 |
When South Carolina State University trustees sat down to evaluate former President Andrew Hugine last year, they found many things to like.
The audit was done in time. Buildings were improved. The university was getting good press.
But there was also a down side. The university wasn’t raising money the way trustees felt it should. They also felt the university was lacking a “complete, comprehensive” safety plan.
And, perhaps most importantly, they felt the university didn’t have the focus on academics it should.
“I don’t think it’s an awful evaluation. ... It’s an evaluation overall that failed to meet expectations, but it’s not an awful evaluation,” SCSU Board of Trustees Chairman Maurice Washington said.
When trustees voted to remove Hugine last month, they cited his most recent performance evaluation and an academic review of S.C. State by the Education Commission of the States. While the university released the review, it did not immediately release the evaluation, saying it wasn’t sure if it was public information.
On Friday, the university released the June 2007 evaluation, in which trustees gave Hugine a composite 2.84 score on a five-point scale. Trustees did not mark whether he met expectations.
The board did not release Hugine’s response to the evaluation, nor did Hugine, but a copy was obtained from a third party. Hugine noted that “You were not given the complete evaluation document,” and said selections read to him over the phone seemed to be from his response.
“I’m very limited in what I can say. ... The advice I’m being given is I need to be very cautious in regard to the comments I make in regard to this and, obviously, I’m following this advice,” Hugine said.
In his written response, Hugine says he met or exceeded the criteria set by the board and many of the concerns raised by the trustees were simply wrong.
Washington says trustees were most concerned about academics. Trustees gave Hugine a score of 1.6 on his objective of improving the university’s academic infrastructure.
Trustees were pleased with positive notes about the university in publications, and that key university positions were filled.
But trustees said they were concerned that people who held interim positions for two years were appointed to their positions permanently only a month before Hugine’s evaluation, with trustees calling the timing “questionable.”
Trustees also said an academic audit conducted by the university “missed the mark,” leading to a second, board-driven audit. Also, “numerous academic programs are in jeopardy of which the Board was not advised -- some facing elimination.”
In addition, trustees said a “large number” of student athletes had poor academic performance and were having to attend summer school to meet eligibility requirements; the nursing program was still not meeting standards, despite improvements; the Teacher Education Program was “in jeopardy” because of students’ pass rates on the Praxis and state-level rule changes; and “The Call Me Mister Program is not prospering” because of extremely low grades and inability to pass Praxis.
The trustees also found fault with Hugine for not naming a permanent vice president of academic affairs, a position that’s been awaiting a permanent appointment since Hugine took over in May 2003, Washington said. Also, the evaluation says, “There exists questionable selection of the individual proposed for the VPAA position and the selection process.”
Washington said he’s not sure what the evaluation meant about a questionable selection, since he did not chair the committee that handled the evaluation.
But he said academics is the core of SCSU’s existence, and “It’s unusual for a position of that importance not to have a permanent person, as opposed to an interim person.”
In his response to the board, Hugine challenged many of the board’s statements.
For instance, he wrote it’s not factual that he waited until a month before his evaluation to make permanent appointments -- five were appointed almost four months before the evaluation. And regarding the “board-driven” academic audit, he wrote the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools says the primary responsibility for the content and quality of academic programs rests with faculty.
In addition, he wrote the board was informed of the status of academic programs during a December 2005 meeting and of the corrective actions proposed by the S.C. Commission on Higher Education.
Regarding the vice president of academic affairs, he wrote the vacancy “is due to non-concurrence with the recommendation made.” He said a request for proposals was issued to hire a national search firm to help fill the position.
Washington said some board members may have opposed some of Hugine’s candidates for positions, but it is the president’s responsibility to hire employees he is comfortable with.
If Hugine wanted to present his candidates to the board as a courtesy, “obviously, we opened ourselves to his request,” Washington said. But the decision to hire was ultimately Hugine’s, and Washington said he doesn’t remember the board telling Hugine he couldn’t hire someone or taking a vote on a candidate.
“The decision to hire members of his cabinet is a decision of the president’s, not the board of trustees,” Washington said.
Hugine wrote it is “not factual” that a large number of athletes had to attend summer school to meet academic eligibility requirements. For 2006-2007, 177 student-athletes met or exceeded university and NCAA standards, he said. That year, only 23 student-athletes attended summer school to met eligibility requirements -- others attended summer school for various reasons, such as to get core classes out of the way or participate in voluntary strength and conditioning.
“... What is most important to the University is that we graduate our athletes, unlike what happens at many of the major universities where there appears to be more of a concern about athletic performance than the completion of the degree,” Hugine wrote.
He said the pass rate in the nursing program increased from 45 percent to 80 percent. Only five students took the test during the last period he cited.
He admitted to problems in the teacher education program and said he would make appropriate personnel changes.
Hugine also said he met criteria on his objective of enhancing student life, while trustees scored him a 2.4. Trustees said safety issue accomplishments were made after “continuous significant Board intervention,” that the university was reactive instead of proactive, and that a “complete, comprehensive” safety plan wasn’t in place.
Hugine wrote, “While our goal is zero incidents, a review of reported statistics on crime at the University reveals that the campus is safe.” He said the university has been proactive, putting procedures in place to enhance security and safety.
Trustees gave Hugine a 3 on enhancing the university’s administrative and physical infrastructure, noting the university submitted the audit on time and made enhancements to the MLK Auditorium, Nance Hall and the Student Union Building. But they also had concerns, saying the president was opposed to artificial turf, a JumboTron for the stadium and the branding campaign. Trustees also cited his opposition to the University Village Housing Complex and the time it took to clear up real estate issues for the Clyburn Transportation Center.
Hugine notes that not only did the audit get in on time, but SCSU received its second CAFR Certificate of Excellence in Government Reporting. He said he exceeded expectations in that area, and also by completing the 755-bed student housing project and six other projects, as well as completing $4.5 million in deferred maintenance.
While trustees complained that he made cuts in projects approved by the board, Hugine refers to minutes from a Dec. 7, 2006, board meeting in which he says the board approved the cuts to address the enrollment shortfall at the time.
He also wrote he also shouldn’t be judged on expressing concerns about artificial turf, the JumboTron and the branding campaign, since they not part of the objective criteria upon which he was to be judged. Hugine says it was his job to “review and make recommendations” to trustees, and to say he was opposed implies he shouldn’t make recommendations “for fear of retribution.” He also notes the minutes of the board meetings contain no comments opposed to artificial turf or the JumboTron.
He says the university did not buy University Village when it was initially offered it because it couldn’t afford the $4-5 million price tag. It was eventually purchased for $9 million, he said.
Hugine got a 3 on research development and community involvement, with trustees giving Hugine credit for a number of economic/research initiatives. But they also complained of not being aware of one partnership, that “the research area is flat” and the Economic and Research Division is not fully staffed, with a number of interim appointments.
But Hugine wrote he exceeded expectations. And he says the board was aware of the partnership, again citing board minutes. And he says the statement the research area is flat “is not factual,” as SCSU generates the fourth-highest amount of research and sponsored programs in the state and ranks highest among the state’s teaching universities, beating the College of Charleston by more than $1 million.
And he says the economic and research division was not fully staffed because he was awaiting the appointment of a permanent vice president. The VP’s position wasn’t filled, he said, because the board wanted him to work with the S.C. Research Authority, but SCRA personnel changes delayed the process by six months. And then the SCRA recommended SCSU use a search firm to fill the position, with a service fee of $250 an hour to facilitate the process.
On his fifth objective, enhancing funding and the image of the university, Hugine received a 3.2 from trustees. They said while the Democratic presidential debate last year enhanced the university’s image, they had 12 specific concerns.
They said Hugine hadn’t raised a significant amount of money, SCSU had no fund-raising plan and the university has an internal climate of “suspicion and mistrust.” It also cited “Ethics issues with members of the Board of Trustees as evident by the Agency Head Salary Commission feedback.”
Hugine wrote that he exceeded expectations on the objective criteria. Fund-raising increased from $1.5 million in 2002-2003 to $2.5 million in 2006-2007, including in-kind donations during the presidential debate. He also noted the trustees’ bylaws state the board is “a major fundraiser.” He says the assistant vice president of development has a plan to raise funds, contrary to what the evaluation said, and “the Assistant VP was not allowed to perform his functions.”
Regarding the ethics issues with members of the board of trustees, Hugine wrote “Questioning a public employee’s ethics is a very serious legal matter that must be substantiated by factual information.”
And regarding the climate of “suspicion and mistrust,” Hugine wrote that “is a very strong indictment and one that must be supported by substantial documented evidence, but that he would welcome a report on that. He said the university has a formal process for dealing with concerns.
T&D City Editor Gene Crider can be reached by e-mail at gcrider@timesanddemocrat.com and by phone at 803-533-5570. Comment on this and other stories at The TandD.com.