting every since Barker came.
By Clemson TIGER on April 9th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
“franksboy” and “hurtalumni” –
We get it. You say the same thing over and over and over and over on these message boards. It’s getting old. You have stated your opinion multiple times.
We understand your point of view — unfortunately, it doesn’t mean much coming from disgruntled former employees.
-Annoyed
By CL on April 9th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
The article has some interesting information, but it also shows a fundamental ignorance of the legal issues involved. For instance, it is Troutman that seems to be arguing for a peculiar interpretation on Clemson’s status. Clemson is an arm of the state, as it is a municipal corporation. S.C. Code § 59-119-310. It is subject to the tort claims act and its trustees and officers are public officials (as their duty to respond to the FOIA request indicates).
By hurtalumni on April 9th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Clemson Tiger, I could care less what you think. And I will express my opinions as long as I am able. This isn’t a communist country….yet. So if you don’t like what I write, then just don’t read it. I’m embarrassed to see that you are a Tiger fan. Your loyalty to this great university is so underwhelming!
By franksboy on April 9th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Well Clemson tigger – Annoyed, eh? Don’t have a last name of Steadman, by chance – either way, it really hurts me to think that you are annoyed so much and keep reading my posts. Must be a glutton for punishment.
You know, seems everytime a negative fact is posted on anything we have a few “cute little boys” come up from under their pretty orange flag saying the same old stale line “disgruntled former employee” – Not that any of you have really thought about what you’re saying. Just blindly searching for some little retort that makes you feel like you’ve said something, nothing meaningful but, something.
Yep, there may be some disgruntled employees, there are many, many disgruntled employees, even more disgruntled alumni and quite a few disgrutled Soutn Carolina taxpayers who are just disgruntled at HECK over the state of this Administration at Clemson.
Personally, I am not and never have been an employee of Clemson University. I am an alumni of Clemson, have supported Clemson with money and time over many years. With what I see now, I have withdrawn most of my support – still buy a few Football and Basketball tickets here and there – until I feel assured an ethical and honorable environment will be in place again at our University.
Saying things over and over – doggone right – I am – but, I have to say that JIm Barker and Company keep saying the same things over and over and over and over in their weak attempts at justifying their actions.
I am gratified to see that there is some increase in those that are willing to speak out and tell the truth about putrid environment that has grown and continues to grow at Clemson.
As for as CL’s legal statements, I have no doubt that Clemson with their bottomless resources – already spending close to $700,000 in their defense on this one case – will continue to dig thru any garbage that they can conjer up to find a way to beat this suit. And, if all goes as it normally does, they will likely end up “winning this battle” – but, it will be through technicalities of the law – not for being right – not for being honest – not for protecting the reputation and the respect of Clemson – it will be through legal loopholes – that were likely put in place for a good reason in one instance but, are also used to protect the slimy actions and behavior of a few people – in this case being the Clemson University Administration. If Goodness picks a side, the Adminstration will not win the War.
By Clemson TIGER on April 9th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Dear. God.
Anyhow, anyone going to the spring game this weekend?
By Gator on April 9th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Why don’t you folks focus on the truth instead of the diatribes of two former and disgruntled employees. Has anybody taken the time to think about why Troutman was fired? Maybe he is the one we need to look at more closely. As for the former FRENCH professor, everything he has said has been proved completly wrong!Is there some jealously out there about how well Clemson is doing? On the salary increases, did anyone notice that the increases were over 4 years? Did any of you look into what these positions are paid at similar universities? The answer is no. You just continue to believe the junk that these two FORMER employees have to say. How do you receive the negative comments of people who have been fired from where you work?
By franksboy on April 9th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Clemson tigger – This is God! I can’t make it but, I’m sending franksboy in my stead. You want him to save you a seat?
Sorry, you don’t want the be in the company of an old Alumni. Probably a bit too “disgruntled” for your comfort – then too, the view will be so much better from, the caviar much fresher and the chit/chat around Dori’s newest real estate investment tips will be much more enlightening in the President’s box.
Have fun – we taxpayers will just to delighted to pay the bill.
By hurtalumni on April 9th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Gator, just so you know….I have never been fired from any job. You don’t know me or my professional career, so until you get YOUR facts straight, you’re as guilty as you say we are about relying on “misleading” information. I happen to have graduated from Clemson and am an active alumni. I have every right to question what is now going on at Clemson because I love Clemson and will remain loyal to it forever. It’s the way the university is run that I don’t appreciate. I’m also a tax payer and I have every right to question where my money is going. These are legitimate questions that any SC tax payer or parent paying such high tuition at Clemson should be asking. If you cared at all about Clemson, you’d be asking the same questions. And don’t think there are not other “disgruntled” employees who are out there but are just too afraid to speak for fear of losing their jobs. You sound like someone who just might be part of the problem instead of the solution.
By franksboy on April 10th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Hey Gator – Guess my words or one of the diatribes of which you speak – so, have to again state – I have never, ever worked , applied for work, thought about working for Clemson University. Just never felt I would be comfortable in the academia world – so that’s is one down in you hypothesis. And, yes, I and many others have taken the time to look at why Troutman was fired. Seems a case of not agreeing with some unethical acts, saying something about it to the wrong people – namely the BOT and the President of the University. Now, the Professor – the reference to Barker’s sitting on the Board of Shaw (the flooring folks) was wrong – and, I do chastize him for that – however, the rest of his facts, as presented were completely accurate – and, the intent of his message is right on target – And, yes, we all saw what was accurate and well presented. The increases, some in 2006, many in 2007 and 2008 – while the “regular” employees were accepting their 1% to 3% COLA, and being told by the Clemson Administration that there was NO MONEY available for increases – the Barker Administrative Staff were giving and receiving increases of 15% to 100+% – these were obviously % caluculated from and added to salaries of $150K to $250K – plus as we spoken, many of those same people are drawing retirement additionally and receive supplements from the Clemson Foundation also, in addition to publicized salaries. The only conclusion that one could possibly make is that it was not meant to be any open communication – but, done quietly without raising public concern or, hopefully, not reach the employee’s ears. And, check out the salary increases of the Secretaries to those same people – it really pays to be a person who “they” have to confide in. And, yes, I have looked at salaries at similar institutions. With those results, I did not see a single area where Clemson was not at a competitive level. True, Clemson was not head and shoulders above other State Supported Institutions of similar size and statue. But, on the other hand, look at the people who received those increases. A very large portion have been at Clemson their entire career, have not had any inclination and, likely, not opportunities elsewhere that would afford them incentive to move. Why just add on to the expense at Clemson in this manner when, they have hundreds of folks who have not been rewarded at all – and, what is the ugly part of it, they have been victims of a premeditated lie put forth for the sole purpose of providing any monies available to the people that are being pointed out.
The focus is and has been on the truth – real documented facts – not from Jims Barker’s pat phrase which you have plagerized a bit “the facts are incomplete and misleading” – but, cannot back up a single sylable in that weak and false reply to his growing critics.
And, who is or even have a reason to jealous of what Clemson is doing? I am an alumni of Clemson University and that has been well respected throughout my career in the US and abroad. I’m not in the least jealous, I want to see Clemson prosper and remain a special provider of an excellent education for the young folks of South Carolina and those that choose Clemson from other parts of the US and the world. I have supported Clemson in many ways to assist in doing just that – but, I have grown very “disgruntled” at the actions, mindset, self interest displayed by the current Administation.
If you are a part of the Administation, I ask you to search your soul – and, do the right thing. If not, do some more research before you promote Mr. Barker and Staff to a saintly position that they have not and, apparently, will not ever reach.
By UpYers on April 10th, 2009 at 11:12 am
It’s true – Clemson really does suck.
By Clemson TIGER on April 10th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Clemson does not suck, some people just have way too much time on their hands and enjoy the fun and games that the title “drama queen” brings with it. Thankfully, most people give little merit to former disgruntled (some fired) employees and their bogus claims.
I think that the town hall meeting that Mr. Bednar organized proves this point as his findings and numbers were proven wrong on the spot. Very embarrassing for Mr. Bednar and his creditability really took a tumble at that time.
It is also pretty disgusting that Mr. Bednar approached the University and wanted payment if he kept his mouth shut and essentially “went away” Mr. Bednar is a money-loving scum bag and a disgrace to all things Clemson.
By franksboy on April 10th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I agree(what do you know?) with Clemson tigger – “CLEMSON DOES NOT SUCK” —- HOWEVER, Clemson is a fine institution, has always been such and will remain so, if we can get the Barker Administration’s awe struck followers (sadly, ol’ tigger seems to be in that group) to read and think before they start bowing and kissing the feet of the Barker Bunch.
And, by Golly, the disgruntled ex employees, the very many disgruntled current employees and the very, very many disgruntled alumni, such as myself, have every right and reason to condemn the actions of this administration.
Now, I do recognize that there are a pocket of people who have very personal and self serving reasons not to condemn those actions.
And, when and how did Mr. Bednar ask for payment to keep his mouth shut? And, exactly when were his facts and numbers proved wrong? Certainly, not at the recent Town Meeting. Other than the same old Administration line “the facts are incomplete and misleading”, no differing facts or numbers was even claimed. The Student Body President made a few non specific remarks that were what would be expected from a campus politician (in training) and, if one had to speculate, you’d say even those were written by the Staff PR spokesperson (Sams).
Clemson tigger is just hanging too much on the generalities that have proven the mainstay of the Administrations defense of their actions. For some reason they believe that if they call any person who is critical “disgruntled” then they have just won the battle of credibility. And, if you think about it, a disgruntled employee is a much better bet for credibility than those whose words and actions are bought and fully paid for.
The number of people that are being shown the many examples of embarassingly self serving actions by this Administration is growing. As we’ve stated, it will be awful hard to win over the bottomless pockets of Clemson Foundation if they remain with heads in the sand and determined to let the Administration win this, to heck with the reputation of the University or her faithful and hard working emplyees.
By Mabette on April 10th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
franksboy = loving this new media
;)
By franksboy on April 11th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Oh Mabette, my new found critic – don’t be jealous Hon, it’s not love – it’s just one of very few outlets that we have to tell the truth to the public without the threat of harm to the careers, lives and emotions of the good Clemson Employees – and, to call attention to the calculated and underhanded favoritism within the Staff at our University.
By Mabette on April 11th, 2009 at 9:54 am
FB – I’m a fan, Man!
It is a shame how the world turns in some of these crusty old places around here.
OK. I shall bow out now b/c I really don’t know anything about it — but FITS is the only one that reports on it. And I just think that’s swell. Carry on…
By Cola_SC on April 11th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
FITS is the only one to report on the “Clemson drama” because sources and facts are usually required for legit journalism.
By A(nother) Citizen on April 11th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
To Cola_SC — No, not the case. Peruse the Greenville News over the past several years and you will not find a single article ever questioning a Clemson move. Not even a comment about pay raises. I was told by a reporter there (sorry, not providing a name) that they just couldn’t write something about Clemson that hadn’t been approved by Sams and Company. As for The State, they have other issues and have typically ignored Clemson — same for the Post and Courier. But the P&C has reported on the issues of the Restoration Institute, McConnell, and some funding questions.
Yes, this is an outlet. It’s the only way some of us can be heard. Can’t call the local reporters from traditional outlets, can’t get editorials published — so this is what we have to try and help people see the truth.
Yes, the lawsuit is an interesting way for Clemson to argue that it is an “arm of the state” and then hear Barker talk about how Clemson should be considered a private institution because it gets less than 20% of its budget from general fund appropriations. But hey, he’s just a really slick politician who could have taught Ben Tillman himself some lessons.
Again, the stories are true. Bednar has most of his facts correct — the rest have been kept from him no matter how often he has asked. He got tired of trying to do things quietly and wait for improvement.
To Gator — US News rankings are pretty much a joke. Clemson has mastered data manipulation, walking a very thin line between lies and truth. But no, nothing has really changed. I heard the President himself say that it was just about the public recognition of the rankings.
By franksboy on April 11th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Mabette – you’re just a comic relief.
Cola_SC – There are legit sources and the facts are in black and white – easily read – easily understood – and, the Anderson Independentmail, The State, The Greenville News, USA Today, the Spartanburg Herald are a few of the journals that have reported openly about the Clemson Administation Mismanagement and Lie – the only thing better about FITS is that they have kep the heat on a bit longer – this last out of the Tigertown Observer was just a nice little topper showing just how desparate this Administration is in trying to quieten, hide and slip away from this train wreck they’ve manuevered themselves into. Their only saving grace now will be by using the courts to do the dirty work for them by letting them hide under the protective covers of being an arm of the State. And, that is abominable – to think that the individuals in an Administration can lie, cheat, steal from their own employees, threaten and fire employees for any criticism, reward their favorites with perks and salary – and, then are protected from any action – we can only hope that the Court of Appeals will have the nerve and the creativity to get past this smokescreen and find a way to find a true verdict of guilty – for their premeditated quest for power and money at taxpayers and Clemson employee expense.
By I Don't Like Drama Queens on April 12th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Im sorry all the major news outlets in South Carolina won’t let a few crazy/disgruntled employees and USC alumni take over the paper and let huge wack-o editorials published. Im sorry all the SC newspapers do not submit to your every desire. Are you kidding me?
Maybe they are too busy reporting on other things that Clemson is doing for South Carolina and its citizens — CU-ICAR, spinoff companies, top 22 ranking, record number of applications, record breaking research, the news of Clemson becoming #1 Happiest Students in America, etc.
Of course, you all are too blinded by your drama queen ways to see the many great things Clemson is doing. And that, is highly unfortunate…
By franksboy on April 12th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Whoa there IDLDQ – you apparently don’t like Clemson University, her employees or alumni -because that is just who you are attacking! The people that want Clemson environment to be rid of the predators, underhanded self serving few that do just about anything to fill their pockets with money and their ego with perceived power.
While I appreciate A(nother) Citizen’s love for the University -however, she/he is wrong about coverage from the major media – the total scandalous way the employees have been hoodwinked and misle in the salary debacle was covered very thoroughly by the Greenville News (I admit, they have a hard time printing truth if it’s negative toward C. Sams & Gang, the Anderson Independentmail, The State, The News and Courier, The USA Today – a many of the State’s TV outlets.
The many disgruntled employees, disgruntled alumni, disgruntled txpaers of South Carolina don’t need to depend on “wacko editorials”, they are listening to, reacting to and condemning the facts that are obvious and ugly about the Clemson Administration.
The only crazy individuals that I recognize are those who cannot read, comprehend, use logic and admit that this Administration is rotten throughout.
I am an Alumni of Clemson – am from a family of dozens of Alumni of Clemson – all have always been ardent and faithful supporters of the school. I really can’t understand why you won’t open our eyes, ears and mostly, your brain to the facts and do the same. Unless, of course, you have been on the receiving end of the rewards given to the silent and impotent Staff that are bound only to keep ignoring, keep getting fatter and slowly lose all sense of honor and credibility that you might have.
I speak the truth, have spoken the truth – the only sad part is that I haven’t really exposed some of the truly sickening acts that have been ignored and by, ignoring, have condoned.
I don’t know whre you are from – and, what your connection to Clemson is, if any – but, if you have ever respected this fine Institution, take your blinders off – the stench is all around this Administation. Take a whiff without your mask of “solid orange” filtering the aroma before it gets to your senses. You will be as appalled as I am.
By Notafan on April 17th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Franksboy:
Your comments are great. No one seems to have mentioned the disgruntled students yet, so let me bring that up.
I suspected that Jim Barker was a slimeball, because I’ve been having a problem of my own with the school lately. But you are right in what you say about the school. The administration gets all bent out of shape if you even dare to email them directly. Dissent isn’t tolerated. It’s really ridiculous. Barker is running Clemson into the ground.
By Notafan on April 18th, 2009 at 10:18 am
And it’s really interesting that these “good old boys” keep using the term “disgruntled former employee” because those are the exact words that BILL HENDRIX, JR. used in this article from the Chronicle of Higher Education:
http://chronicle.com/news/article/4147/lawsuit-says-clemson-u-hid-cash-reserves-while-increasing-tuition
By clemosonprof1 on April 19th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Of the two former Clemson employees, one knows whereof he speaks, and the other doesn’t.
Whatever exactly led to Gene Troutman’s firing, he knows a lot about internal politics and high-level decision-making at Clemson. He is obviously in a position to embarrass the CU administration. That’s why the CU administration is so desperately applying very expensive delaying tactics against his lawsuit.
Mr. Bednar (he is not Dr. Bednar–an interesting story all by itself) was pushed into retirement after a stormy career in the Languages department at Clemson. He sucked up to the administration until 2005, when he learned he would have to retire and would not be getting any extra money to go away. Mr. Bednar is not a careful researcher. He turned against the administration only when he ran out of administrative sponsors. No one on the Clemson faculty trusts him.
The Faculty Senate leadership has no connections with either Mr. Bednar or Mr. Troutman. The resolution recently passed by the Senate makes it clear that lots of people who are not former employees have concerns about the way CU is being managed.
By Nan on April 22nd, 2009 at 12:51 am
Clemsonprof has it right– there are a LOT of current, not former, disgruntled employees. Who historically reports problems–the happy fat cat administrator? No–the disgruntled employee blows the whistle when they can’t take it any more. You have never seen the kind of ugliness that goes on if Clemson brass feels they have a reason not to like you. Watch out if you criticize them! They will push you out or try to discredit you, Tamany Hall style. Employees know this and they are way too scared to talk up in this economy. Employees can’t afford to speak up when a job is at risk. Thank goodness we at least have a forum to spread the word that they are dirty. They should be above reproach and instead they are dirty–firing those who dissent, running shady land deals here and in Charleston, promoting “yes” people even if they don’t have the qualifications for a job, promoting secretaries to $70k a year, free BMW’s for Barker. And I’m sure that’s just the tip of the dirty iceberg. It is sickening and so very sad and can’t anything be done about it?
By Notafan on April 22nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Nan, you are absolutely right. I hate what this administration has done to our school. I hope Troutman’s lawsuit succeeds (you should read his complaint – it’s very illuminating). I also hope that someone tries to bring a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the parents/students who have been making financial sacrifices and taking out loans for the past 10 years just so Barker can stuff his “rainy day fund” with “performance credits.”