By FITSNews || First of all, let’s give credit where credit is due.
We give La Socialista – a.k.a. The State newspaper – inordinate amounts of grief for turning a blind eye to the rampant corruption and taxpayer waste that’s taking place at the University of South Carolina. We also relentlessly hammer the newspaper for serving as the school’s premier promoter, even as hundreds of millions of dollars are being poured down the drain on speculative “economic development” disasters.
(Click here and here if you want to catch our drift on all that …)
Well, for once it’s good to see the pressure we’ve been applying finally beginning to pay off … or maybe The State finally figured out that to sell newspapers, it needs to actually report the news every once in awhile as opposed to USC infomercials.
Either way, from The State:
In a move that’s been called unprecedented, USC canceled all bids to hire an architect for its new $90 million Moore School of Business so a donor could pick a design firm of her own choosing.
While no state spending rules were broken, four Columbia firms and their national partners spent months of labor and an estimated $100,000 each hoping to win the project before the school abruptly canceled the bids in a two-sentence memo sent April 2.
Instead, the business school’s private foundation will pay an estimated $4 million or more to a New York firm chosen by the school’s benefactor, Darla Moore.
Well, well.
For those of you who need a refresher, USC is desperately seeking to infuse some institutional credibility into its failed “Innovista” research campus – which was supposed to usher in the “hydrogen economy of the future” and bring “thousands of high-paying jobs” to downtown Columbia, S.C. The development has failed spectacularly on all counts – its empty buildings serving as stark reminders of the foolishness of such government-run economic development schemes.
Of course the project is far from “licked.” In fact, Columbia, S.C. leaders recently approved a $154 million bailout for the school, and S.C. Speaker Bobby Harrell (the project’s biggest backer at the state level) continues to route money from the state budget into the failed development – which has already wasted more than $150 million in public funds.
Anyway, one idea that the school had to “infuse credibility” (as well as some actual people) into Innovista was to relocate USC’s award-winning business school onto its campus, a move which embattled USC President Harris Pastides said would represent the project’s “intellectual foundation.”
Of course the questionable money-shuffling associated with the $90 million business school deal wreaked of another “bailout” for Innovista, which has generated less than $6 million in private investment against the hundreds of millions of public dollars that have been poured down the drain.
Leading the Innovista charge all along has been S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford’s appointment to the USC Board, liberal Lake City, S.C. financier (and business school namesake) Darla Moore – whose architectural inclinations have now given this project its latest black eye.
But is there “Moore” to the story than what La Socialista is reporting?
(Yes, we did just write that).
And yes, there is …
According to our sources, the architectural bids for the new business school were “fixed all along.”
In fact, Moore allegedly chose the New York firm – Raphael Vinoly Architects – several years ago and is said to have already approved the new school’s conceptual designs. Of course given its high costs, this firm wasn’t going to win the state bid – which is why the school stepped in and shut down the whole process.
So much for playing by the rules, right?
In perhaps the most damaging accusation related to this whole mess, sources tell FITS that Moore specifically threatened Pastides with his (increasingly vulnerable) job if her architect was not chosen.
“Now we know who runs USC,” a source familiar with the internal politics of the deal told FITS.
Indeed.
Gov. Mark Sanford and state lawmakers could stop all of this right now if they really wanted to …
First of all, Sanford could remove Moore from her position on the board and replace her with someone who is committed to the school’s core academic mission, not more of this command economic speculation. Meanwhile, lawmakers could reject the appointment of pro-Innovista trustees Mack I. Whittle and William C. Hubbard and conduct a legitimate investigation into this ongoing sham – as opposed to another Bobby Harrell whitewash.
Of course none of that is going to happen, which means that for all their talk of “fiscal conservatism” during a time of “budget crisis,” our state’s GOP leaders are (once again) going to let USC keep breaking the rules so that it can pour millions more down this same sinkhole.
Way to go, South Carolina.
Way to go.
By Joseph Reynolds April 12, 2010 at 9:35 am
Why is Mack Whittle allowed to hold ANY office of trust and respect in SC? He has probably done more damage and caused more people to lose money than did Earl Morris. And also personally benefitted.
I say kick him off first.
By really???? April 12, 2010 at 9:48 am
This is bull. Where is the new law school that is supposed to be “The top priority of USC” according to Sorensen just 4 years ago? That thing has been in the “works” seemingly since I was in diapers. This is a joke.
By They call me Mr. Sinister April 12, 2010 at 10:14 am
FITS— you are either very brave or very stupid to talk so openly about Queen Darla’s pet project. Remember she is one of the richest people in this state and does not cotton to ordinary people forgetting their place around her or questioning her ideas. Trust me,having family from lower Florence county I know and have seen what she is capable of. That said,Innovista is turning into this state’s own little black hole (kinda like Boston’s Big Dig)that has the potential to suck a lot of politico’s of all stripes into it, along with a great deal of $$$ if the people of SC are not careful. Watch what is coming in the next few days as the General Assemlby votes on who goes on what board/commission (and not just the USC board!!) this session. The horse trading has already begun.
By Harumph April 12, 2010 at 10:32 am
Infomercial? But it is a print medium. Informercial doesn’t quite work.
By econ-rebel April 12, 2010 at 11:09 am
Sometimes fitsnews can’t put “one-and-one” together: Darla Moore watched how the Horizon and Discovery buildings were mismanaged under Pastides/Kelly/Sorensen. She does not put up with this type of mismangement – never has, never will. She can buy, build and then donate to USC and that’s probably what she is trying to do. What’s wrong with that? Would you like her to do that in Greeneville, Charlotte or Atlanta??? Obviously the USC BOT is divided and might “need to rescue USC again”- another flamboyant president needs his wings clipped. Mungo’s replacement is an opportunity to change the composition of the USC/BOT and put a business person on it to ensure that “amateur hour” is over at USC , and preferably if this person would be diverse that would help too….
By StupidShouldHurtMore (SSHM) April 12, 2010 at 11:10 am
@They Call Me Mr. Sinister
Specific to the “who goes on what board/commission,” the revelation that former State Senator and current Anderson County Councilman Bob Waldrep will land on the SC State Board of Trustees to me is one of the more interesting “pending” appointments.
Pull out your scorecards kids … this is about to get VERY interesting.
- SSHM
By 803andy April 12, 2010 at 11:27 am
“Overall I have to agree with Hodges. Darla’s request is pretty modest considering the money she has given.
Of course USC/Moore screwed-up by not making this move prior to forcing several other firms to spend the time and money on an afford they had no chance of winning.
USC should pay those firms for their time and cost.”
By CNSYD April 12, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Money talks and FITS walks. It ain’t the “Darla Moore School” for nothing. Didn’t the major donor for the athletic learning center have a say so in its construction?
By No Name April 12, 2010 at 1:40 pm
There are so many interesting sub threads going on here I am having a hard time picking anyone of them out for comment.
First FITS can sure get the week started out right with this and the KFLO meltdown.
I remain deeply dissapointed that we have no KFLO swim suit shots.
As to Darla’s wrath and rage.
Darla is wealthy because she screwed Rainwater, broke up his marriage to a great Texan gal and introduced him to some of that Miss Watermelon lovin.
To this day Darla does herself proud and cuts a fine figure for herself…just saying.
She has some Investment Banking credibility sure…. but distressed banking for Chemical Bank and playing with Rainwaters billions are two different things.
Got to beleive she laughs her ass off at the valuation fraud that “Little Whittle” was using on his Florida real estate time bombs before the Carolina First Board grew a pair and fired that filandering bore.
Bottom line is …..she talks a better game than she has ever played herself. But her real business experience is so much more than anyone on the USC Board… except for the now deceased Mungo ….I can only surmise that she does what he wants ….out of practicality more than anything else.
As I see it in her mind it might go something like this…
…”It is my money and I know what I want and I believe I am capable of doing it right…maybe a little pricey….but again it is my money….and if I let these sleazy idiot assholes…. that are surronding me on the Board do it ……I am likeley to get just as pricey a proposition from some under the table crony of these dumb cocks….so empowered as a I am and as toothless as Harris is …I will just do it myself”.
And if Little Whittle looks at my ass one more time leaving a meeting I am going to give him a Watermellon Queen kick in the balls.
South Carolina men have long hated and just do not know what to do with a powerful women of wealth and accomplishment. Columbia hated Jenny Sanford from day one because she did not know her place.
Although a little untoward and perhaps unethical …I give this a pass.
If Darla reads this…. and she is smart enough too….I suggest you stroke a check to these other competing firms to stop the cheapskate belly aching.
Darls’s husband is fucking money making geniuous. And I would wager that if Roger Milliken has already given most of his wealth to the Trusts…. that Richard Rainwater and thus Mrs. Darla Rainwater are the richest folks in the State.
She is too busy to aim wrath at Will….in the Big Show ….you expect this type of exposure….only here in Banana Republic Columbia do they expect no press coverage of this type of deal.
Please list the other “Folks” she has pillored in the low country.
By Anonymous April 12, 2010 at 2:00 pm
I’m from lower Florence County, too, and I greatly encouage you to investigate this matter further. One shouldn’t be afraid of only one wealthy individual when one has the largest South Carolina political blog.
By CNSYD April 12, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Lower Florence County? Wasn’t that where Pee Wee Gaskins was from?
By sclawyerIII April 12, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Darla Moore is the largest single donor in the University’s history. She is footing the bill for the design. Without her there would be no new business school.
She’s chosen a world class architectual firm. She should be allowed to do whatever she likes so long as she pays the bill.
None of this has anything to do with Innovista except the new school will be located within its geographical area.
By . April 12, 2010 at 9:09 pm
“Jim Hodges, president of the business school’s private foundation, defended the idea of letting Moore select the architect. “It’s pretty straightforward from my standpoint,” he told The State. “She gave $60 million for a world-class, iconic building that will bear her name. So we thought her request was pretty modest.”
However, the Council for Advancement and Support of Education has guidelines that specifically state that a donor “may not retain any explicit or implicit control over the use of a gift after acceptance by the institution.” The guidelines state that donors may suggest uses, but may not be given control over those uses, once a gift has been accepted. As an example of inappropriate “donor control” that would “preclude the counting of a gift,” CASE cites a gift for a new art museum contingent on the donor selecting the architect.
Patrick M. Rooney, executive director of the Center on Philanthropy, at Indiana University, said in an interview with Inside Higher Ed that he thought the turn of events at South Carolina was unusual and raised serious questions.
Rooney said that is it quite common for colleges to talk to donors of buildings about their desires, so that someone looking for a traditional design isn’t shocked by a cutting edge approach, or vice versa. But he said that letting a donor make the selection in a competition was inappropriate. He compared the situation to an endowed chair. For such a gift, a donor might well pick the discipline and even a specialty, but never the person in the chair.
“There is a line,” Rooney said. For most, that line would involve “final programmatic decisions,” such as naming an architect or a professor. At that level, the decision should be made by the college or university, not the donor, he said. If donors make such selections, “it’s not a gift anymore. It’s a contract between the donor and an organization. It loses the nature of being a gift.”
And if you are going to let the donor decide, Rooney said, you shouldn’t have what appears to be an open competition. “That’s just not dealing in good faith,” he said. “No one applies for a job if it’s a done deal who will get it.”
Pablo Eisenberg, a senior fellow at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute and a columnist for The Chronicle of Philanthropy, said he agreed that South Carolina crossed a line with this arrangement. “It’s terrible. Everything is for money nowadays,” he said.
Eisenberg said there is an important principle involved. When a college selects an architect, it is supposed to gather experts on educational needs, on campus aesthetics, and on other issues. Letting a donor — even a well-informed donor — make that decision on the basis of having given money bypasses this process. “You are trying to promote educational excellence in these decisions,” he said. Letting the donor decide “goes against the whole notion of excellence.”
While donors are increasingly pushing for more input, he said, this was “an extreme.”
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/04/12/donor
By R April 13, 2010 at 3:21 pm
As an alumnus of USC I was very disappointed in this development. While it’s great having a deep-pocketed donor like Darla Moore I’ve been concerned for some time with the strings that come attached to her gifts and her calling the shots. There should be a legal investigation into this matter. At the least, USC or Darla Moore should pay these architect firms their costs to date.
Episodes like this and how USC has squandered much needed land and funds for land improvements for the “Greek Village” (they do so much for the University Community) has caused me to stop giving money to the University.
By Jack April 13, 2010 at 5:41 pm
I say we let capitalism rule. Anyone who can raise or donate $60,000,001.00 can overrule Ms. Moore.
By Miss Carolina March 16, 2011 at 2:08 pm
FYI – that’s not a picture of the business school, that’s a dormitory and revolving restaurant.
And I agree with Jack, you give the millions, you get to call some shots. Let’s be realistic.