ON THE WEBSITE:

• HANNA UPDATES: Latest on the storm headed for S.C.
• PET CORNER: News, SPCA listing and more
• ELITE 11 2008: An in-depth look at the region's best
• PET IDOL: Enter your pet in the search for the best

Overcast and 77° F

Advanced Search
You are not logged in. | Login | Register

Log in to TheTandD.com

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 

Matthews seeks to change SCSU board structure

By LEE TANT, T&D Staff WriterThursday, March 20, 2008

3 comment(s) | Default | Large

A new bill that would change the way South Carolina State University board members are selected has emerged in the State Senate.

The legislation sponsored by S.C. State alumnus and state Sen. John Matthews, D-Bowman, differs from a similar bill proposed by Orangeburg Democratic Rep. Jerry Govan earlier this year.

Matthews' bill calls for nine trustees of the 13-member S.C. State board to be selected by the General Assembly. Of those nine, six would be elected from the state's congressional districts and the remaining three would be at-large selections.

The S.C. State National Alumni Association would select three trustees, all of which must be graduates of the university. The governor would select the final member to round out the board.

"It will bring together a cohesiveness between the alumni and the board," said Matthews, who added the same process is in place at Winthrop University. "I've seen the Winthrop process work and it's worked well."

The fundamental difference between Matthews' bill and Govan's is that it does not remove any current trustees. Govan's bill called for the entire board to be removed by July 1 but did allow for current trustees to be re-elected back on the board. Under the new legislation, individual trustees would have their terms expire on June 13 of whatever year those terms are set to end.

Currently, the Legislature elects 12 of the university's trustees with the governor appointing one.

Govan will revamp his original bill in the House to reflect Matthews' in the Senate. He said the adjustments are part of a coordinated effort and that a new version of his bill will be the same as Matthews'.

"It enhances the chance of the bill passing," said Govan of both chambers having versions of the same bill. He noted that time is of the essence to get the legislation passed and the changes will cut down on the time the bills spend in committees.

Govan's original bill also proposed that six trustees would be selected by the Legislature, with the alumni association picking six as well. Govan said he would submit the amendments to his bill during a House Higher Education Subcommittee meeting next Thursday.

The last time that subcommittee met to discuss the bill, a heated verbal exchange broke out between Govan and S.C. State Board Chairman Maurice Washington over the merits of the legislation.

During that meeting, Washington suggested the bill was created to retaliate against the board for ousting former S.C. State President Dr. Andrew Hugine Jr. last December. Govan has said repeatedly that is not the case and the bill was formed to give the university's stakeholders more say in who runs the institution.

Washington did not have much to say regarding Matthews' bill other than it is the right of the General Assembly to draft such legislation.

"Our focus is beyond that. We're trying to appoint a president by July. We're committed to focusing on our duties, responsibilities and obligations to South Carolina State University," he said Wednesday.

 
3 comment(s)
The following comments are reader submitted. They do not represent the views of The T&D or Lee Enterprises.

supporter wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:46 AM:

" In the end, will it be the state national alumni who will select 3 or will it be alumus Senator Matthrews, Reprs. Govan, and Scott who will weigh on the select 3, which would be above and beyond their influence as legislators on the other 9. This will be micro-management to the 10th degree. My other question is, if this is not influenced by the Hugiene decision and not in retaliation, why is there such a rush? It seems no one is without motive in this. What a mess! "

abattiste wrote on Mar 20, 2008 2:01 AM:

" To allow Maurice Washington to remain on the BOT would be a big mistake. He will continue business as usual with his "transparent" operation. As long as we have to contend with Maurice Washington on the board there will be mistrust of the BOT and the feeling that he is still micromanaging. He talks a smooth game, but he fools only those who want to be fooled.
I am happy to see that the effort is being made by both the House and the Senate to make the changes. "

Chris' Cloths wrote on Mar 20, 2008 12:56 AM:

" Maurice Washington let the doorknob hit ya, where the dog should have bit ya. "



» Post a comment Thanks for your comment! Once approved, your comment will appear on the site.

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here To Sign in

Click here to get an account
it's free and quick
Please note: The Times and Democrat provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.

More News