House Ways & Means Subcommittee Presentation
Chairman Giese, Subcommittee members and other legislators present
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to speak with you today and present Clemson University's priorities. We appreciate the work that you do on this committee in support of higher education.
Despite the state's revenue situation, there is reason for optimism when we consider the higher education landscape. Change comes slowly in the academy, but change is coming in South Carolina. We are headed in the right direction. Here's why I believe that.
First, a little more than a year ago, the Clemson University Board of Trustees adopted a new vision statement and a set of 10-year goals aimed at making Clemson one of the nation's top 20 public universities. That is an ambitious vision, but it is one that could yield significant benefits for the State of South Carolina. A top-tier research university can drive economic development, offer unmatched educational opportunities for our young people, and provide a higher level of service to our people, businesses, and communities.
Clemson is well positioned to achieve this vision. We currently rank in the top 40 national public universities and were named TIME Magazine's Public College of the Year for 2001. Our 70 percent growth rate in research support over the past two is unmatched by any other research institution. The average SAT of our incoming freshman class will probably surpass 1200 this fall. Clearly, Clemson is an institution with tremendous momentum.
Most significantly, we have a plan. We call it a "road map," but you would probably call it an academic strategic plan. We have defined roughly a dozen core research areas where we intend to grow centers of excellence, and each department is identifying their areas of emphasis and research niches.
They're also deciding which academic programs will grow, which ones will shrink or be merged, and which ones will go away over the next five years. The restructuring that Clemson completed in 1995 has created an environment where the idea of reducing a program or merging departments is viewed as a natural process, not a threat.
This high degree of focus, planning and attention to goals helped us earn two rare commendations from our SACS accreditation visiting team. One commendation was in the critical area of institutional effectiveness, and the other was given for the significant, almost unheard of, level of collaboration they found at Clemson. That tells me Clemson is headed in the right direction.
Second, we are seeing a new spirit of cooperation among the state's three research universities. The Boards of Clemson, USC and MUSC have all signed an agreement to collaborate in research, which is another indication that we are headed in the right direction. Our research sector can be very strong if we work together. Imagine a research university that has $300 million/year in external funding, contributes to all economic development areas from science and engineering to business and medicine, has a broad geographical and political base that extends from the coast to the I-85 corridor and beyond, and has raised more than a billion dollars in private gifts over the past five years. That's the combined horsepower of our three research universities. Although there will always be a healthy degree of competition among the universities, we can accomplish things together that no one of us could accomplish alone.
Third, we are seeing the business community engage to support higher education more aggressively than ever before. Whether it is the Governor's technology transition team or our own Greenville/Clemson partnership, we are seeing a new relationship of trust and mutual support between academia and the business sector.
And fourth, we have a new source of revenue - the education lottery - that creates opportunities to enhance education from kindergarten through graduate school.
Those same four factors were the key components of Georgia's Research Alliance. That model, which we have studied closely, has allowed Georgia's three primary research institutions to grow and thrive, spinning off companies, creating jobs, and making Georgia a hub of the new economy.
So there is reason for optimism. The combination of focus by universities, collaboration among research institutions, support from the business sector, and a dedicated source of funding is a model that has worked in Georgia. It can work here. South Carolina has been left out of the new economy, but we have a chance to catch up.
We ask for your support in the following critical areas:
First, stability in base funding. Although there are some targeted programs in our budget request, there is no higher priority than the financial stability of our base budget for academic and public service programs. Although we began the fiscal year with flat funding, mid-year budget cuts have reduced funding in academic programs by more than $7 million and public service programs by more than $8 million. Since the public service programs do not receive any funding from tuition, the budget cuts there have been particularly devastating. We hope that you can return us at least to July 2001 funding levels.
Second, we endorse and encourage you to support the business-led initiative to set aside part of lottery revenues to fund endowed chairs. While this funding is supportive of the three research universities, it is primarily of the business climate and the economic future of the state. As I mentioned earlier, Clemson has identified the core research areas we intend to grow - areas such as plant genomics, automotive science, information and communications technology, advanced materials, and environmental science, just to name a few. Endowed chairs will help us recruit world-class faculty into these areas.
Third, we ask for your support for two special projects. * The first is for $1 million for cost-sharing to bring a second National Science Foundation engineering research center to the state at Clemson. Our first NSF center has multiplied the state's original $1 million investment into annual external support of $7 million to $8 million per year. Another center - this one is wireless communication - has the same potential for federal and industry support. * The second special project is "Call Me Mister," the highly successful effort to recruit, educate, certify and place African American men in our public schools. This program has earned significant private and federal support, but the state's previous commitment is still needed. This program has earned South Carolina significant positive publicity. We need to honor the commitment we have made to the young men currently enrolled in school.
Fourth, we ask for relief from provisos and regulations that limit our ability to generate revenue or that add to operating costs. A host of regulatory changes proposed by the Task Force for Regulatory Relief to the S.C. Council of College and University Presidents could save millions of dollars statewide. I encourage you to consider the recommendations.
In this same vein, I should point out that we will not be able to fund our academic plan if tuition increases are limited to the higher education price index, unless general appropriations make up the difference. Since we are operating very efficiently after our reorganization, if appropriations go down, tuition must increase. We have lost more funding since July 1 than was restored by last year's vetoes, which were upheld by the legislature. Therefore, this proviso is inappropriate for this budget.
Finally, we endorse continued funding for EPSCOR and the academic endowment incentive program, which provide funding that we can leverage for additional federal and private dollars.
You asked specifically how the House of Representatives approved budget will affect Clemson.
The House budget did not cut academic programs, which was very good news. As I said at the outset, stability of our base budgets is our top priority, particularly since we have been cut by $7.4 million since the school year began. However, the House budget did cut our public service activities budget by 3.8 percent - and that's on top of mid-year budget cuts totaling more than $8 million. On the positive side, the House did include additional funding for PSA's regulatory services because of the critical role Clemson plays in protecting the food supply from natural and manmade threats.
We were also pleased that the House endorsed $30 million for endowed chairs, and while this is $10 million less than the Governor recommended, it is an excellent starting point.
The House did not provide funding for "Call Me Mister," which does not send a positive signal to the young men who have made the commitment to enroll in school.
The House included $500,000 for cost-sharing for an NSF C enter in wireless communication - half of what we requested. The faculty involved in wireless communication research at Clemson have a combined external funding record of more than $10 million, so we consider the $1 million request to be reasonable and an excellent investment. This Center should have direct economic development benefits for our state.
We appreciate the effort made by the House to protect and support higher education, and we believe the Senate will do the same.
Again, I thank you for your time and your attention. I will be glad to answer any questions at this time.
Cathy Sams (cathy.sams@pubaff.clemson.edu) Ph: (864) 656-4233 FAX: (864) 656-0812