The Nominating Committee proposes the following slate of officers and Executive Committee members for consideration by the full membership at the 2026 Annual Business Meeting, which will be held March 6 at the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center. (All have agreed to serve if elected.)

OFFICERS:

NEW MEMBERS:

For Executive Committee, daily representatives:

For Executive Committee, weekly representative:

RETURNING MEMBERS:

For Executive Committee, weekly representatives:

For Executive Committee, daily representative:

SCPA has received the following application for individual membership, which will be reviewed by the Executive Committee on March 5:

Please contact Jen Madden at (803) 750-9561 or via email if you have any comments about the applicant.

Editor's Note: Thanks to Sens. Shane Massey, Wes Climer, Tom Corbin, Richard Cash and Larry Grooms who raised concerns about this bill Wednesday during third reading. The Senate voted 30-13 after about 90 minutes of debate Tuesday to approve this bill. The Senators who voted no on second reading – standing up for the public's right to know  – include: Lee Bright, Wes Climer, Tom Corbin, Tom Fernandez, Mike Gambrell, Billy Garrett, Carlisle Kennedy, Josh Kimbrell, Shane Martin, Shane Massey, Harvey Peeler, Mike Reichenbach and Everett Stubbs.
The amount of money South Carolina universities pay intercollegiate athletes in NIL deals from its athletic revenues could be kept secret from the public under a fast-tracked bill the state Senate initially passed Tuesday.
But it hit a snag Wednesday afternoon after Majority Leader Shane Massey, R-Edgefield, raised concerns over universities sending public dollars into its athletic program. He said lawmakers were under the impression only money made by universities’ athletic programs, like through media rights or ticket sales, were used for NIL revenue-sharing deals.
“I think we need to know if they’re transferring that kind of money into those accounts that could then be used for payments,” Massey told reporters. “That’s a problem if they are.”
The University of South Carolina and Clemson University gave millions of dollars to its athletics programs last year, according to the 2025 NCAA financial reports. Where the funding comes from, and how it is spent, is not clear from the reports.
The bill was contested on the necessary third reading of the bill, and the legislation won’t go to the desk of Gov. Henry McMaster for final approval until the bill is voted on. ...
But Massey, the Senate Majority leader, told his chamber he was concerned universities were funneling public dollars into their athletics programs, which could go towards revenue-sharing agreements, reading from a news report published Tuesday. The Post and Courier reported Clemson’s athletics program received $20 million in “direct institutional funds” from the university in fiscal year 2025.
By Lucy Valeski, The State | Read more

There was this really bizarre moment at Wednesday’s Senate hearing on a bill to let USC and Clemson and South Carolina’s other football colleges hide how much money they’re paying players — and along with it all the conditions the schools are placing on these professionals (i.e., people paid for their services) they euphemistically refer to as “student athletes.”
Actually, there were a lot of bizarre moments, but this one highlighted how very different this bill is from all the other bills the Legislature is debating this year.
In early January, you might recall, House leaders introduced H.4902 on a Wednesday, held a quickie debate and gave it key approval on Thursday, then gave it an automatic final reading on Friday, when lawmakers had returned home. It was the fastest it's procedurally possible for the House to pass a bill, and it’s something that almost never happens except with single-county bills. Which this most assuredly was not.
H.4902 came to a screeching halt when it arrived in the Senate, which prides itself on being the “deliberative body.” And this is a huge point of pride, sort of like the Dallas Cowboys calling themselves America's team.
In the Senate, the bill would go through the regular process: It would be sent to a subcommittee, where the public is invited to testify, then there would be a debate and vote, then another debate and vote in the full committee, and then it would go to the Senate (or the House, had it not skipped over all the preliminaries in the House) for the debate and vote, weeks or even months after it arrives.
There wasn’t a lot of question about the ultimate outcome, but at least the bill would get aired out.
By Cindi Ross Scoppe, The Post and Courier | Read more

CLEMSON — Clemson athletics neared $200 million in “revenues” during the 2025 fiscal year, according to its latest NCAA financial disclosure.
But the word “revenue” only roughly describes what the Tigers’ athletic programs actually took in. Because just over $20 million of the athletic department’s “revenues” came from … Clemson University.
It’s categorized as “direct institutional support” on the NCAA’s disclosure form, which can include a simple transfer of state funds or tuition dollars to the athletic department, or the university shuffling dollars around to reimburse a portion of athletes’ scholarships.
Clemson University has paid back its athletic department to waive athletes’ out-of-state tuition — “revenues” totaling around $6 million — for many years. But, more recently, Clemson’s institutional support for athletics has gone beyond that $6 million base.
In the 2024 fiscal year, that line item in Clemson’s NCAA financial report spiked to $13.3 million. For the most recent fiscal year — which runs from July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025 — Clemson athletics reported its institutional support as being about $20.2 million.
That’s less than the nearly $22 million the athletic department sent to the university to cover athletes’ tuition. But Clemson’s 2025 filing with the NCAA does show the athletic department isn’t self-sustaining to the point where it can pay its athletes’ cost of attendance and not accept a kickback from the university.
Clemson told the NCAA it had about $198.6 million in “revenues” in the 2025 fiscal year, including $20 million in direct institutional support, which covered $197.7 million in reported expenses.
Meanwhile, one of the sharpest drops in Clemson’s revenues was contributions, which dipped from nearly $70 million in 2024 to just under $56 million in 2025. That coincides with Clemson asking IPTAY donors to send money to its former name, image and likeness (NIL) collective, 110 Society, to fund athletes’ marketing deals.
By Jon Blau, The Post and Courier | Read more