The commission’s argument – that it is simply looking out for the interests of taxpayers -- is a popular one among regulatory bodies, and one which typically resonates with those taxpayers. Unfortunately, in this case, CHE has resorted to distorting the facts and mischaracterizing the impact of its actions in an attempt to increase its oversight of the state’s higher education institutions.

This focal point of this push has been CHE’s “guidance” that insists athletics and auxiliary capital projects (those projects for non-academic facilities) be paid for with at least 50 percent cash. This one-size-fits-all approach to governance ignores the differences in size, mission and financial health among the state’s 33 public universities. It also ignores the realities of financing for large and complex projects where issuing debt in the form of bonds often is the prudent approach, especially in a low-interest rate environment such as the one in which we live today.

This approach already has been used as the basis to stall progress for a capital project that would result in the construction of a new tennis facility at Clemson for use by our student-athletes, the university community and the Clemson community at large. CHE’s action in this case could well increase the cost of the project and cost the university millions in lost investment returns.

CHE’s claims that its capital project financing guidelines have been put into place to save taxpayers money simply don’t hold water for the simple reason that this project, like all athletics projects at Clemson, requires no taxpayer money. Clemson Athletics is a completely self-supporting organization. No taxpayer funds or student tuition and fees are used for the operations of Clemson’s 19 varsity sports nor for construction of athletics facilities. 

CHE has said that its “North Star” is taking action to ensure access, affordability and education in higher education. Yet, much of its focus of late has been on the financing of capital projects, despite the fact that debt service accounts for less than 7 percent of the operating budget of all state universities in South Carolina – and less than 4 percent at Clemson. CHE’s efforts to exert control over capital project financing do nothing to ensure access or make higher education more affordable for South Carolinians. CHE Chairman Tim Hofferth is fond of saying “if not us, then who?” when asked about his organization’s continued push for more authority of the state’s public universities.

The answer is simple: The state, through the thoughtful and diligent efforts of the South Carolina General Assembly, the Joint Bond Review Committee, the State Fiscal Accountability Authority, the comptroller general and the governor’s office has become a model for effective oversight of higher education. 

Rigorous oversight from the bodies named above, in addition to strong management from university Boards of Trustees, already ensures that capital projects are carefully vetted and prudently financed. Indeed, South Carolina is one of just eight states in the country that doesn’t use taxpayer dollars or broad-based student fees to fund athletic facilities. 

At Clemson, “best is the standard” in everything we do. Thousands of faculty and staff, supported by a proud and generous alumni base, work every day to provide an affordable, world-class education. The university has been recognized for its efforts by consistently being ranked as one of the top 25 public universities in the country and being named one of the “best buys” in higher education. Additionally, the university’s financial health has never been stronger as evidenced by our historically strong bond ratings.

Make no mistake: Clemson welcomes appropriate oversight that adds value and protects the interests of the residents of South Carolina, and the university has a long history of working constructively with a full spectrum of regulatory bodies. 

In the case of the Commission on Higher Education’s capricious push for greater control over capital projects at the state’s public universities, however, the only thing being added to the equation is an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that neither supports the mission of our higher education institutions nor serves the interests of taxpayers.

It is Clemson’s hope that Gov. McMaster will agree with his colleagues in the General Assembly and limit CHE’s authority over university financing of capital projects by allowing Proviso 11.23 to stand.