Big News: USM to be put on SACS probation - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Dec 8, 2004

Big News: USM to be put on SACS probation

Date: Dec 8, 2004

Lisa Mader will probably announce the names of the other schools on probation that we a delighted to be listed with. She will them say that Tim Hudson forgot to file the paperwork with SACS.

Date: Dec 8, 2004

If today's report is correct . . . STRRRIIIIKKKE ONE! The next question is will AAUP or NCATE pitch the next ball, or will the batters on the bench simply retire.

On a more serious note . . . if the IHL has been implicated in SACS' action could this mean that the other public universities in Mississippi have anything to worry about?

Date: Dec 8, 2004

Truth4:

There is more information to be had just like yesterday!

Date: Dec 8, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: PAY PHONE
"Truth4: There is more information to be had just like yesterday!"

What happened yesterday?

Date: Dec 8, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
"<SNIP>...that Tim Hudson forgot to file the paperwork with SACS."

I'm only speculating, but this isn't far-fetched. Failure to file required documents such as the 5th Year Report & annual Institutional Profiles is one reason that an institution may be placed on immediate probation. For that matter, did USM "overlook" filing a substantive change report for the dual campus arrangement?

We are talking about an administration that can't seem to get the external reporting gig straight (among many other things) & that seems to feel that accreditation is "nice but optional."

quote:
Originally posted by: Umpire
"<SNIP>...if the IHL has been implicated in SACS' action could this mean that the other public universities in Mississippi have anything to worry about?"

Yes, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it being a "governance issue."

Date: Dec 8, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus "I wouldn't bet the farm on it being a "governance issue."

Whatever the reason, USM must be "up front" about it. Faculty will want to know the details, and so will the press.

Date: Dec 8, 2004

to help put this in context for folks, here is what SACS means by sanctions and more importantly the phrase "good cause": http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/Sanction.pdf.

i hear that reports have not gotten to SACS in a timely manner. at the same time, SACS told us in 1995 to examine certain issues and they have not been addressed by 2 (if you count Lucas' interim year, 3) administrations.

Date: Dec 8, 2004

Faculty members should be calling board members asking for specific details?

Wonder how Shelboo felt at the meeting when USM was named???

Date: Dec 8, 2004

Was he even at the meeting?

Date: Dec 8, 2004

I've just read this thread and the "SACS Facts" thread--

this is indeed big news. Sad, isn't it, that what we need most is for others to recognize the depth of the crisis here? But I'm afraid that's the way it is.

Others should correct me if I have this wrong, but I believe NCTE is coming next year? and SACS in 2006? Have I got that timing right?

One of my perspicacious colleagues has long argued that we should seek SACS sanctions. If SACS is already looking at us, even if it's only for lost paperwork (which apparently is alway Tim Hudson's fault), then that will help us convey the seriousness of our situation to them.

Another colleague has pointed out that what we have to be wary of in the coming rounds of accreditation is the sometimes amazing ability of this administration to present a pretty surface picture. It's always a thin veneer and it's rarely of long duration. But we have to be sure that we are able to punch through the smiley face to the disastrous mismanagement and utter disregard for academic principles that lie behind it.

NO QUARTER.

Anne Wallace

Date: Dec 8, 2004

That is TRUE but, we were warned again after that!

Date: Dec 8, 2004

Well Anne, This is SFT's definition of a "World class University!"

Date: Dec 8, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Whodunit
"Was he even at the meeting?"

Was he at the meeting? I think the real question is, can he identify what SACS stands for?

Date: Dec 8, 2004

I have heard that this usually results in a president being fired. Is that true?

Date: Dec 8, 2004

my reading of the sanctions material from SACS is that we may have asked for a year's extension. if your accreditation is extended for "good cause" the institution must also be automatically placed on probation. but that is just speculation.

Date: Dec 8, 2004

That is NOT true.

Date: Dec 8, 2004

My sources say SFT did not attend the meeting. Shows how much he really cares about our image.

WHO IS CALLING THE HA?

Date: Dec 8, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Whodunit
"I have heard that this usually results in a president being fired. Is that true?"

There is always the cynical point of view, which is Shelboo was put in by the IHL for this to happen. Heck, he might even get a bonus this year.

Date: Dec 8, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by the one-and-only stinky cheese man
"my reading of the sanctions material from SACS is that we may have asked for a year's extension. if your accreditation is extended for "good cause" the institution must also be automatically placed on probation. but that is just speculation."

The relevant section says, "If an institution has not remedied deficiencies at the conclusion of its two-year maximum monitoring period, the Commission must (1) remove the institution from membership, or (2) continue accreditation for "good cause". If accreditation is extended for "good cause," the institution must also be placed on or continued on Probation. <SNIP> The Commission may extend accreditation for "good cause" for a maximum of one year. At the conclusion of the period, the institution must appear before the Commission at a meeting on the record to provide evidence of good cause as to why its period for remedying deficiencies should be extended again for good cause."

This refers to extending "continued accreditation" -- the status of an institution that has not been reaffirmed -- while the institution responds to recommendations from a self-study or substantive change report.

Was USM in fact reaffirmed in accreditation after its follow-up to the '95 self-study? It is possible (but unlikely) that this is some "residue" from unaddressed recommendations dating back that far. Methinks a probation related to the '95 self-study would have happened a while back.

Did USM file a substantive change prospectus (dual campus arrangement, perhaps) about 2 years ago? If so, was the substantive change approved?

The clause above does not suggest that an institution may have its upcoming self-study delayed for "good cause," but stranger things have happened. It's worth noting that most institutions that were up for self-studies this decade have already had their reviews delayed for one year due to SACS' transition from the Criteria to the new Principles.

As a little footnote, filing reports accurately & in a timely manner is classified by SACS under the heading "Integrity."

Date: Dec 8, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Groundhog
"<snip> WHO IS CALLING THE HA?"

Me. Made a call this AM.

Date: Dec 8, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: PAY PHONE
"Truth4: There is more information to be had just like yesterday!"

Gotcha. You know how to reach me.

Date: Dec 8, 2004

i guess i am the one and only. good thing there aren't more.

i'm not sure what caused this. i do know that we got dinged a few years ago (not 10, maybe 5) about not addressing some issues. essentially we hadn't tried to solve what SACS saw were problems and our reports did not convince them of this. i also know that there has been a general disorganization about the SACS process here. i don't think (despite what some on this board want to believe) that it's a governance issue. if SACS was concerned enough about the Glamser/Stringer issue last year they could have sent a team here to investigate. knowing an associate executive director at SACS, i know cases where they have had to make an emergency visit if they think it is warranted (take East Tennessee State a few years ago).

Date: Dec 8, 2004

Oh, the suspense!

Date: Dec 8, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"i guess i am the one and only. good thing there aren't more. <snip>

One and only what, SCM?

Date: Dec 8, 2004

RE: RE: RE: Big News: USM to be put on SACS proba

Date: Dec 8, 2004

RE: Big News: USM to be put on SACS probation

Date: Dec 8, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"look at invictus' cut and paste from an earlier post of mine. he said it--not me. i typically don't read what people quote from me, but this time i did."

Got it. I typically don't even look at the text in italics!

Date: Dec 8, 2004

The SACS Commission on Colleges website (sacscoc.org) lists all elected members and staff and a general number (404-679-4500). Seems that someone there ought to be able to confirm this if no one at USM can. If USM had been sanctioned, wouldn't the responsible thing have been to send out an immediate notice to the faculty?

Date: Dec 8, 2004

SACS policies specify to whom the notification is sent--chief executive officer of the university and head of the governing board.