Virginia State Senator Tommy Norment J.D. ’73 (R-3rd) is on the College of William and Mary payroll and has sponsored bills to redirect millions to the College.

Since July 1, 2008, Norment has made $160,000 a year for teaching one class at the William and Mary Law School and one class in the undergraduate government department each semester. He also helped coordinate the College’s Richmond Internship program and served as a legal advisor to the College. An average William and Mary law professor teaches three law school courses each academic year and makes $169,000.

“While Senator Norment’s compensation from William and Mary reflects his teaching load, it is primarily a function of his work for us as a senior attorney and counselor for the university and the president,” College spokesman Brian Whitson said.

Norment sponsored several amendments to increase the College’s budget by nearly $20 million.

Norment is currently the Virginia Senate minority leader and senior member of the Finance Committee, which is responsible for the state’s budget, and thus shares control of the College’s spending measures with a few other senior committee members.

According to the Virginia Gazette, Norment discussed taking his teaching profession at the College with then attorney general and current Republican governor candidate Bob McDonnell who concluded that no conflict of interest existed.

“We are sensitive to the conflicts issue — both from a legal perspective and a public perception perspective — having Senator Norment working as a teacher and legal counselor,” Whitson said. “The state has rules and guidelines to govern this type of working relationship — it is not uncommon at other institutions.”

The College of William and Mary’s Institute of Bill of Rights Law hosted its 22nd annual Supreme Court Preview Friday and Saturday. In addition to the attendance of former Supreme Court Associate Justice and William and Mary Chancellor Sandra Day O’Connor, the two-day event was broadcast live on C-Span.

“We’ve had delightful conversations, and I think she’s settling in well,” O’Connor said during the mock case’s final session, referring to recent Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. “But two women is not enough. We need more.”

O’Connor, the first female to serve on the Supreme Court, was nominated by then-President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and served until 2006, when she stepped down to care for her husband, who was suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease. Former President George W. Bush nominated current Associate Justice Samuel Alito to replace her.

On the last day of the preview, O’Connor expressed her feelings to the panel on some of her decisions being undone by the current court.

“What would you feel?” O’Connor said. “I’d be a little bit disappointed. If you think you’ve been helpful, and then it’s dismantled, you think, ‘Oh, dear.’ But life goes on. It’s not always positive.”

O’Connor was not the only person to speak. A panel met Friday to discuss Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing this past summer and the future of the Supreme Court. The tone of the discussion was very candid.

“This panel, when it is concluded, you will know, is the definition of an unscripted enterprise,” SCOTUSblog Supreme Court Correspondent Lyle Denniston said. “We have not planned anything for you at all, other than to name for you the people who are participating and their affiliations.”

Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor of online magazine Slate.com, expressed her opinion that Democrats were confused with what kind of candidate they wanted to nominate.

“Democrats want John Roberts in pumps,” she said.

University of Chicago law professor David Strauss had a different perspective.

“I think a fact about this administration and this period in our history is that moving the Supreme Court is not a priority for the Democrats, and it’s not a priority for President Obama,” he said, proceeding to express his view from the Democratic Party’s perspective. “Why do we need to expend political capital confirming someone to the Supreme Court who has views that are pushing the edge or will come across as a person trying to do something big on the court? We don’t get anything for that.”

University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt downplayed the need for anything groundbreaking to come from a confirmation hearing.

“The ultimate aim of a confirmation hearing is not to be dramatic … and that is what we saw,” he said.

College men’s basketball coach Tony Shaver received a $55,000 annual raise in May 2008 as part of a contract extension signed after he took the Tribe to the finals of the 2008 CAA tournament, according to information provided by the College’s athletic department.

The raise increased his annual salary to $200,000, and was paid for solely by private donations, contrary to information published in the Virginia Gazette over the weekend.

Shaver received the new contract before College President Taylor Reveley implemented a hiring freeze in October 2008.

“It was prior to any salary freezes here [at the College],” Athletic Director Terry Driscoll said. “It was all with private funds. These were annual donations.”

According to Driscoll, the move was made after a review of Shaver’s performance in a variety of areas.

“For all of our coaches, we have an evaluation where they are evaluated on the competitive aspects of their programs, on their administrative strengths and [on] their academic achievements,” Driscoll said. “That’s all sort of rolled together for an overall evaluation. We don’t do it on just wins and losses.”

Driscoll also confirmed that the increase was partially in response to interest in Shaver from other programs.

Shaver took the College to a 15-15 record in 2006-2007, before going 17-16 with a CAA championship game appearance a year later.

“That was a consideration,” Driscoll said, before declining to identify the interested programs citing, internal personnel issues.

Schools typically offer coaches raises as an incentive to remain at a program instead of taking a coaching job elsewhere.

Shaver initially signed a four-year, $120,000 contract in May of 2003, agreeing to come to the College from Hampden-Sydney University.

That salary was up to $145,000 in October of 2007, before Shaver accepted the extension six months later.

The original deal included ‘amenities’ that were not included in the dollar figure such as golfing privileges and the use of a car.

When reached for comment, Shaver said that he was happy to remain at the College.

“As a coach and as a person, I’ve really been happy with the support for our basketball program here,” Shaver said. “We think there are good things ahead for us.”

Following months of debate, the Senate Finance Committee hopes to approve a bill this week that would bring substantial reform to America’s healthcare industry.

However, despite its likely approval, the bill is still met with apprehension. Alan B. Miller ’58, the main financial contributor to the new Mason School of Business, as well as the chair and CEO of Universal Health Services, Inc., discussed his concerns about the potential effects of healthcare reform at the Business School Sunday.

Miller began by discussing how the flaws in the current healthcare system, such as limited access, high costs and poor quality, have led many to believe that healthcare reform is needed. Many Americans have inadequate care, and 45.7 million Americans are uninsured. Despite the fact that the United States spends more on healthcare than any other industrialized nation — 16 percent of the country’s gross domestic product — it remains a flawed system.

Insurance is also very expensive. Families are paying higher premiums, which have increased by 100 percent in the last decade. Despite high costs, Americans are frequently misdiagnosed and their life expectancy is lower in comparison to other industrialized nations. About 100,000 Americans die each year due to medical mistakes.

One of the most contested components of legislation currently moving through Congress is the inclusion of a public health insurance option that would compete with private insurers.

The Senate Finance Committee recently removed the public option from its version of the bill.
Miller focused on the possible effects of competition between a possible national and private healthcare providers. With an unlimited budget, Miller said, the government could lower premiums, which would allow employers to save money by moving employees from private plans to government programs.

However, restructuring is not without cost.

If the government sets lower premiums, many of the United States’ 1,300 private insurance companies may not survive the reform because they would not be able to compete with cheap public insurance while making enough capital to provide expensive medical care and fuel their corporations.

“That’s basically what the fight is about,” Miller said. He added that there is a struggle between those who promote government-run companies and those who seek to preserve private insurers.

In defense of insurance companies, Miller explained that insurers do not prioritize profit, but spend a sizeable chunk of their earnings on providing coverage and paying employee salaries.

Miller said that companies have high costs and complex expenditures. Claims that insurance companies intentionally disadvantage their subscribers are false.

“The idea that insurance companies participate in fraud is a fabrication,” Miller said.
Private insurance companies play a critical role in the healthcare system.

These providers design a multitude of plans that cater to a diverse clientele, negotiate hospital rates for subscribers, evaluate technology, police fraud and help patrons make better decisions regarding treatment, among other duties.

Miller also addressed the alleged misconception of statistics showing 45.7 million uninsured Americans. Dissecting this number, he said, reveals that a lack of insurance is not a critical issue. Of the 45.7 million, 11 million Americans are eligible for Medicaid, 9.7 million are not United States citizens and 9.1 million are
between 18 and 31 years old and have an annual salary of over $75,000.

“[At that age,] you feel like you’re indestructible,” Miller said. “They don’t want coverage. They want new cars.”

Students at colleges and universities constitute 4.6 million of the uninsured and are unlikely to accrue large medical expenses. It is only the remaining 16 million people who cannot afford insurance and do not have access Medicare and Medicaid.

Miller supports the preservation of the country’s current system and suggested three amendments: tort reform, insurance availability across state lines and tax reductions for employers. Tort reform would limit payments made by a plaintiff’s attorney for punitive damages. This payment cap would also reduce malpractice premiums for doctors.

Currently, a maximum of three private insurers provide healthcare to a single state. Miller argues that allowing companies to sell across state lines would increase competition and lower prices for small businesses and individuals. Tax reductions for employers who provide insurance to their employees will decrease financial burdens on small businesses.

Some students disagreed with Miller’s perspective.

“Miller underestimated the amount of people who are uninsured,” Molly Bulman ’12 said. “His basic argument was that if only 16 million people lack insurance there is no need to revamp it for the majority of Americans.”

Bulman, who is passionate about healthcare reform, was concerned by Miller’s approach.

“Miller works with catastrophic care victims and people who need testing. He most likely doesn’t concentrate on preventive care,” Bulman said. “[He] turned the debate into one of finance rather than one of ethics and policy.”

The College of William and Mary Real Estate Foundation presented an artistic rendering of the proposed mixed-use housing complex off Richmond Road Friday.

The design includes 12,000 feet dedicated to retail on the building’s first floor, including a restaurant with outdoor seating, and 14 apartments that would accommodate up to 56 upperclassmen on the second floor. A breezeway will connect a parking lot with Richmond Road, and brick sidewalks will surround the building. The complex is expected to cost approximately $5 million.

The proposed location is on a one-acre stretch of property owned by the real estate foundation on Richmond Road neighboring WaWa called The Triangle Property. The Thiemes House, which holds the College’s Human Resource Department, the empty Master Craftsmen building and another empty building which formerly housed the College’s finance offices currently stand on the property.

The complex will contribute to College President Taylor Reveley’s goal of increasing on-campus housing by 200 beds.

“This is a project designed to address two significant issues — a lack of student-specific retail near campus and a lack of College-operated student housing,” Reveley said. “Our students want more entertainment opportunities close to campus and more options for student housing. This is the first project and we’re thrilled with its potential.”

The Real Estate Foundation will submit the architectural design to the City of Williamsburg’s Architectural Review Board Oct. 13.

“I expect [the design] will be approved,” Director of The Real Estate Foundation Nancy Buchanan said. “We’ve been in touch with the city’s Planning Commission on a regular basis and neighborhoods and they have all been very positive about it.”

The College expects to break ground on the building next summer and open the complex for use in Fall 2011.