www.wltx.com
The couple that I know weren't mentioned. And what may have occurred was somewhat different than I was told or they evidently knew or heard....but it sounds as though there may be some secret power-grabbing by certain board members and secrets being kept from others. This is UGLY....makes you wonder if a few BOT members were trying to control everything. Knew there was arm-twisting regarding Caslen, but had no clue about how bad it was nor the trip by certain board members to meet him. Makes it sound like there was no serious consideration of any other candidate. Makes you wonder what really happened regarding the treatment of Darla Moore.
That's what I heard and the article did say that it wasn't with public funds. A donor would get a 100% tax write-off by giving to the University and then the University loaning that money to the AD department. When the AD department repays it, the donor's money can then be used to fund University projects, whether they be facilities, establishing department chairs, scholarships, etc...
Politics. Something to thrash hay over. Our board has been divided for a while....if that isn't obvious by now and I doubt that it has been resolved as one member stated. Regardless of what tacit understanding that there may have been as to how the money was initially to be used, the lending of the money is an arrow in one side's quiver.
No, they "flushed" a lot of cash.
Ohhhhh, no. This ain't Texas. This ain't LSU. This ain't Oklahoma State. Rumors of our affluence from beneficence are just that - and always have been. We've had some nice gifts, but we are not awash in sugar daddies. People need to disabuse themselves of the fantasies.
We have some....more than a few. But you are right nothing like Texas, Oklahoma State, Michigan, TOSU, Stanford, SoCal, UCLA, etc...etc...have. And most of the ones we have prefer to give to the University in general or for an athelitic facility.
I just hope it doesn't get any uglier than it already is....we don't need to give SACS another reason to come back on campus to investigate whether we should keep our accreditation.
Not sure anyone without political connections could get past the screening commission (which is comprised of the SC House and Senate). But I guess anyone can submit an application.
The article seemed to imply they were 4 of the 5 who were questioned, unless I'm reading it wrong.
Sounds reasonably. The names should be made public. And someone had to authorize the use of the plane. This should be public knowledge as well.
Not sure how many trustees it would take to authorize the use of a plane for school purposes, but I would doubt it would require a vote of the full board. Also, the Governor could authorize the use of a state plane.
I believe that when institutional or organizational irregularities are revealed involuntarily, there's usually more where those came from, particularly if the corrupt inner workings have been unchecked for a long time.
Harpootlian can go himself... I try not to be dramatic and negative and ridiculous like so many here, but I wouldn't put it past him to have more like sabotage than reform on his mind here.Hopefully, it forces the Legislature to revamp the BOT. It almost sounds like some at the State House are ready to blow the whole thing up and start over.
University of SC trustees blistered for secret trip, coach buyouts
The trustees are all incumbents and have no opposition for reelection.
I agree about Harpootlian…he may have gone to USC Law School…but he graduated from CU! Don’t trust a Tiger!
I'm sure it's didn't require full board approval but there has to be (should bej) some process of ensuring this is an appropriate business trip. And the rest of the board should have been in the loop since it involved a potential candidate.
Let's get the BOT out of the Legislatures hands. F these guys, they do nothing but suck the marrow out of our sports. Let them all get real jobs and screw up someone else's school.Hopefully, it forces the Legislature to revamp the BOT. It almost sounds like some at the State House are ready to blow the whole thing up and start over.
University of SC trustees blistered for secret trip, coach buyouts
The trustees are all incumbents and have no opposition for reelection.
As long as we are a state institution that will never happen. The best we could hope for is something similar to Clemson's board. Clemson has 13 board members. Seven are self-perpetuating lifetime members of which if a member dies or is no longer able to serve his or her replacement is elected by the remaining eight. The other six trustees are elected by the legislature to staggered 4 year terms.
They don't trip over themselves like we do. Their relative lack of overt dysfunction attests that.
Hahaha. Look at the make up of our board. And then look at their socio economic status. Then with a straight face tell me my original post was a lie. If you can do that you should be able to sell my ocean front property in Arizona.
I’m not sure I understand who you are talking about in post #25. The members of the BOT or those wanting a change?
