“It’s like being CEO of a cemetery. You have lots of people underneath you, but ain’t nobody listening.”
Erskine Bowles on being president of the University of North Carolina system, speaking at Wake Forest University.
Bowles characterization rings even truer today.
For the first time in almost two years a demonstration of leadership is emerging from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Carolina chancellor Holden Thorp took the bold, courageous and only step by resigning from his position effective at the conclusion of the current academic year. In the end, it was only Thorp who stuck his head above the fog that had descended upon and plagued all levels of UNC leadership – everyone from Thorp to Carolina trustees, UNC system president Tom Ross and the UNC Board of Governors. The fog is so thick, in May of this year Ross proclaimed the “situation” resolved. No one could look beyond their Carolina pride (21 of out of 32 voting BOG members are UNC alumni); make the necessary and tough decisions; the leadership failure is shared by all. Thorp’s decision is the appropriate one. He now understands the penalty of leadership.
The vacuum of leadership was deafening and destructive, not only to Carolina but to the entire UNC system. Ross, trustees and the BOG can regain the public’s trust by conducting an open and more transparent search for Thorp’s replacement. Bring the finalists to campus. Allow them to share their vision with the campus. Gain valuable community feedback.
The UNC system is no stranger to open chancellor searches. Appalachian State University chose their current chancellor in an open search. He and other finalists made public visits to campus, interacting and speaking with various university constituencies. Paul Gates, former ASU faculty chair and member of the search committee told The News and Observer in 2004 that, “It went off without a hitch. It gave us a second look at the candidates and how they interacted with each group. If they’re on thin ice at home, we don’t want them here.”
There’s a new scandal brewing at UNC Chapel Hill. As a part of their investigative reporting, the News and Observer has requested internal documents from the university’s dental foundation. The university has claimed the documents are not public records because the foundation is a “separate” not for profit organization.
The News and Observer responded with a harsh editorial, UNC made some bad calls:
One factor that brought all this to The N&O’s attention was an audit of the foundation helping the dental school, an audit that led to the resignation of the head of that foundation, who had been Tami Hansbrough’s boss. The N&O has been trying to obtain a copy of the dental foundation audit and related expense records, but has been told by foundation officials that those things are not public records. If they’re connected to a public university’s dental school and its fundraising, then they are public records and university and foundation officials only deepen suspicions when they try to claim otherwise. Thorp should support the release of the records immediately.
UNC chancellor Holden Thorp’s claims that the foundation is separate from the university are laughable. Try giving money to the foundation online, you’re redirected the university’s development site. The foundation appears to be staffed by UNC employees, with @unc email addresses. Just take a look below at this screen shot of the dental foundation’s website… which just so happens to be located on a university url: https://www.dentistry.unc.edu/foundation/
The foundation staff are even listed in the UNC Staff Directory.
It’s quite clear that the UNC Chapel Hill School of Dentistry’s Dental Foundation is very much a part of NC’s public university and thus subject to public scrutiny and transparency. For some time now I have called on UNC President Tom Ross to make a leadership change at Carolina, and could not agree more with The N&O’s editorial conclusion, “With a scandal in the football program that resulted in a coach’s dismissal and fraud investigations involving the African studies curriculum, Thorp should now understand the necessity of public disclosure and candor.”
A source close to the University of North Carolina system indicates that some members of the Board of Governors are working to remove Holden Thorp as chancellor of the Chapel Hill campus. The members intend to make a formal motion at the Board’s next gathering if UNC President Tom Ross fails to dismiss Thorp by the September meeting.
When asked why, the source simply said, “The university is the laughing-stock of the nation and the damage is spreading to the entire system. The only solution is transparency and a leadership change.”
Honest NC will provide further details as they become available.
North Carolina pays one individual $333,938 a year to coach college basketball.
North Carolina may pay individuals who were forcibly sterilized against their will a one-time payment of $50,000.
Who said there were more important things in life than Carolina basketball?
N.C. panel: Pay eugenics victims $50,000 - A governor’s task force voted Tuesday to recommend paying $50,000 each to survivors who were sterilized under North Carolina’s eugenics program. The legislature will have to approve any payments.
Members of the Media and Friends of Open Government:
Please find two emails: (1) from UNC President Tom Ross and (2) from Brent Barringer, lawyer and BOG member, in response to may email “Confidence in UNC should be restored, not deteriorated.”
As you will read, UNC leaders refuse to answer the fundamental question – was any UNC business discussed at this “informal session”? If business was discussed, then it is CLEARLY a violation of the NC Open Meetings Law.
I will of course copy you on my response to UNC leaders. They may try to avoid the issue by “attacking” my words, yet the truth is on our side.
The definition of a lie is, “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive.” President Ross is right to say I do not have all the facts – that is not possible because the public and media were NOT ALLOWED at this “informal gathering.”
Yet I know the truth; University business WAS discussed, and under NC law the meeting should have been announced to the public, media should have been invited, role taken, and minutes kept.
With the truth on my side, I have thus come to the unfortunately conclusion that UNC leaders are and have lied about this matter.
In a time of NCAA investigations, million dollar contract bailouts, rampant cheating, resignations and firings, budget cuts… we need and must demand openness. And that is why I will continue to ask UNC – who among them will lead?
I’ll keep you updated, andrew
PS – what also amazes me is that no one leading our great University stopped and asked, “they say what we are about to do is legal, but is it ETHICAL?”
Related posts: UNC Truth Battle – part 4
Public News Service has a great write-up about the far reaching implications of Amendment One, or the Marriage Amendment.
UNC professors Holning Lau and Maxine Eichner commented on the subject, describing the far reaching implications for all couples. By excluding non-traditional unions that the state already recognizes, such as domestic partnerships, the amendment could force business to limit their employees’ health insurance benefits and could strip certain North Carolinians of their domestic violence protections. This is further evidence that the purpose of this amendment is not to protect North Carolinians, but to foist a narrow-minded agenda on nearly 10 million people of various faiths, creeds and ideals.
Source: Public News Service
The Supreme Court of Missouri discarded the University of Missouri System’s appeal in a class-action lawsuit contending that the system violated state law for almost two decades by charging tuition to in-state undergraduates. The appeal stemmed from a ruling late last year that the University of Missouri illegally collected hundreds of millions of dollars in tuition from in-state students since 1986. The judgment was based on an 1889 state law that entitled Missouri residents to a free education.
It is estimated that over 250,000 Missouri students were illegally charged tuition, but because of statutes of limitations, up to 150,000 students are eligible for monetary relief or educational vouchers. It is estimated that the system may have to pay up to $450 million, plus interest, in damages. To put that number in perspective, the Missouri University system receives less money than that annually from the Missouri state legislature. That is almost the equivalent of shutting down multiple campuses of the University of North Carolina system.
Before 1986, the University of Missouri charged students a small flat fee to attend school. But then the university system began charging students tuition, or as system officials call it “educational fees,” based on the number of credit hours and classes a student was taking. This system of assessing tuition and fee charges is found throughout the country and is the same one employed by the University of North Carolina system.
Sound familiar? Well, North Carolina has a similar provision about education, but instead of state law, it is found in the state constitution. Article IX, Section 9 of the state constitution reads the “Benefits of public institutions of higher education…The General Assembly shall provide that the benefits of The University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense.”
In light of recent proposed and dramatic tuition increases across the UNC System, including N.C. State and UNC-Chapel Hill, the time has come to launch our own lawsuit against the state and the university. Over the next few weeks, a team of attorneys and other professionals will be recruited to assist in this lawsuit. A Web site will be established that will allow N.C. students, families and graduates to access additional information and learn how to join the class action suit. Ultimately, we will ask the court to issue an injunction for increases and ask that the state refund tuition costs for overcharged students.
As someone who has been fighting unreasonable tuition increases for a number of years, I don’t believe anybody wanted this matter to be settled in court. I would have rather seen the issue resolved by the General Assembly as constitutionally mandated. Instead, the legislature failed to adequately fund the university system and allowed campuses to increase tuition at dramatic rates and for laughable reasons.
Students and their families would not be the first group to bring a lawsuit against the state. Low-income school districts sued the state to bring fairness and parity in the way K-12 education is funded. A couple of years ago, 
N.C. taxpayers sued the state over double taxation and received court ordered reimbursements. Currently, there are dozens of municipalities that are suing the state over funds that were seized to plug gaps in the state’s budget deficit.
The students that brought the lawsuit against the state of Missouri did not sue just to gain financially, even though it looks like Missouri students are owed between $2,000 and $3,500 for each semester they attended the university. They litigated because they felt the state had an obligation to uphold the laws it passes. This is especially true when University of Missouri officials were arguing that “educational fees” were not the same as tuition.
The same can be said for our lawsuit. I am not in this just for the money. I want the state of North Carolina and its elected officials in the General Assembly to voluntarily oblige by its own laws – its own constitution. Because they have not been able to do this, then the only other course of action is to bring about a lawsuit.
I am tired of listening to administrators banter about how they don’t want to increase tuition but they have to because of the General Assembly’s budget cuts. I am tired of the state hiding behind the facade of “low tuition.” I am tired of tuition increases. I am tired of qualified students being forced out of higher educational opportunities because of their economic background.
Public Notice: The time for debating tuition is over – I’ll see you in court.
Imagine if students sued North Carolina over illegally assessed tuition charges. I know my tenure here at NCSU hasn’t produced an education free of expense. You may argue tuition in North Carolina is one of the lowest in the nation, and I would agree.
However, tuition only makes up one-third of the total cost of higher education. The state constitution doesn’t guarantee low tuition — it guarantees low-cost higher education. The average student attending a public university will spend approximately $16,000 per year* to attend one of North Carolina’s campuses.
So let me ask, is $16,000 a year low-cost education? Is the state extending the benefits of higher education to all people in this state? I would argue the answer is, unfortunately, no.
Here is my proposal. Students — past and present — who have attended one of the 16 campuses of the University of North Carolina system should bring forth a class action lawsuit against the state of North Carolina and the General Assembly for not upholding their constitutional responsibilities. If the state of North Carolina, like the state of Missouri, cannot voluntarily abide by its own laws, then the only other course of action is to bring a lawsuit.
Students would not be the first to take such an action. Lower-income school districts, taxpayers and municipalities have or are taking financial shots at the state. Why should students be forced to pay each year for increasing higher education costs when the General Assembly has a clear responsibility?
I don’t care if the state is in a budget crisis or not. If the state doesn’t want to live up to its obligation, then change the constitution. But don’t put on a facade that, just because the public tuition is low in North Carolina, higher education is affordable.
If the ruling in Missouri is upheld, the university system will be devastated financially. That is not what I want in North Carolina, nor is it the reason I am bringing suit against the General Assembly.
I want the higher education in North Carolina to be truly affordable and open to every qualified citizen no matter his or her economic background. The University of North Carolina has too many opportunities wasted because someone was locked out financially.
*The post was originally written from 2002-2004, and portions have been previously published.
“University of Missouri Tuition Lawsuit”
Michele Norris discusses the case with Bob Herman, a lawyer for the students who brought the suit.
In response to my post North Carolina’s racism, a learned individual made the following comment:
“One point of clarification: Butch Davis’ buyout was taken care of by private funds, not public funds. The Ram’s Club–funded with private donations–is picking up the tab for that, just as they pick up the tab for the salary of Roy Williams and all the other coaches on UNC’s payroll.”
This is a common misperception perpetuated by the University so they can operate without regard to their public mission and stash large cashes of funds for use towards their personal agendas.
Roy Williams is a PUBLIC employee working for the State of North Carolina. His salary is paid for by the People of the State. The People just so happen to have raised portions of his salary through private donations instead of taxpayers dollars or student fees.
My continued response to the commentator.
“You are not correct and have been fooled by the University. All money collected by the University – either for athletics or student fees or foundation money belongs to the State of North Carolina. Private money supports the University’s PUBLIC mission. There is no such thing as private money sitting in pots with inside the University.”