Some lawmakers question Tommy Bowden’s $3.5 million ‘orange parachute’
Legislators reacted mostly with approval Monday to the news that Clemson’s head football coach was leaving his job in the middle of the season, though some questioned the $3.5 million “orange parachute” buyout that will be paid to Tommy Bowden.
The buyout comes as Clemson and other state agencies face new budget cuts and at a time of national financial crisis that university President James Barker recently said could impact “every source of revenue” at Clemson and result in cuts that “will be felt.”
Reacting to Bowden’s departure, Rep. Harry Cato of Travelers Rest said, “It was time.”
Cato, a Clemson graduate and chairman of the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee, added, “I was ready for a change. I have a great deal of respect for Tommy Bowden, the man, and what he did with the football program. But there was needed change to uplift the spirits of the fans, the players, the IPTAY base, etc.”
Rep. Jeff Duncan of Clinton, also a Clemson graduate, said in January that Bowden’s contract shouldn’t be renewed.
“I could have saved Clemson all that money,” he said. “I didn’t think he had the killer instinct. Tommy Bowden was a good man, but he just didn’t have the respect of the players, I don’t think.”
Sen. Larry Martin of Pickens echoed the sentiment of several lawmakers in saying that grumblings about the football team were no secret.
“It’s unfortunate,” he said. “I don’t think anybody wants to see a departure in mid-season like this. That is something they will have to live with, and I’m sure they made it based on what the impact would be of doing otherwise.”
Sen. David Thomas, a Greenville County attorney who received his law degree from the University of South Carolina, said he was a Bowden fan.
“I’m despondent,” he said. “My preference is that they would have kept him on. It’s a bad day.”
Rep. Bill Sandifer of Seneca said Clemson fans have been “extremely disappointed in the direction that the football program has taken recently.”
“It was absolutely mandatory we make a change,” he said.
However, Sandifer said the buyout clause invites scrutiny.
“I do think there has to be some accountability for why Coach Bowden’s contract was extended and increased last year,” he said. “I certainly want us to look into who ultimately made that decision and why. The buyout certainly is greater now than it was a year ago.”
Sen. John Land, a University of South Carolina graduate, called the buyout an “orange parachute for doing nothing.” He said he didn’t believe the decision for Bowden to leave in mid-season was well thought out.
“It sure is a lot of money going to somebody for not working,” he said. “We’re complaining across the country about the CEO golden parachutes. I reckon that is an orange parachute.”
Others noted that the buyout money wouldn’t come from taxpayers or from tuition.
“Unfortunately, that’s where football is in general,” Cato said. “The donor base is just going to have to pick that up. Obviously that’s not something that is paid with tax dollars.”
Martin said, “I assume the decision was made in part based on the total financial impact to the program. That’s all anyone can assume when you are talking about that kind of money.”
Joel Sawyer, spokesman for Gov. Mark Sanford, said the governor would have a problem with the buyout if any student fees were involved.
“It might not have made the best sense in the world to do a contract extension that could impact those fees when we already have some of the highest state tuition in the nation,” Sawyer said, who added that Bowden’s departure wasn’t a surprise.
“Given some of the rumblings that have been out there for the past couple of years, the actions of today are not what someone would characterize as a remote possibility,” he said.
By Tim Smith
The Greenville News
October 14, 2008