On April 2, the South Carolina Office of Inspector General released a concluding statement on the investigation into Clemson University’s involvement in the Newry development controversy.
Clemson was not found to be involved in any wrongdoing or violation regarding the Newry development, but was recommended to increase transparency, per SIG’s investigation statement.
The development project included a 600-acre property, Newry Mill, with plans for nearly 5,200 residential homes, a village center, a charter school and a satellite campus for Clemson.
In the executive summary, SIG noted that Oconee County has a history of wanting more affiliation with the University due to its close proximity. In 2023, Clemson was approached by developers associated with United Homes Group, who presented “an economic development concept that featured a research park to leverage the university’s proximity,” according to the statement.
Clemson previously stated it had been invited to a preliminary discussion about the research park, but the University had minimal interest in the proposal. “The developer’s pursuit of an arrangement with the university regarding the Newry development ended by November 2024,” per the statement.
SIG’s investigation focused its analysis and findings on determining whether or not the University took any action regarding the development, whether the actions of the University “complied with state law” and University policies and recommended “lessons learned from this matter.”
SIG conducted interviews with University personnel and examined internal documents to determine if the school had taken any action in response to the project, ultimately concluding that Clemson “did not initiate contact, offer endorsements, or engage in any form of advocacy or decision-making on the project.”
The Office also resolved that the University was not found of any “wrongdoing, violation of state law, or breach of university policy.”
SIG also probed former University President Jim Clements’ involvement in the development of the Newry project and found that he “complied with institutional requirements” set forth in his employment contract and was not involved in the development.
Lastly, SIG highlighted that under the University president’s contract and the board of trustees’ bylaws, the president must disclose certain information regarding participation to the board, either verbally or in writing.
SIG recommended that the University amend the disclosure requirement for the president to require written disclosure annually.
The Office addressed compliance with “applicable reporting requirements,” in which it suggested that the University should adopt a “university-wide policy mandating that all personnel … complete an annual affirmative attestation of any outside employment or compensated professional activities.”
