Comments on: Clemson University: Above The Law

By: CNSYD

CNSYD — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:40:00 +0000

clemson insider, I looked at the video. None of these buildings were part of the shipyard. They were part of the Navy Base. I saw nothing exciting in the video. The state of SC has done ZERO maintenance since taking over the base in 1996. The tenants also do ZERO. IRT the dry cleaning facility, what was said about it is nothing unique. Every dry cleaner in every town used similar chemicals.

By: clemson insider

clemson insider — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:33:08 +0000

In response to CNSYD, please tune in via this link
http://www.charleston.net/videos/2008/jun/23/438/ It presents a video tour of Clemson’s Restoration Institute produced by the Charleston Post & Courier.There are numerous published reports about how contaminated Clemson’s site is. This video is just one of them.

By: CNSYD

CNSYD — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:47:41 +0000

Stayonthem, Since I left in 1993 I don’t know. The shipyard and Naval Base is a huge land area. Folk use the terms interchangeably which is incorrect. Being a former nuclear shipyard, any areas that did nuclear work had to be declared clean before they were released. There were fuel tanks for non nuclear ships that I don’t know the status of. At present the SPA is preparing part of the Naval Base for a terminal. So before you declare the entire area a brown field you need to know which part you are talking about.

By: Stayonthem

Stayonthem — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:18:39 +0000

CNSYD — Was it or was it not declared a brown field?

By: Darkseid616

Darkseid616 — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:03:40 +0000

I have to wonder to wisdom of using a plantiff litigation firm as defensive counsel. Unless no defensive litigation firm would represent them?

By: CNSYD

CNSYD — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:13:13 +0000

Stayonthem, as a former employee of the alleged “contaminated shipyard” please provide details of said “contamination”.

By: CNSYD

CNSYD — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:30:47 +0000

Darkseid616, I would seriously doubt a firm like Motley Rice would be awed by affiliations. They probably would revel in going against it IF they saw it as a strong case.

By: Stayonthem

Stayonthem — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:19:37 +0000

The Clemson administration and Board of Trustees appear to be following recent behaviors seen on Wall Street very closely. The Troutman case is just one instance of a broader pattern of incompetence, arrogance and ignorance. For instance, in the past couple of years:

1) The university administration, with no consultation from faculty or staff, imposed five-day work furloughs on all personnel. Furloughs equated to an approximate 2.5% pay cut.

2) University administrators continued a pattern of awarding themselves massive pay raises amid the downturned economy, prompting the faculty senate to pass a resolution indicating lost trust in the administration. Some of the largest pay raises went to administrators who were technically retired, and those administrators continue to receive excessively high salaries. They are akin to the Saturday Night Live character “The thing that wouldn’t leave.”

3) The university president rated Clemson above every other university in the country on the peer assessment portion of the US News survey, bringing national embarrassment and ridicule to the university.

4) A local real estate developer and recent member of the Tri-County Board of Directors developed an apartment complex where a large portion of students enrolled in the university bridge program are “encouraged” to reside.

5) The U.S. Department of Agriculture launched an investigation into Clemson University after a whistle-blower reported serious infractions in the area of animal research.

6) The university continued to develop its ill-fated “Restoration Institute” on a contaminated Naval Shipyard in North Charleston.

7) The university paid a football coach in excess of $3 million to find another job.

Those are a few items that come to mind.

By: Darkseid616

Darkseid616 — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:08:08 +0000

CNSYD-the problem lies in the timing of Clemson’s actions. When the allegations were brought Clemson moved to terminate on grounds that it felt were justified that were broadly painted as non-performance/compliance. But the timing of their actions reveal that the actions were in direct response to Troutman’s comments and allegations. Their counsel’s strategy to invoke an immunity defense is most likely because they see that Clemson’s actions would appear liable if placed in front of a jury and leave the university exposed.

That said, SC is a state where most of the people in positons of public trust, authority or senior management have ties back to either Clemson or Carolina. For reasons to lengthy to list here when that occurs the university seems to always get the benifit of the past affiliation. Sad but it occurs,not just in SC but in most states,it just seems to stand out here more because of our size…

By: Darth

Darth — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:56:50 +0000

So how long has Clemson been working with ACORN?