Very politely and professionally, the University of South Carolina is disputing some elements of a story we published yesterday on growth within the administration of University President Harris Pastides.
Specifically, the school’s spokeswoman tells FITS that Pastides is actually saving money by consolidating several positions – a claim which our sources at the school are vigorously disputing.
First, here’s our original story from yesterday.
Next, here’s what USC had to say, courtesy of the school’s communications director, Margaret Lamb:
As for the administrative positions, people have taken on additional responsibilities.
Mr. (Cantey) Heath was assistant VP in University Advancement until he moved to fill a mission-critical position in the president’s office. He did NOT get a salary increase, and his VP advancement position was not filled. In fact, he is still handling some of those duties, and the rest have been divided among other staff members in advancement.
The VP for Research and Graduate Education actually combines two positions, the VP Research and Health Sciences post held by President Pastides until he became president last August, and the graduate school dean post. So…combining these two is a significant money-saver.
A VP for Planning was not hired last August. Dr. Ted Moore was vice provost and then assumed those responsibilities. He refused to take a salary increase. In January, Dr. Moore became interim provost and again refused a salary increase for that role. He is actually handling responsibilities for both positions now.
Moore was replaced by Dr. Helen Doerpinghaus who had been Associate Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Studies. She is covering many of the combined responsibilities of these positions.
Lamb also said that the controversial decision to hire former La Socialista (a.k.a. The State newspaper) editorial page editor Brad Warthen was made by President Pastides, not his new Special Assistant, Cantey Heath.
Still, our sources at the University called the school’s official response “milder than expected,” but they did take strong exception to some of the claims.
For example, our sources maintain that the Vice President of Research and Graduate Education is a new position – preserving the structure of both the graduate school and the University’s research operation.
Additionally, they point to the fact that prior to becoming President last year, Pastides was the Vice President of Research and Dean of the Health Sciences school. The former role is being filled by a new hire, while the latter is now covered by a new vice provost.
Any way you slice it, they say, a new position is being created – and it will cost taxpayers (or scholarship recipients) $300,000 a year to fill it.
Our sources also took issue with the University’s statement on the Vice President of Planning position, citing a vote taken by the Board of Trustees authorizing its creation.
Obviously, USC’s administrative excess is nothing compared to the mind-blowing bureaucratic boondoggling that’s going on at South Carolina’s other two research universities, but these staffing decisions do raise critical questions about the school’s priorities.
So what do we think USC should do?
Well, in light of the current budget climate and the threat to academic scholarships, it is our belief that USC should immediately postpone its search for a new Provost, VP of Planning and VP of Research and Graduate Education.
These bureaucratic positions are not “mission critical” at any time – but certainly not in a budget environment such as this one.
That’s because these positions are closely tied to mission creep – specifically of the “pillars and pyramids” variety.
USC’s “Innovista” project has been a costly failure, for example, and while our research universities have a role to play in economic development, they should never lead those efforts.
The more our research universities attempt to exert control over economic development efforts, the less they can focus on their core educational mission – and the more they needlessly stretch resources that are already thin due to the fact that state government supports such a bloated system of higher ed (33 schools and 80 campus locations for a population of just 4 million).
Speaking of which, there was some good news for USC on the education front yesterday, which we’ll be bringing you a report on later today …
By franksboy April 23, 2009 at 11:45 am
Let’s face it, niether of the 2 major Universities are at all interested or focused on getting the most for our money. It’s more like – if C is gonna have a $300K Provost, we (usc) gonna have a $360K Provost – if SC is gonna have a VP of Planning, we (c) gonna have two! The bigger my domain, the more power I have (or perceived as having) – new positions mean opportunities to reward favors – new positions mean that I have one more reason not to spend time managing all those little people – Hey, look at me – I have 37 VP’s, A Provost, a Vice Provost, an Asst Vice Provost, a Provost Asst – an Asst to the Provost Asst – and, I can think of at least two more for every one you think of – because – I’m smarter, I’m more powerful – fact is I’m great!!
By sclawyerIII April 23, 2009 at 12:13 pm
the Universities are stretched thin because they are not allocated very much in the way of resources.
Already underfunded the reduction in their budgets forces hard choices that they should not have to make.
I agree with your suggestion that the number of state supported universities in needlessly high, and I think a better solution would be to close or fold local state colleges into the tech system.
The money saved should be redirected back to higher education.
Or if they are not going to be properly funded, the larger Universities should be allowed to raise tuitions to whatever level they see fit without the interference of state government.
It is an unworkable construct for government to decrease funding while simultaneously instructing the Universities that they cannot raise tuition.
By sclawyerIII April 23, 2009 at 12:16 pm
franksboy,
that’s a pretty odd way of looking at it.
I imagine that the University creates positions for faculty and administrators because its President thinks that the positions are required to make the University run more efficiently and effectively.
Given he has already suffered a couple of rounds of budget cuts, I think the need for efficiency is probably paramount in his mind.
As for raising salaries, I think it probably has more to do with the market, don’t you think?
By Mino April 23, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Raise tuition to any level? Since there isn’t money coming from the state coffers because it doesn’t exist, where are parents and students suppose to make up for this shortfall? There are still a number of six figure jobs that can be eliminated from USC and the institution can function just fine. Also, too many people are allowed to TERI where lower level staff members could easily fulfill those same responsibilities.
USC is afraid to make those hard choices of true job reduction for fear of looking inferior to other regional/national flagship institutions. Afterall, the institutional website constantly touts it’s Carnegie Classification, which is not meant to be an exclusive designation, but merely a grouping of institutions with similar goals.
By justme April 23, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Will: Run spellcheck. It’s “provost” not “provest”.
And you might want to acknowledge the big difference between the amount of money you said USC spent on the alleeged new positions yesterdays vs what you ended up on today.
I think you made a mistake. xxoo
By justme April 23, 2009 at 6:50 pm
ps: You left out a needed comma too.
By franksboy April 23, 2009 at 9:31 pm
sclawyer – what a calm and persuasive argument but, NOPE!!