Journal of the Senate
of the First Session of the 111th General Assembly
of the State of South Carolina
being the Regular Session Beginning Tuesday, January 10, 1995

Page Finder Index
| Printed Page 2550, May 8 | Printed Page 2570, May 9 |
Printed Page 2560 . . . . . Monday, May 8, 1995
Q. But that's the basis --
A. That's the only thing.
Q. Is that a civil or is that a criminal?
A. I have no idea what it was. I guess it would be -- it's not criminal I know. But --
THE CHAIRMAN: That would have been criminal had he been found guilty.
A. Had I been even named, but, you know, when they order -- they issue a cease and desist telling you not to do something, well, if you're not doing it, then there's no reason to worry about not doing something you're not doing.
Q. But a cease and desist -- again, you lawyers help me -- what does that mean?
A. It means --
Q. Cease and desist doing what?
A. Well, when I met with Mr. Miles it was "stop it," and I said, "Well, I never did it." "I know, we'll get it straightened out," and they did.
THE CHAIRMAN: I might say for the committee's information that the SLED background check shows no convictions there.
SENATOR GIESE: No convictions.
THE CHAIRMAN: He has no record, yes, sir. That's criminal.
A. And I might reiterate, too, that what we're talking about, sir, was purely, purely administrative in nature and it -- I mean, I did not even -- it was -- it took me about ten days to get the thing straightened out with the Secretary of State's office.
THE CHAIRMAN: Further, the Charleston Clerk of Court records shows he has a judgment.
A. That is correct, sir. I am arguing that judgment with a contractor who performed services on my home.
THE CHAIRMAN: Lee Building Products for $14,000?
A. That's exactly right, sir. That's exactly right.
Q. Got a judgment against him?
A. That's a judgement against him that the building services is trying to get me to pay. I did not even know that judgment existed until I did the search on this, and I have referred that back to my attorney and that will be taken care of.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Inabinett.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:
Q. Mr. Peper, since the Citadel is undergoing some proposed changes?
A. Yes, sir.
Printed Page 2561 . . . . . Monday, May 8, 1995
Q. As it relates to females integrating the corps, have you been involved or has the Board of Visitors been involved in some of the decisions as it relates to females integrating the corps? And if so, can you give us your feelings as it relates --
A. Be happy to.
Q. -- to interrogation?
A. I'll be happy to. We have a -- as a board, we just felt like what we had to do on this particular instance -- and by the way, I am named in the lawsuit. I had the privilege of being elected three years ago by your body, and then two weeks later, the lawsuit came out, so had the election been two weeks later, my name would not have been on there.

But nonetheless we have authorized our legal counsel to do whatever he felt we needed to do within the letter of the law. We have appealed it now to the Fourth Circuit. It's been given back to the District Court to come up with a parallel program. We will do whatever we are told to do and whatever the final decision is, is what we will uphold.
Q. Could you relate more to first person than the board --
A. My experience.
Q. -- as a whole?
A. The board as a whole, my experience, sir?
Q. Yes. Yes, your feelings.
A. My feelings on it is I support diversity in education, and I don't think that the state should make every school for everything all the time. I think that we have certain situations where I want equal opportunity, but by the same token, I also think that the stand that we are taking in the seeking of diversity of the education I think is a very modernistic approach to education. And I support that.
Q. Thank you, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Littlejohn.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN:
Q. Are you telling us that you favor women in the corps then, Mr. Peper?
A. Personally, I do not, sir. I favor the existing admissions practice, and I have voted for that as it's on the record. However, I will state that if told by the Fourth Circuit and/or the District Court, wherever it finally stops, we will do whatever we have to do, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions for the Colonel? Senator Glover.
SENATOR GLOVER: Yes.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GLOVER:

Printed Page 2562 . . . . . Monday, May 8, 1995
Q.Mr. Peper, presently serving as a board member, what do you think that you have brought to the Citadel, and then we'll get to my second question on affirmative action?
A. Okay.
Q. But tell --
A. What I have brought to -- prior to my election, obviously, I am the second youngest member on the board. The Citadel board historically has been one of more mature in age gentlemen. There are two things that I have brought. I brought what I considered to be a fresh new look to it, from an age standpoint, from a business standpoint as well.

I'm not in the retired state. I'm still an active business man. But more importantly than that is I am also a field grade officer in the United States Marine Corps Reserves, and I am the only member on the board that's presently in the Reserves, and I do a lot of work with the ROTC programs as far as advising them, which courses they need to be taking to prepare to go to flight school as I did and -- and other educational opportunities.

Going back to the funding, I might throw in that I attended the Citadel on a full ROTC scholarship, three and a half years. But I was also able to work a paper route. I delivered The Post and Courier for my four years there.

But I think when you go back to the funding, Mr. Inabinett, I think we need to stop cutting. I think we just -- the cutting is cut. There ain't more cutting to be there. What we need to do is find out where we're going to get more money to pay for this education. I think what we ought to be doing is looking at alternative sources of revenue earmarked for education as opposed to keep trying to figure how we're going to get by on a percentage formula.
Q. Your service as -- during your time as a member of the Board of Visitors, have there been any incidences on campus that may have brought your services in question?
A. No, ma'am. Not at all.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions.
SENATOR GLOVER: Yes. One other on the affirmative action.
Q. Looking at South Carolina and with the information that you just stated on our need for resources and other sources of revenue in this state, how as a board of visitors member, how would you address and answer the question on affirmative action?

There is a need in this state for us to come into the 21st century realizing that multicultural education, diversity is the way for the 21st

Printed Page 2563 . . . . . Monday, May 8, 1995
century. Bearing that in mind, and with your stance for single gender education --
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. -- what about --
A. I'm going to tell you, I'm very proud of the Citadel board as a collective group, but I'm going to also commend the candidates I've seen today for the South Carolina State board, I've been very impressed. And I could tell you if my service is fortunate to be reelected, the first thing I'm going to do is recommend our president that we have a joint trustee meeting with the Citadel Board and South Carolina State trustees. I've seen some individuals here I think we could really learn some things from today. So I'd like to commend them.

Regarding affirmative action at the Citadel, I don't think anybody is happy where they are. I think everyone is always striving for more. As I tell my son, there's two kinds of people in this world, there's givers and takers, and there's no in between, you're either one or the other, and that's all there is to it. And giving back to the Citadel is my goal.

Going back to the affirmative action question, what I really think, and we're stressing this with our foundation department presently, is that in our recruitment, we specifically are trying to recruit minority African-American professors. Unfortunately, so is everyone else. And there are a lot of schools that are able to pay more than we are.

And one of the things that we're looking at is an added stipend for filling some of those positions. And, so I can't say that -- I want equal for everybody. And I'm very proud of our school and I'm proud of what we've done. Should we be satisfied? No, ma'am, we should not be. We should always be striving for better.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any others? Thank you, Colonel. Next we have Dennis J. Rhoad.
DENNIS J. RHOAD, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
MR. RHOAD - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q. Mr. Rhoad, do you have any health related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the board in a full capacity?
A. No, sir, I don't.
Q. Considering your present occupation or other activities, would you be able to attend board meetings on a regular basis?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you have any interest professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of service on the board?
A. No, sir.

Printed Page 2564 . . . . . Monday, May 8, 1995
Q. Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A. No, sir.
SENATOR WILSON: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Wilson.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR WILSON:
Q. Mr. Rhoad, what would you propose to promote a four year graduation rate at the Citadel?
A. Senator Wilson, what I would propose given my background, and I think I've included a brief resume in my information, I teach as an adjunct professor on the Citadel campus now every other semester. I teach a Constitutional Law class, and I believe while the Citadel's four-year graduation rate is excellent, one of the things that I think is being lost at the Citadel and other colleges and universities is the glitter, if you will, of teaching.

I think that a lot of professors spend too much time pursuing their scholarly publication goals and what have you, and as a result of that, I think the emphasis is away from the classroom. And when you have a small student-professor ratio, it's critically important that the classroom be the focus. And I think that a lot of students who might ordinarily be average or mediocre will try even harder and pursue graduation goals even more fiercely if there's a feeling of the professor wants that, wants that graduation. I think that that's one of the things that the Citadel could improve on. Other schools as well.
Q. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Senator Giese.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q. You made an interesting point about teaching which I certainly agree with you a hundred percent, it should be emphasized more at the college level. Does the Citadel have kind of graduate assistant kind of thing that we have at the university where freshmen and sophomore years you're fortunate if you get a real live fully paid professor teaching you? Do they have graduate students doing some teaching?
A. No, sir, not at the Citadel. They have some adjunct professors such as myself, but there are no Citadel graduate students teaching in the liberal arts part that I know of. There may be some of that in the physical education department with the fifth year athlete and coaching.
Q. Thank you.
A. But not in the liberal arts area.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Inabinett.

Printed Page 2565 . . . . . Monday, May 8, 1995
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:
Q. Mr. Rhoad, I believe we may have an unsolved situation involving weapon of some sort at the Citadel a year or two ago?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How do you -- will you address the issue of the possibility of students being allowed to legally carry concealed weapons on campus?
A. Well, under the current Citadel rules you agree not to bring a weapon on campus as a student, as a Citadel cadet, unless you have it registered and it's a hunting weapon. I mean if you want to bring a shotgun home and store it in the Public Safety's office -- Public Safety Department's office you have to get permission for that. And if you're on the pistol team or something, you have a registered weapon along those lines.

If this proposed legislation that I've been reading about is passed, as a lawyer if I was on the board, I would try to look at the law and determine if the Citadel can continue to restrict as a requirement of attending the use of a weapon or the carrying of a weapon. And if they could do so constitutionally, I'd be in favor of continuing that policy. I don't think it's a good idea to have, you know, weapons on campus. I don't even believe a Citadel cadet can without violating the Citadel's rules, and I believe it's possibly an expulsion offense, carry a handgun in his glove compartment even though South Carolina law allows that.
Q. Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Glover.
SENATOR GLOVER: Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY MR. RHOAD:
Q. Mr. Rhoad, why do you want to serve on the Board of Visitors?
A. Well, there are several reasons, Senator Glover. I'm young, and I have a wife and one child and another one on the way, and I think that now is a good time for me when I'm active in civic groups and I'm active in my law practice to serve on the Citadel Board of Visitors. I'm not so far removed from having attended the Citadel that I think that gives me some insight perhaps some of the older members on the board don't have.

And in addition to that, the Citadel needs young bright leadership, just like all colleges do, and I'd like to serve my alma mater and lend to them, you know, my experience and my education and my service.
Q. Your views on affirmative action?
A. I've been listening to that question, I presume I'm the last one here today, if by affirmative action you mean judging someone on their merit regardless of what race, creed, gender they are, then I'm all in favor of affirmative action.

Printed Page 2566 . . . . . Monday, May 8, 1995
I think that we could perhaps look at the institution now as well as other institutions and perhaps the people serving those institutions that don't have the same qualifications as someone else might have, I think that an opportunity for someone to excel based upon, you know, one's merit should not be denied anyone at all.
Q. What are your personal feelings on the Shannon Faulkner situation? How do you feel about the Citadel and the acceptance of Ms. Faulkner?
A. You're asking my personal feeling? It's interesting that you asked us that because two years ago I ran into the current chairman of the board at the Citadel and he said, "Did you wife have the baby?" And I said yes. He said, "Great." I said, "Well, it's the class of 2018" or whatever. And he said "Oh, you had a son." And I said, "No, I had a daughter." And so he laughed and I laughed.

However, personally, having graduated from the Citadel and having seen the success rate and successes of the Citadel, I personally believe that the small, single gender environment would be changed dramatically and because of that, I'm not in favor of Ms. Faulkner attending the Citadel. However, as an adjunct professor teaching constitutional law, I'm a bit surprised by the Fourth Circuit's Court of Opinion. In fact, I thought they would probably say, you know, to the Citadel you need to admit Ms. Faulkner. And if, of course, that happened, I'm sure as a board member, I would as the other board members follow the court's order.

What the court's done now though is they've put us in a situation obviously where they've said okay, you can either admit Ms. Faulkner or you can try to come up with a parallel program, whatever that may be. But personally, I would be in favor of it remaining the way it is, single gender because I've done some research in the -- into the empirical study about single gender education, and it is a fact that -- I mean an undisputed fact regardless of what side of the constitutional issue you fall, that single gender education, you know, has great returns and great merits and I'm afraid that, you know, we'd lose some of that. It's not personal against Ms. Faulkner. It would be the changing of the single gender nature.
Q. So your firstborn is now out of her Citadel education?
A. Well, now, you didn't ask me that question.
Q. No, you mentioned it. I just wanted to know.
A. I -- that would be a very difficult thing if my daughter wanted to attend the Citadel. I'm not sure how I would approach that. I've got 16 years, though.
Q. Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Littlejohn.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN:

Printed Page 2567 . . . . . Monday, May 8, 1995
Q.Mr. Rhoad, as you know many Citadel cadets carry swords?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If we pass this gun law, do you think a Citadel senior would treat a weapon, a pistol, any different than he would a sword?
A. Is that assuming that --
Q. That's assuming they could carry inside --
A. -- you would be able to carry a gun?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I would hope that the average Citadel cadet would treat a handgun more carefully.
Q. But you know they would, don't you?
A. I beg your pardon.
Q. You know they would treat their pistol or weapon the same as they would the sword?
A. I would hope so, yes, sir. The reason --
Q. You don't know that being a Citadel graduate?
A. Well, you know, I've learned not to answer, you know, yes and no being a lawyer. But I would believe that and I would hope that would be the case.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Rhoad.
A. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: That completes our screening process of all candidates who were opposed. The unopposed were exempted. Do I hear a motion?
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT: Mr. Chairman, I move that all candidates screened today be reported as qualified, certified to --
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Inabinett moves that all candidates heard today be reported as qualified? Hear a second.
REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Littlejohn second. All in favor say aye, no --
SENATOR GLOVER: No. Question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, ma'am. Senator.
SENATOR GLOVER: Mr. Stoddard, I'm concerned that during the course of our screening that we have lost many of the voting members for -- to declare a candidate. I'd like to know if you think it's possible for us as a committee to come back maybe at a later time to --
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, we could do that, but with Mr. Giese's proxy that would be give us a majority. And he left that with me.
SENATOR GLOVER: I have some concerns about some candidates and could not vote for all of them to be --
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, if you would withdraw your motion.
Printed Page 2568 . . . . . Monday, May 8, 1995
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:Withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMAN: I'll accept the motion. We'll meet at 9:30 in the morning.
SENATOR GLOVER: That would be fine.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor say aye, opposed no. The ayes have it. Thank you for coming.
(There being nothing further, the proceedings concluded at 11:00 a.m.)

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the proceedings, consisting of ninety-five (95) pages, is a true and correct transcript of the proceedings; said proceedings were reported by the method of Stenotype with Backup.

I further certify that I am neither employed by nor related to any of the parties in this matter or their counsel; nor do I have any interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of same.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 26th day of April, 1995.

/s/Elaine M. Boyd
Certified Court Reporter (ID)
Notary Public for South Carolina
My commission Expires: March 9, 2002

The Committee met at 9:30 a.m. and all members were present. Upon a motion of Rep. Inabinett, seconded by Rep. Littlejohn, the committee met in executive session at the request of Col. Stephen Peper, an incumbent candidate for the Citadel Board. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Peper who stated "Gentlemen, I have enjoyed serving on the Citadel Board but due to pressing business interests and loyalty to my family, there just is not enough time to serve my alma mater that I love so much. At this time I would like to withdraw from the race." Rep. Inabinett moved that the Committee accept his withdrawal, seconded by Senator Giese. The motion carried unanimously. Senator Wilson moved that the committee rise. The Committee then repeated its actions taken in executive session. Upon motion of Rep. Littlejohn, the Committee adjourned.

(On motion of Senator WILSON, with unanimous consent, ordered printed in the Journal of Monday, May 8, 1995)

Printed Page 2569 . . . . . Monday, May 8, 1995
ADJOURNMENT

At 11:19 A.M., on motion of Senator LANDER, the Senate adjourned to meet Tuesday, May 9, 1995, at 12:00 Noon.

* * *

| Printed Page 2550, May 8 | Printed Page 2570, May 9 |
Page Finder Index

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 2:10 P.M.